What is your BEST PROOF for a pre-trib Rapture?

Question for post-tribbers: How can you provide for your own in the tribulation without getting the mark of the beast? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

As long as one continues to mis-define the phrase "the Day of the Lord" and continues to disregard the grammar, and ignores the legitimate [and BEST] definition of the other word there (i.e. its BASE MEANING without injecting things outside the word itself), then one will continue to miss what Paul is actually conveying in chpt 2.

[he REPEATS the SEQUENCE 3x in this passage; which is the SAME SEQUENCE that was provided in 1Th4-5; and also "fits" with the SAME "chronology" in a number of other passages I've pointed out repeatedly]

Me, on the other hand, I am prepared. I know the signs and the seasons. I learned the parable of the fig tree. I have put on the full gospel armor. I understand the deception coming our way. I can count the number of the beast. I know what to watch for. Where to watch for it. When to speak and what to say. When not to speak and what not to say. How to stay out of the beast system. What it is going to be like. What else God may require of me.

Faith, in the truth of the Word of God.

If you were told all electricity was to be cut for the months of Jan and Feb, would you wait until the electricity was cut then figure out what to do, or would you go get a generator or some propane to make it through right now?

one coming theory? lolz. Acts 1:9 was not a theory.

look we can prove all kinds of crazy things from the book of revelation. its not in chronlogical order and its apocalyptic very symbolic. i can prove the earth is destroyed many times from book of revelation its easy to do.

better to take doctrine from clear verses and import that to revelation than to change clear verses to fit book of revelation.

If you want to make a point, make it.

You seem to be assuming Revelation is written chronologically and that the harvest refers to the rapture?

Again, let us interpret Revelation through the lens of easier-to-interpret scriptures. Someone can say this in Revelation represents that, while another disagrees.

This is exactly what I mean.

Do you think pre-tribbers are not putting on the shield of faith, fully armored? We are waiting for the Lord to return any moment. You guys are prepping and know Jesus cannot return today.

You are doing the usual post-trib fear mongering that says if we do not believe in it, we will be deceived by the antichrist. That is absolutely laughable. No pre-tribber would be deceived by the antichrist even if the Rapture did not occur pre-trib, we would know it was not the Rapture if we are still here, we would simply say Looks like we were wrong, now we have to deal with the tribulation time period, God help us.

13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."

Our Lord wants us to be ready or be prepared at His coming whenever it occurs. Is Jesus being a "fear-monger" or is He telling us to be smart. In fact the other parables demonstrates the same theme, be ready. Do you really want Jesus Christ to say to at vs12, "But He answered and said, Truly I say to you, I do not know you." And at vs13, "BE ON THE ALERT THEN, for you do not know the day or the hour." I also suggest you read the rest of Matthew 25 because Jesus is making the same point.

And as a side note, the 4 most lethal words in the Bible as far as I'm concerned can be found at Matthew 7:22,23, "Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Yor name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" vs23, "And then I will declare to them, "I NEVER KNEW YOU;" depart from Me."

So which group do you prefer to be in TooslowTurtle, and you Mr. Absolutelynot? PS: Most of the time people who are deceived by the antichrist or even by false teachers don't know they are being deceived unless someone shines the light on what their doing and believing so
God by way of God the Holy Spirit can prompt them to come to their senses. Now tell me the truth, does not this make sense?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

As long as one continues to mis-define the phrase "the Day of the Lord" and continues to disregard the grammar, and ignores the legitimate [and BEST] definition of the word other there (i.e. its BASE MEANING without injecting things outside the word itself), then one will continue to miss what Paul is actually conveying in chpt 2.


[he REPEATS the SEQUENCE 3x in this passage; which is the SAME SEQUENCE that was provided in 1Th4-5; and also "fits" with the SAME "chronology" in a number of other passages I've pointed out repeatedly]

“I Know that You Do Not Want to See What is Coming Upon the Earth But, the Truth is Most of You Will.”

My "therefore" refers back to the studies I've previously posted (both in this thread and in other threads); for example, I'd said:

"note also: Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon [1895] says, "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis"... so...

"-- apo stasis = "apo=away" & "stasis=a standing" [^ same word there ^] = "a standing away from [a previous standing]" or "DEPARTURE" (context determines just "WHAT KIND" of "DEPARTURE" is meant)…"



[and in past threads had provided...]

"[Kenneth S. Wuest is a member of the Faculty of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and author of numerous books on New Testament Greek.]"

"The Rapture: Precisely When?" - Kenneth S Wuest
"The answer to these questions will only be convincing to the reader if it is based upon the rules of Biblical exegesis. [...<snip>...] That interpretation which is based upon the above rules is to be regarded as correct until it can be shown by the reapplication of the same rules that an error of human judgment has crept in.
"There is such a thing, therefore, as a scientific method of studying the Word. The student who follows the rules of an experiment in chemistry brings that experiment to a successful conclusion. The student who does not ends up with an explosion. Just so, the student who conducts his study of the Bible along the scientific lines noted above arrives at the correct interpretation, and the student who does not at the wrong one. The exegetical method the student uses in answering the question with reference to the time of the rapture will determine whether he believes in a pretribulational or a posttribulational rapture.
[...]
"The words "a falling away" are the Authorized Version rendering of apostasia. The verbal form afistamai from which it comes is present middle of afisthmi, the root verb, which we will study. The simple verb Jisthmi [histemi] in its intransitive sense means "to stand," the prefixed preposition means "off, away from," and the compound verb, "to stand off from." The word does not mean "to fall." The Greeks had a word for that, piptw. Afisthmi, in its various uses, is reported by Thayer as follows: "to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to stand off, stand aloof, to desert, to withdraw from one"; in contexts where a defection from the faith is in view, it means "to fall away, become faithless." The verb is rendered by the translators of the Authorized Version "to depart," in Luke 2:32; Luke 4:13; Luke 13:27; Acts 12:10; Acts 15:38; Acts 19:9; Acts 22:29; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 3:12. In Luke 8:13 it is translated "fall away," in Acts 5:37, "drew away," and in Acts 5:38, "refrain." Had they translated the word here instead of interpreting it, they would have rendered it by the word "departure." The reader will observe that the predominant translation of the verbal form is "to depart," also, that where it is translated "fall away," the context adds the idea of "falling away" to the verb, which action is still a departure.
E. Schuyler English, to whom this present writer is deeply indebted for calling his attention to the word "departure" as the correct rendering of apostasia in this context, also informs us that the following translators understood the Greek word to mean "a departure" in this context: Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), the Geneva Bible (1537), Cranmer (1539), and Beza (1565), and so used it in their translations. Apostasia is used once more in the New Testament and is translated "to forsake" (AV), signifying a departure. The neuter noun apostasion in Matthew 5:31; Matthew 19:7; and Mark 10:4 is rendered by the Authorized Version, "divorcement," which word also signifies a departure, here, from antecedent relations.

The writer is well aware of the fact that apostasia was used at times both in classical and koine Greek in the sense of a defection, a revolt in a religious sense, a rebellion against God, and of the act of apostasy. Liddell and Scott in their classical lexicon give the above as the first definition of the word. Moulton and Milligan quote a papyrus fragment where the word means "a rebel." But these are acquired meanings of the word gotten from the context in which it is used, not the original, basic, literal meaning, and should not be imposed upon the word when the context does not qualify the word by these meanings, as in the case of our Thessalonians passage, where the context in which apostasia is embedded does not refer to a defection from the truth but to the rapture of the church. The fact that our word "apostasy" means a defection from the truth is entirely beside the point since we do not interpret Scripture upon the basis of a transliterated word to which a certain meaning has been given, but upon the basis of what the Greek word mean to the first century reader. The fact that Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1 uses this verb in the words "some shall depart from the faith" and finds it necessary to qualify its meaning by the phrase "from the faith" indicates that the word itself has no such connotation. The translators of the Authorized Version did not translate the word, but offered their interpretation of it. They should have translated it and allowed the student to interpret it in its context.

With the translation of the word before us, the next step is to ascertain from the context that to which this departure refers. We note the presence of the Greek definite article before apostasia, of which the translation takes no notice. A Greek word is definite in itself, and when the article is used the exegete must pay particular attention to it. "The basal function of the article is to point out individual identity. It does more than mark 'the object as definitely conceived,' for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article." This departure, whatever it is, is a particular one, one differentiated from all others. Another function of the article is "to denote previous reference." Here the article points out an object the identity of which is defined by some previous reference made to it in the context." Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has just spoken of the coming of the Lord. This coming is defined by the words "our gathering together unto him," not as the second advent, but as the rapture. The Greek word rendered "and" can also be translated "even," and the translation reads, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our gathering together unto him."

The article before apostasia defines that word by pointing to "the gathering together unto him" as that departure. This article determines the context which defines apostasia. The translators took the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 as deciding the significance of the word, but they went too far afield, not grasping the function of the definite article preceding apostasia which points back to the rapture of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, not ahead to the refusal to believe the truth of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The article is all-important here, as in many instances of its use in the Greek New Testament. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul had given these saints teaching on the rapture, and the Greek article here points to that which was well known to both the reader and the writer, which is another use of the Greek definite article. Thus, the departure of the church from earth to heaven must precede the great tribulation period [I would say, "must precede the [7-yr] tribulation period" to be more specific (for 'GREAT tribulation' refers only to the latter half of it)]. And we have answered our questions again. It might be added that the reason why Paul merely speaks of a pretribulation rather than a preseventieth week rapture is that he is addressing himself to the needs of the Thessalonian saints and is not explaining the particular place of the rapture in the prophetic program of God."

--Kenneth S Wuest, "The Rapture--Precisely When?", Bibliotheca Sacra, BSac 114:453 (Jan 57), p.60

[ www. galaxie . com/article/bsac114-453-05 (no spaces)]

[end quoting]

[cont'd in next post]

Christian's may experience wars, but neither me, nor any other true believer in Christ will see the events of the tribulation period. For we will have already been caught up to the Lord, because you brothers belong to the day, so that this day of wrath will not take you by surprise.

It's a shame that you don't recognize that the Lord took upon himself the wrath of God that we deserve, satisfying it completely. If you underlying principal, you wouldn't keep insisting that the church is going to experience God's wrath, when it has already be experienced by Jesus.

True believers are looking for the imminent appearing of our Lord to take us back to the Father's house, while you and others are looking to go through God's wrath first.

What you are doing is in line with what Hymeneus and Philetus were doing by telling believers that the resurrection had already taken place, so that the people were worried that they were not going to go through God's wrath. In the same way, you teaching people the same thing, that we are going to be on the earth during the day of the Lord.

The Lord rebuke for this!

Any new believers or young believers, pay no attention to Afrikan's teaching, as it is false! As the Lord promised, He is going to gather believers prior to God's time wrath, which will begin with the opening of the first seal. For though the Lord said that believers in Him would have trials and tribulation, we will experience God's time of tribulation which will be carried out via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments.

Just a thought here...as all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, would that not also apply to the translators/translations?

Do you got an answer to the holes I mentioned in it at post #4 ?

I do...