The Truth About The Rapture

[rockytopva]

Thoughtful post! And may I add that the revelation of the rapture is for our own comfort...

[sup]16[/sup]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:

[sup]17[/sup]Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

[sup]18[/sup]Wherefore comfort one another with these words.


1 Thessalonians 4 16-18

 

[australia]

But both the wonder and the truth can be seen without making up story tales that have zero Biblical basis.

There you go again. Is it any wonder why you're called a liar when you continue to lie? Allow me to briefly demonstrate how Watchman_2's teachings can have Biblical credibility.

Look carefully at the following two verses;

Gen 1:2 And the earth was [H1961] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became [H1961] a living soul.

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'

You can clearly see how the same Hebrew word (haw-yaw') is rendered in English using two different words; was and became

There is therefore a certain Biblical basis in allowing Gen 1:2 to read as follows;

Gen 1:2 And the earth became [H1961] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If the earth became the way it was described in Gen 1:2, what was it's state beforehand?

The burden is actually on you to prove, using scripture, how the Hebrew haw-yaw' cannot be the English became in Gen 1:2, so as to support your claim of a zero Biblical basis for Watchman_2's Biblical teaching concerning the age of time before Gen 1:2.

Good luck with that.

 

[Rach1370]

There you go again. Is it any wonder why you're called a liar when you continue to lie? Allow me to briefly demonstrate how Watchman_2's teachings can have Biblical credibility.

Look carefully at the following two verses;

Gen 1:2 And the earth was [H1961] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became [H1961] a living soul.

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'

You can clearly see how the same Hebrew word (haw-yaw') is rendered in English using two different words; was and became

There is therefore a certain Biblical basis in allowing Gen 1:2 to read as follows;

Gen 1:2 And the earth became [H1961] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If the earth became the way it was described in Gen 1:2, what was it's state beforehand?

The burden is actually on you to prove, using scripture, how the Hebrew haw-yaw' cannot be the English became in Gen 1:2, so as to support your claim of a zero Biblical basis for Watchman_2's Biblical teaching concerning the age of time before Gen 1:2.

Good luck with that.

What, do you mean people come in twos? I cannot understand how people claiming to be Christian can be so cruel, angry and mean.

As far as your basing a complete doctrine on two words...'was' and 'became'....well, that kind of speaks for itself. Oh, you can "allow" something "could" be true. And its actually on me to prove it couldn't be? The very fact that it doesn't say it is all the majority of Christians need. I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on there, it's all very weak evidence.

Plus, I am aware that this word (hayah) is extremely common, occurring over 1,000 times in the book of Genesis alone, where it is given over 100 different translations in the NASB version. Since biblical Hebrew is a very small language (containing less than 9,000 words), many Hebrew words have multiple meanings. Therefore, the proper translation must be determined from the context in which the word is found.
The word hayah is used 18 times in the first 20 verses of Genesis 1 and it would not make sense, I'm told, to translate it "had become" in any of the other 17 verses. Therefore, there is no reason from the context of Genesis 1:1 or 1:2 to translate hayah in Genesis 1:2 as "had become."

And all that is only for the possibility that the earth was there before Adam, it does absolutely nothing to support the idea that Satan and his fallen angels ruled said earth until God booted Satan off and gave the fallen 'a new chance with wiped memories". The Bible does tell us that the angels that fell with Satan will have no chance of redemption...at all. Why would He say that if He had already given them that chance? Doesn't stand up.

Plus, theologically, I find it difficult to support the concept that Satan has the power to destroy and corrupt all of God’s creation. I’m sure that if he really had that kind of power, he would have used it again to destroy the world or at least prevent the Messiah from living. Nowhere in the Bible is that kind of power attributed to Satan, since his primary method of operation is through lies and deceit.

Look, I have no desire to fight with you, just as I have no desire to be verbally abused by you...I went through that all with Watchman. All I'm saying is that I cannot find Biblical evidence to agree with you, or even entertain the idea that your hypothesis has merit. There is just nothing. I really don't care if you want to create this epic story of Satan before God created Adam...I just don't appreciate being torn down and called a liar just because I disagree with you. Man, that is not loving.

 

[TexUs]

2 Peter 3:6, "and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished."


THE FACT is, even if two floods existed, this doesn't tell you which one it was.
THE FACT is, you must read human ASSUMPTIONS into this to get it to support a different flood than the one commonly accepted, and considering Peter specifies Noah's flood in the previous chapter the burden of proof is on you to prove Peter changes what flood he is speaking of.
THE FACT is, since you must use ASSUMPTION to arrive at a prior flood, the ASSUMPTION this is speaking of Noah's flood has EQUAL MERIT AS YOURS.




"In reading Genesis, we first encounter Satan in Gen. 2 already in the fallen state."

I don't think it's beyond Biblical scope that the fall of Satan and the fall of Man could have been the same event. I think this lacks Biblical backing (which is why it's a theory- the Bible speaks of the fall of Satan, we just don't know when that was) but I can't place Satan's fallen state anytime before creation on a Biblical basis. The first instance we have of him rebelling is in the Garden- thus my speculation that... It might very well be the first time he rebelled. Because you do notice both him and Adam and Eve are cursed right after this so I think it has merit.
Ezekiel 28 tells us of his fall but not when it is.
You can't provide for Satan's fall before the garden, either.


"Rev. 12:4 details that 1/3 of the souls fell with Satan."

My assumption is that the "stars of heaven" are fallen angels to be swept away with Satan.
Yours is that the "stars of heaven" are souls.
Both of us have assumptions. They're equally valid, as much as you might kick and scream that you're right: the fact is we both are taking assumptions as to what "stars of heaven" are.


So everything said, your case is extremely weak.

Vincent, do you care to explain this?

Even ONE "After" statement between 14 and 20- eliminates what you're trying to suggest. You'd have to explain how "after" really doesn't mean "after" and places this not on a timeline.

 

[Foreigner]

"I don't think it's beyond Biblical scope that the fall of Satan and the fall of Man could have been the same event." - Texus


-- ?????

 

[TexUs]

"I don't think it's beyond Biblical scope that the fall of Satan and the fall of Man could have been the same event." - Texus


-- ?????

Satan's first rebellion and ours was the same event. His first rebellion was lying to Eve. Ours was believing then acting on it.

It's just a theory. It's the first instance we have of his rebelling against God.

Considering Satan was cursed AFTER this act along with the curse to the World I also think it holds a bit of merit... Why would God re-curse him if he was already cursed???? It was the same event in which both man and Satan fell.

 

[[email protected]]

Dear watchman

I said


Then you said


to which I reply ....... you are changing disguises in midstream ,
the topic is Jesus meeting his church in the air ,
the topic is not the reign of Jesus

then you went on to say:


Yes we will be with the Lord forevermore once he meets us in the clouds in the air.
You have (incorrectly) brought up the reign of Christ (on earth)
The topic is the gathering in the air, not the reign on earth. They are separate functions.

then I said


then you said

to which I reply ..... the Thessalonian Christians who had passed away were indeed in a hole in the ground awaiting a bodily resurrection (and presumably uniting with their souls). Just like Jesus had a bodily resurrection. Just like the old testament saints who had a bodily resurrection (out of the graves) (out of holes in the ground) when the temple curtain was torn at the death of Jesus.

That is what resurrection is , a new (eternal) body gathered from the graves , the tombs, the ash pit , the sea, .

If we have to go back and define the bodily resurrection of Jesus (a fundamental christian doctrine) then we have no business teaching future events. Jesus came back with his new eternal body , nail scars and all , he could enter a room without opening the door , He is the firstborn of the resurrection that we will participate in in the future. That was the whole purpose.

Which makes me want to conclude by saying ..... back to the elementary teachings , sheesh !!!!!


MartinW
May we all Drink lots of milk before trying to eat solid food.
It is the proper christian diet.

You are wasting your compute cycles, brother. I don't think the fellow is a Christian in the scope of traditional orthodoxy.

"I don't think it's beyond Biblical scope that the fall of Satan and the fall of Man could have been the same event." - Texus


-- ?????

Getting outside of the Biblical 'scope' is tricksy business. What do you then use to back up your argument? There must be some foundation for such an assertion.

 

[TexUs]

Getting outside of the Biblical 'scope' is tricksy business. What do you then use to back up your argument? There must be some foundation for such an assertion.

That's why I said I don't think it's beyond it.

I've already explained my argument in my last post in this thread.

In a nutshell
1) We don't have any evidence he rebelled prior to the garden (one cannot date the references to Satan's fall as prior)
2) Why would God re-curse him if he was already cursed and fallen?

Like I said, it's not beyond Biblical support. The Bible doesn't conflict with this view (at least that I've seen), and indirectly supports it because of the re-cursing topic.

Ask yourself where your belief that Satan fell before the garden comes from? Church tradition. Not the Bible.

 

[tomwebster]

That's why I said I don't think it's beyond it.

I've already explained my argument in my last post in this thread.

In a nutshell
1) We don't have any evidence he rebelled prior to the garden (one cannot date the references to Satan's fall as prior)
2) Why would God re-curse him if he was already cursed and fallen?

Like I said, it's not beyond Biblical support. The Bible doesn't conflict with this view (at least that I've seen), and indirectly supports it because of the re-cursing topic.

Ask yourself where your belief that Satan fell before the garden comes from? Church tradition. Not the Bible.

You would have to read the Scriptures to find out. You have already been given a number of texts to read but you either do not read them or you are unable to understand what they say. So believe whatever YOU want, you will find out soon enough. Back on the list.

 

[hereister]

You would have to read the Scriptures to find out. You have already been given a number of texts to read but you either do not read them or you are unable to understand what they say. So believe whatever YOU want, you will find out soon enough. Back on the list.

I agree with you Tom. And it takes alot of reading and studying for those who want to put the time in. God says to study to show ourselves approved. He aslo equates find a truth as compared to a treasure and hardley ever is a treasure found on the surface. You have to dig for a treasure, but it's the treasure that is worth finding, morso than anything on the surface.

If one is will to dig through the scriptures, they will see there was an age before this one, just as there is an age after this one.Satan messed up in the first age and drew a thrid of God's children with him Rev 12. If it were not so, we would not of had to enter these flesh bodies being seperated from God. We'd still be with him.

Jer 24 speaks of the destruction of that age. Rev 12 speaks of the dragon (satan) drawing a third of the stars (children), Eze 28 speaks of the perfection pattern God created satan, and how satan walked among the firey stones (altar) of God. He was the annointed Cherub that covereth. He was to protect the mercey seat. Instead he wanted to sit on the mercy seat....he wanted to be God. Isa 45 speaks of lucifer wanted to God....

And what he tried in the age behfore, he will be doing it again when he appears as the instead of Christ......let's see how many will fall for it again.

 

[TexUs]

You would have to read the Scriptures to find out. You have already been given a number of texts to read but you either do not read them or you are unable to understand what they say. So believe whatever YOU want, you will find out soon enough. Back on the list.

I've read and responded to all of them. You must make assumptions about what's not in the text to support what you need them to support. Creating doctrine on assumption is an issue.

Additionally, you quoted what I said of Satan's fall and the inability to place it before the garden (which your age theory would require)- and yet you can't post scripture contrary. All you're left with is "You don't know", because you can't provide Biblically for what you're trying to preach. You might be right. But I'd rather base doctrine on that which the Bible actually speaks to verses that which I've created in my mind.

 

[tomwebster]

I've read and responded to all of them. You must make assumptions about what's not in the text to support what you need them to support. Creating doctrine on assumption is an issue.

Additionally, you quoted what I said of Satan's fall and the inability to place it before the garden (which your age theory would require)- and yet you can't post scripture contrary. All you're left with is "You don't know", because you can't provide Biblically for what you're trying to preach. You might be right. But I'd rather base doctrine on that which the Bible actually speaks to verses that which I've created in my mind.

Scripture has been posted, you just don't seem to want to read it and/or understand it. So be it!

 

[Martin W.]

Was that a joke Martin W.?

Your explanation was totally devoid of clarity, particularly how you deliberately avoided posting the verse numbers you were referring to. Your chosen Holy Scripture translation itself was something I've not seen before. Your teaching methods thus appear atrocious.

How about trying again so that we can see exactly how you clarified your above statement?

Well then I will spell it out for you australia.

--Watchman tries to promote his "several earth ages" and he said to look in 2 Peter 3 as follows....
[sup]5[/sup] But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. [sup]6[/sup] By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. [sup]7[/sup] By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But I told him I read 2 Peter 2 which clearly states that the "previous ancient world" was the one before the flood of Noah and not some imaginary previous earth age like he has stuck in his mind . 2 Peter 2 clears it up as follows:....
[sup]5[/sup] if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;


And I also told watchman that Peter warned us about guys like him who come up with wacky theology ......
[sup]1[/sup] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. [sup]2[/sup] Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. [sup]3[/sup] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.


I feel it is a sad state of affairs when I have to read the bible for adults , but I guess somebody has to do it.

 

[TexUs]

It's also not too hard to copy/paste a passage into Google and it come up with results showing you where it came from.

 

[[email protected]]

That's why I said I don't think it's beyond it.

I've already explained my argument in my last post in this thread.

In a nutshell
1) We don't have any evidence he rebelled prior to the garden (one cannot date the references to Satan's fall as prior)
2) Why would God re-curse him if he was already cursed and fallen?

Like I said, it's not beyond Biblical support. The Bible doesn't conflict with this view (at least that I've seen), and indirectly supports it because of the re-cursing topic.

Ask yourself where your belief that Satan fell before the garden comes from? Church tradition. Not the Bible.

#1 Evidence you seek is evidence given in scripture quotes.
Others have quoted scriptures to support the argument that satan fell from grace prior to the garden incident, so I won't reQuote them here. The point is that there are enough.

#2 There are several different lines of rebuttal to this one.
Here are a few; that the curse was upon the snake as a creature, that the curse would lead to spiritual war between men, and that the victory in the war would be won by the son of a woman.
For the snake, google vestigial legs in snakes - (insert Twilight Zone music here).
See Gen 3:15 for the last two.

There are, of course, additional unpleasant utterances for the characters in Genesis 3.
The point is that a bad time was had by all and that because of rebellion and sin.
Rebellion and sin breeds curses and death; no limit to either.

As to whether satan was cursed and re-cursed and cursed again by God, it does seem that scripture indicates that ole' beelezub takes a real beating over and over again. At the end of the Biblical narration, it is imprisoned for a thousand years. At the end of that time it is cast into the lake of fire. Cursed and cursed again.

I don't think that your rebuttal in question #2 sweeps away the idea that satan gets cursed once and once only.
It is beaten up quite a bit before its' final disposition.

 

[TexUs]

#1 Evidence you seek is evidence given in scripture quotes.
Others have quoted scriptures to support the argument that satan fell from grace prior to the garden incident, so I won't reQuote them here. The point is that there are enough.

Where? I had looked through the thread previously and found none.
I found some that were ASSUMED to be prior to the garden (like Ez 28) but there was nothing that actually dates it before it.

Here are a few; that the curse was upon the snake as a creature, that the curse would lead to spiritual war between men, and that the victory in the war would be won by the son of a woman.

In all honesty the snake as a creature argument is just silly.
Snakes as creatures are not inherently evil. Regardless, one could hold this view, I just don't think it makes near as much sense to curse the creature as it does the being behind it. Almost everyone takes the snake as symbolic (crush head, strike heel) for Christ's work against the PERSON of Satan- not the creature which is long dead.

As to whether satan was cursed and re-cursed and cursed again by God, it does seem that scripture indicates that ole' beelezub takes a real beating over and over again. At the end of the Biblical narration, it is imprisoned for a thousand years. At the end of that time it is cast into the lake of fire. Cursed and cursed again.

I think he's only cursed once (Fallen from God's graces, cursed to the Earth). Current state of Satan.
God will, in the end, finally throw him into the lake of fire, which is just punishment for all evil doers. I guess you could consider it a curse but it's not a special curse inherit to Satan. This is no different than those cursed for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit or preaching false gospel, as Paul talks about... These people are cursed and then thrown into the lake of fire on top of it... The lake of fire part is common for all evil doers, it is not a special curse.

 

[[email protected]]

Textus:

I think we are debating about two different subjects upon which we both agree.

I agree with you that satan fell once from grace.

It seems that you agree with me that there are multiple punishments for the errant entity.

Being cast into the lake of fire is no picnic for sure and anyone would agree that it is an extreme punishment.

However, I don't understand your assertion that being cast into the lake of fire is "not a special curse inherent to satan".
If not satan, then who or what? It looks like a special deal to me.

 

[TexUs]

However, I don't understand your assertion that being cast into the lake of fire is "not a special curse inherent to satan".
If not satan, then who or what? It looks like a special deal to me.

All evil doers get cast into the lake of fire. It's general, terrible punishment for any evil.

The curse, specific to Satan, was only done once, in the past, for his work in the Garden.

 

[Vincent]

Use a better translation than the NIV or KJV, all the more literal translations (ESV, NASB) use "then".

But this is found in every chapter from 14-20. 19:1, "After this", a differently worded example.


Even ONE "After" statement between 14 and 20- eliminates what you're trying to suggest. You'd have to explain how "after" really doesn't mean "after" and places this not on a timeline.

Actually my theory does not rely on the absence of "After" statements in the chapters 9 to 19 as I say they are for the most part sequential. Only if chapter 20 begins with "After that" or "Then I saw" does my theory fall apart.

I see that ESV and NASB use the word "Then" but to really settle this we have to go to the original Greek. The word in question is the word "kai" and Strong's gives us many possible translations/definitions for this word. It lists "Then" as a one of the translations used by the NASB but does not include it in its definition.

Unless we can get inside the head of the original author we can't definitively say one way or the other, but based on the following reference I think it's safe to say that "And" is a much more likely inference than "Then". In other words, you still have not provided any evidence that my theory should not be considered.


[font="Arial][size="2"][font="Arial][size="2"]Original Word: [/size][/font][font="Cardo][size="2"]καί[/size][/font]
[font="Arial][size="2"]Part of Speech: [/size][/font]Conjunction
[font="Arial][size="2"]Transliteration: [/size][/font]kai
[font="Arial][size="2"]Phonetic Spelling: [/size][/font](kahee)
[font="Arial][size="2"]Short Definition: [/size][/font]and, even, also, namely
[font="Arial][size="2"]Definition: [/size][/font]and, even, also, namely.

[/size][/font]
[font="Arial][size="2"]2532 kaí (the most common NT conjunction, used over 9,000 times) – and (also), very often, moreover, even, indeed(the context determines the exact sense).

[After 2532 (kaí), the most common word in the Greek NT is the definite article ("the"). 2532 (kaí) is never adversative, i.e. it never means "however" ("but") – unlike the principal conjunction (waw) in OT Hebrew (G. Archer).]

[/size][/font]
[font="Arial][size="2"][font="Arial][size="2"]Word Origin[/size][/font]
a prim. conjunction
[font="Arial][size="2"]Definition[/size][/font]
and, even, also
[font="Arial][size="2"]NASB Word Usage[/size][/font]
accompanied (1), actually (2), after (2), again (1), again* (1), along (4), also (535), although (1), although* (1), besides* (1), both (37), both* (1), certainly (1), continue (1), either (2), else (1), even (132), forty-six* (1), if (1), including (1), indeed (20), indeed* (2), just (3), likewise (1), more* (2), moving about freely* (1), nor (4), now (2), only (2), only* (1), or (11), same (1), so (30), than (2), than* (4), then (105), though (1), though* (6), together (1), too (34), until (1), very (3), well (13), when (7), whether (1), while (1), whose* (1), without* (4), yet (9).

[font="Arial][size="3"]NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
Copyright © 1981, 1998 by The Lockman Foundation
All rights reserved Lockman.org[/size][/font]​

[/size][/font]
[font="Arial][size="2"]and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so

Apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words -- and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.

καὶ (kai) − 9018 Occurrences

[/size][/font]

 

[TexUs]

I don't even remember what the discussion was anymore, it's been too long.

All I know is someone holding Revelation 20 as past seems to be off their rocker because I certainly don't see the Great White Throne Judgement having happened