Both Pretribbers and Preterists are clearly wrong that great tribulation begins with the DOTL.

[claninja]

And I was never talking about that. That's why we get nowhere in most of our discussions. Oftentimes, we're not even talking about the same thing.

Well thats what I was talking to Davidpt about. So why would you chime in, change it something else and then continue to be confused? That’s absurd lol.

I’m talking about the chronology of the visions as written by John, prior to interpreting them.

So what? You do that, too. Whatever. We all have a framework for how we understand scripture as a whole. There's nothing wrong with that. We should have a framework that we use to help prevent interpreting any given verse or passage in a way that contradicts any other verse or passage. That's a wise approach to interpreting scripture.

So what? So… My entire argument/discussion has been about understanding the chronology of the visions PRIOR to interpreting them through a theological lens.

Prior to interpreting the theological meaning of revelation 6-11 along with outside scriptures, does revelation 8:2 naturally come after 8:1 chronologically, or is 8:2 a new recapitulation? If it’s a recapitulation, how is that determined from the internal context alone.

Same with revelation 19-20. PRIOR to interpreting the theological meaning of revelation 20:1-10, does revelation 20 continue chronologically after 19, or is chapter 20 a new recapitulation. If revelation 20 is a new recapitulation, how is that determined from the internal context alone?

Spoken like a true premillennialist. Except you're not a premillennilalist. Explain to me what your understanding is of Revelation 20:1-6, especially in relation to Christ's reign and the binding of Satan. What is your understanding of the thousand years? That it all chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19? Without you actually explaining how you interpret these passages, I can't understand why you're saying the things that you're saying.

You needing my theological interpretation of revelation 19-20 is completely irrelevant to my argument.

Who cares? Why does this matter? What matters is the chronology intended by the author and interpreting it in a way that doesn't contradict any other scripture.

Who cares? I care. that’s why I started the conversation with @Davidpt

The conversation you chimed into, and then got confused about when attempting to steer it beyond what I’m talking about. The conversation where I tried to explain with example based on your previous posts, to which you said you misspoke, thus creating more confusion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well thats what I was talking to Davidpt about. So why would you chime in, change it something else and then continue to be confused? That’s absurd lol.

What's absurd is your lack of communication skills. What is the point of talking about the order in which the text is written, as if there's anyone who can't see that? What matters is the chronological order of the events written about in the book. So, that's what I'm talking about since that is something worth actually talking about.

I’m talking about the chronology of the visions as written by John, prior to interpreting them.

As if any explanation needs to be given for that?

So what? So… My entire argument/discussion has been about understanding the chronology of the visions PRIOR to interpreting them through a theological lens.

Anyone can see the order in which the visions are written. What is the point of talking about that?

 

[claninja]

What's absurd is your lack of communication skills.

I can absolutely admit that I’m not the clearest sometimes.

But You literally misspoke in another thread which lead to more confusion here.

And you literally keep trying to argue about interpretation, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m talking about prior to interpretation

So pull the plank out of your eye, brother, instead of hurling insults about me personally.

As if any explanation needs to be given for that?
Anyone can see the order in which the visions are written. What is the point of talking about that?

i was curious as to why Davidpt recapitulates 8:2. Since we don’t agree on interpretation, I was curious as to how or if he determined recapitulation internally prior to interpretation. @Davidpt seemed to have no problem understanding that question when he supplied the argument - its recapitulation due to the internal parallel “wrath” accounts 6:17 and 11:18.

Additionally @grafted branch commented on my post, seemingly having no problem understanding what I was talking about out.

So I’m not really sure what your difficulty is?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I can absolutely admit that I’m not the clearest sometimes.

But You literally misspoke in another thread which lead to more confusion here.

I clarified what I meant, so what's the problem? You shouldn't still be confused.

And you literally keep trying to argue about interpretation, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m talking about prior to interpretation

What a colossal waste of time it is trying to discuss anything with you. We should just not attempt to do so. It never goes anywhere.

So pull the plank out of your eye, brother, instead of hurling insults about me personally.

I misspoke one time and now I'm on your level where you are unclear a majority of the time? Okay.

i was curious as to why Davidpt recapitulates 8:2. Since we don’t agree on interpretation, I was curious as to how or if he determined recapitulation internally prior to interpretation. @Davidpt seemed to have no problem understanding that question when he supplied the argument - its recapitulation due to the internal parallel “wrath” accounts 6:17 and 11:18.

Right, so it's based on his interpretations of those verses. That's what I was trying to talk about, but you say it has nothing to do with interpretation. Whatever. This is such a waste of time.

Additionally @grafted branch commented on my post, seemingly having no problem understanding what I was talking about out.

So I’m not really sure what your difficulty is?

I think he tends to just agree with whatever you say because he's a preterist like you.

 

[claninja]

I clarified what I meant, so what's the problem? You shouldn't still be confused.

Just giving you an example.

What a colossal waste of time it is trying to discuss anything with you. We should just not attempt to do so. It never goes anywhere.

and yet you always chime in on my conversations with others. Honestly, you do it to yourself.

Right, so it's based on his interpretations of those verses. That's what I was trying to talk about, but you say it has nothing to do with interpretation. Whatever. This is such a waste of time.

Incorrect. He was giving me his reasoning prior to applying premil:

So my method is not to begin with premil and force Revelation into it. Rather, I first compare parallel passages, repeated phrases, and shared judgment scenes within Revelation itself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

and yet you always chime in on my conversations with others. Honestly, you do it to yourself.

You're absolutely right. Notice I wasn't blaming you for me wasting my time trying to discuss things with you. That's on me. I need to just stop doing that since we both know our discussions rarely go anywhere.

Incorrect. He was giving me his reasoning prior to applying premil:

I was correct. He's going by how he interprets other parts of Revelation in order to determine what he thinks is parallel or not. This is just yet another example of you and I not being on the same page. Let's just not waste our time anymore.

 

[grafted branch]

I think he tends to just agree with whatever you say because he's a preterist like you.

I wasn’t just agree with @claninja. I understood what he was talking about, I gave an opinion on what I thought might be possible way of determining what is chronological and what is recapping. We weren’t in agreement on anything other than what might be possible but needs further analysis.

Sometimes it’s ok to just have a conversation without pointing out everything that we disagree about. It doesn’t always have to be a debate.

 

[Davidpt]

Sometimes it’s ok to just have a conversation without pointing out everything that we disagree about. It doesn’t always have to be a debate.

This. We all need to try it from time to time, including me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I wasn’t just agree with @claninja. I understood what he was talking about,

Well, good for you. He admits that he's not always clear. He's often not very clear to me. It makes sense that you might be able to understand his points better than I can at times because you are a preterist like him.

I gave an opinion on what I thought might be possible way of determining what is chronological and what is recapping. We weren’t in agreement on anything other than what might be possible but needs further analysis.

Sometimes it’s ok to just have a conversation without pointing out everything that we disagree about. It doesn’t always have to be a debate.

I never said that it does. I'm more than willing to discuss possibilities of what things can mean. In another thread, I was just discussing who the prince to come could be in Daniel 9:26. My current view is that it refers to Messiah the prince, but I allow for the possibility that it could refer to Titus or some other leader of the Roman armies in 70 AD.

 

[grafted branch]

Well, good for you. He admits that he's not always clear. He's often not very clear to me. It makes sense that you might be able to understand his points better than I can at times because you are a preterist like him.


I never said that it does. I'm more than willing to discuss possibilities of what things can mean. In another thread, I was just discussing who the prince to come could be in Daniel 9:26. My current view is that it refers to Messiah the prince, but I allow for the possibility that it could refer to Titus or some other leader of the Roman armies in 70 AD.

Fair enough, sometimes I reply to a post just to try and see what methods others are using to come to their conclusions. I might not agree with their conclusions but if their method is solid then I usually don’t argue against their conclusion. In other words I try to give others the space to have a different interpretation than I do.

I don’t want to speak for claninja but it seems to me he is analyzing Revelation and what methods others might be using to figure out what’s chronological and what’s a recap. It’s easy to say you compare it to the rest of the Bible and that’s how you determine what’s chronological and what’s a recap. But when looking at Revelation itself it seems that the visions John had were written down in the sequence that he had them. I think that’s something that might be of importance.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Fair enough, sometimes I reply to a post just to try and see what methods others are using to come to their conclusions. I might not agree with their conclusions but if their method is solid then I usually don’t argue against their conclusion. In other words I try to give others the space to have a different interpretation than I do.

Sure. I have no problem with that.

I don’t want to speak for claninja but it seems to me he is analyzing Revelation and what methods others might be using to figure out what’s chronological and what’s a recap. It’s easy to say you compare it to the rest of the Bible and that’s how you determine what’s chronological and what’s a recap. But when looking at Revelation itself it seems that the visions John had were written down in the sequence that he had them. I think that’s something that might be of importance.

It's clear that what is written about in the book is not all in chronological order, so that has to be taken into account when interpreting any part of it. The most clear example of this is when you read the end of Revelation 11 where it talks about things related to the sounding of the seventh trumpet and then in Revelation 12 it mentions the birth and ascension of Christ. Obviously, Jesus wasn't born and didn't ascend to heaven after the sounding of the seventh trumpet. So, there's no real reason to make any assumptions about the sequence of events in Revelation just based on the order in which John saw the visions and the order in which things are written.

I do think it's safe to assume in the case of the seals that they occur in chronological order. Otherwise, why are they numbered? Same with the trumpets and vials. But, there's no reason to assume that all of the seal events occur first, then all of the trumpet events, followed by all of the vial/bowl events.

 

[grafted branch]

It's clear that what is written about in the book is not all in chronological order, so that has to be taken into account when interpreting any part of it. The most clear example of this is when you read the end of Revelation 11 where it talks about things related to the sounding of the seventh trumpet and then in Revelation 12 it mentions the birth and ascension of Christ. Obviously, Jesus wasn't born and didn't ascend to heaven after the sounding of the seventh trumpet. So, there's no real reason to make any assumptions about the sequence of events in Revelation just based on the order in which John saw the visions and the order in which things are written.

I do think it's safe to assume in the case of the seals that they occur in chronological order. Otherwise, why are they numbered? Same with the trumpets and vials. But, there's no reason to assume that all of the seal events occur first, then all of the trumpet events, followed by all of the vial/bowl events.

I agree, I think there is an obvious recap starting in Revelation 12 or end of chronological order in Revelation 11. I think most everyone sees that. However some people have the third woe being the Revelation 12:12 woe. Do we just dismiss that and say the Revelation 12:12 woe isn’t the third woe and the third woe isn’t described?

So, to me it seems there is a chronological sequence of some kind but it isn’t a sequence of time, perhaps it’s a sequence of something else, I don’t know. I think it’s something worth exploring.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree, I think there is an obvious recap starting in Revelation 12 or end of chronological order in Revelation 11. I think most everyone sees that. However some people have the third woe being the Revelation 12:12 woe. Do we just dismiss that and say the Revelation 12:12 woe isn’t the third woe and the third woe isn’t described?

Who says that the third woe isn't described? I highly doubt anyone claims that. The third woe is equivalent to the seventh trumpet.

Revelation 8:12 Then the fourth angel sounded: And a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them were darkened. A third of the day did not shine, and likewise the night. 13 And I looked, and I heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, “Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the three angels who are about to sound!”

See how the final three trumpets are described as woes? So, the first woe corresponds with the fifth trumpet, the second woe to the sixth trumpet and the third woe to the seventh trumpet. The seventh trumpet events are described in Revelation 11:15-19 and it is mentioned in Revelation 10:7 as well.

So, to me it seems there is a chronological sequence of some kind but it isn’t a sequence of time, perhaps it’s a sequence of something else, I don’t know. I think it’s something worth exploring.

It's all worth exploring, but we have to keep things in mind like what I described above when determining things like which scripture is referring to the third woe.

 

[grafted branch]

It's all worth exploring, but we have to keep things in mind like what I described above when determining things like which scripture is referring to the third woe.

Sure, but Revelation 12 also has the repeating pattern that hast to be taken into account.

Vs 4 Stars of heaven cast to earth
Vs 4 devour her child
Vs 6 woman fled into wilderness
Vs 7 war in heaven between dragon and Michael

Vs 9 Dragon cast out of heaven to the earth
Vs 13 persecuted the woman
Vs 14 woman fled into wilderness
Vs 17 dragon makes war

The pattern is cast out, persecution, fleeing, and war. Is it the same event repeated twice using different language or is it two separate events with one foreshadowing the other?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure, but Revelation 12 also has the repeating pattern that hast to be taken into account.

Vs 4 Stars of heaven cast to earth
Vs 4 devour her child
Vs 6 woman fled into wilderness
Vs 7 war in heaven between dragon and Michael

Vs 9 Dragon cast out of heaven to the earth
Vs 13 persecuted the woman
Vs 14 woman fled into wilderness
Vs 17 dragon makes war

The pattern is cast out, persecution, fleeing, and war. Is it the same event repeated twice using different language or is it two separate events with one foreshadowing the other?

In verse 7 the war is between the dragon, Satan, and his angels and Michael and his angels and relates to Satan being cast out of heaven whereas the war in verse 17 is between the dragon, Satan, and those who follow Jesus Christ after Satan has been cast out of heaven. So, those are not talking about the same thing.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Actually the great tribulation starts when the anti-christ is revealed to the world.

That marks the 7 year period and the first 3.5 years will be mostly peaceful in which the anti-christ will be doing his deception thing resulting in the majority of mankind taking the mark of the beast which seals their doom to an eternity in hell.