The Post Tribulation Rapture position

[RLBosley]

God wi;; seal and call out a faithful remant of saved jews in end times, and since the Antichrist will cause offerings to cease, and proclaim himself as messiah in a building, how can that be the Church?

umm... no.

2 Thess 2:1-4 NASB Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.​

You will notice that this man of lawlessness (Not called Antichrist anywhere. I know it's a semantics issue but it's still annoying) "takes his seat in the temple of God." As I said before, Paul is emphatic that the church (and the individual believer) is the temple of God. The best reading, without assuming too much and reading it into the text, is that this man arises from within the church. Thus the traditional protestant interpretation that the man is actually the office of the Pope.

Well, of course I know it is a much debated topic. Just not in my mind. :laugh:

The ostrich technique? :laugh:

Given the need to take the Bible as a whole as the literal word of God, it seems unlikely he would spend 65 books giving us literal and specific instructions and then tack on one at the end that is too vague to understand. It must be taken as literally as the rest of the Bible, which means that John's vision is indeed of a literal Tribulation and Day of Judgment, filtered through the eyes of a First Century man seeing a vision at least 2,000 years or so into the future.

Taking the Bible as the "literal word of God" does not mean that everything must be taken literally. I guarantee that you do not take every single thing in scripture 100% literally.

How can you possibly rationalize that a book of a series of visions, including a woman riding a multiheaded beast and locust like creatures with human heads and scorpion tails, should be taken "literally"?

There is and always has been a remnant in Israel. I know you don't believe that God still has a purpose for Israel, but it is obvious from the Bible that He does, indeed, and though the remnant will ultimately be saved in the same fashion as us, He has a different plan for them, as He promised Abram.

If it were obvious from the Bible I would believe it.

Any Jews who are saved are brought into the number of the church. There is no extra or different plan for them.

I guess I misunderstood what you wrote here, then ...

I guess so. When I said church I meant the body of believers. I almost never say church referring to a building. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Antichrist will do just as the antichrist of daniel times did, will profane the jewish temple/sacrifice, and will have himself called the jewish messiah...

he will declare himself as being the false messiah, as the jewish messiah, as jesus warned the jews, they would reject him, bit go after another one coming in his own name!

And God did not cast off national israel, as he moved into the Church Age of grace now, but in the end, at His returningt, will provide for the restoration and Kingdom to Israel, the one that was suspended at their rejection of Him at his first coming...

 

[JeremyV]

Maybe I misunderstood you. It seemed what you were saying is that the Lord gathers the believers (The Rapture - I don't like the term so I tend to not use it) before his the wrath is poured out, at a time separate from his actual appearing. I believe scripture states that we are gathered to Christ at his actual appearing, not before.

I am sorry for the confusion. I believe Christ comes in physical form between the great tribulation and the wrath of God to gather his people to him. He keeps them with him and under his protection while dispensing wrath on the rest of the world.

Jeremy-I never try to put words in the mouth of others—but it seems you support (or at least come closest to) the “pre-wrath rapture” view—I’m a post-trib supporter, but I must admit that pre-wrath would be my 2nd choice—here is a book you might be interested in
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310277205/?tag=baptis04-20

I consider myself both post-trib and pre-wrath. This is because I do no not see the tribulation as part of God's judgment, but a period of time in which the kingdom of God is persecuted by the powers of the earth.

 

[RLBosley]

I am sorry for the confusion. I believe Christ comes in physical form between the great tribulation and the wrath of God to gather his people to him. He keeps them with him and under his protection while dispensing wrath on the rest of the world.

No worries.

Interesting. Then either you have a modified form of post-trib/pre-wrath or the other version i read was the modified form without saying so. I was under the impression the post-trib/pre-wrath taught an invisible coming (like pre-trib) to gather the church, before the wrath, and takes them to heaven while the wrath is poured out. Hopefully now you can see my confusion and why I rejected that along with pre-trib.

 

[JeremyV]

No worries.

Interesting. Then either you have a modified form of post-trib/pre-wrath or the other version i read was the modified form without saying so. I was under the impression the post-trib/pre-wrath taught an invisible coming (like pre-trib) to gather the church, before the wrath, and takes them to heaven while the wrath is poured out. Hopefully now you can see my confusion and why I rejected that along with pre-trib.

That may be the normal view. I've never actually read anything by a post-trib/pre-wrath author nor have is seen this view discussed. I was even unaware of anyone that held this view. I did know of the post-trib view (which I held briefly) and the pre-wrath view.

 

[RLBosley]

That may be the normal view. I've never actually read anything by a post-trib/pre-wrath author nor have is seen this view discussed. I was even unaware of anyone that held this view. I did know of the post-trib view (which I held briefly) and the pre-wrath view.

Well I like your version better. :tongue3:

BTW, everyone's favorite IFB lunatic, Steve Anderson, is post-trib/pre-wrath. He even made a movie about it. I think he holds to the other version though. Can't remember. I try to avoid Anderson as much as possible - I like my brain cells.

Also, In your pre-wrath view, do you see the tribulation as 7 years long or what?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Taking the Bible as the "literal word of God" does not mean that everything must be taken literally. language I guarantee that you do not take every single thing in scripture 100% literally.

If you mean, as I suspect and agree, that that which is figurative or allegorical is to be recognized as figurative or allegorical. However, it must be received as a figurative or an allegorical lesson that is to be applied literally.

How can you possibly rationalize that a book of a series of visions, including a woman riding a multiheaded beast and locust like creatures with human heads and scorpion tails, should be taken "literally"?

In Revelation 12, for example, the dragon persecutes the child of a woman. Clearly this is an image of Satan using all at his disposal to defeat Christ's ministry and purpose. Is Satan really a giant red dragon? Of course not, but the image conveys several truths about Satan. There is also very plain though poetic language that should be read for what it is, and taken literally. The seven stars and the seven lampstands, for example, are first-century allegories for the churches and the pastors of those churches. These churches should be taken as seven literal churches under direct warning from Jesus, as well as the allegorical reading of seven ages of the church. It takes no stretch of the imagination, nnor does it result in consternation of reason, to see both.

In Revelation 5:8, incensed is burning. Just as in the Earthly Temple overseen by Aaron, this should be read as the prayer of the saints. The "great whore" of Revelation 17:18 is doubly fulfilled, both entities being present and future, in that they represent the false teachings of man's religions, and the "religion" of misguided commerce and business -- that which is undertaken for personal enrichment rather than for the glory of God -- that rules the hearts and minds of men.

Given the evidence of there being such literal interpretations of figurative and allegorical language, it is not difficult to understand why we must see the Temple in Revelation 11:3 as a real, new temple in Israel. Nor is it impossible to conceive of the "final battle" of Armageddon (more properly translated as Har-Meggido -- "Armageddon" being largely the fault of the KJV translators) as being an actual gathering of opposing forces converging on the Meggido Valley to destroy Israel, believing doing so will stop the judgment of Christ.

If it were obvious from the Bible I would believe it.

It is obvious, so I must question why you wouldn't believe it. But that, perhaps, is for another thread.

Any Jews who are saved are brought into the number of the church. There is no extra or different plan for them.

Since you cannot point to any verses in the Bible which hand off the promises made to Abram to the church, and the indications in John's Revelation are that Israel's promises will be fulfilled, I believe you are incorrect. Of course their salvation is through Christ, but that fact does not negate the Father's promises.

I guess so. When I said church I meant the body of believers. I almost never say church referring to a building. Sorry for not being clear.

No worries. I see what you were saying now. :thumbsup:

 

[RLBosley]

If you mean, as I suspect and agree, that that which is figurative or allegorical is to be recognized as figurative or allegorical. However, it must be received as a figurative or an allegorical lesson that is to be applied literally.

Of course. Metaphor or allegory is used to teach a reality.

In Revelation 12, for example, the dragon persecutes the child of a woman. Clearly this is an image of Satan using all at his disposal to defeat Christ's ministry and purpose. Is Satan really a giant red dragon? Of course not, but the image conveys several truths about Satan. There is also very plain though poetic language that should be read for what it is, and taken literally. The seven stars and the seven lampstands, for example, are first-century allegories for the churches and the pastors of those churches. These churches should be taken as seven literal churches under direct warning from Jesus, as well as the allegorical reading of seven ages of the church. It takes no stretch of the imagination, nnor does it result in consternation of reason, to see both.

I think seeing it as 7 ages of the church is stretching it in fact. I would concede that they can be types of churches that have existed throughout church history, but to say that it is allegory of 7 stages in the church age is too far IMO.

In Revelation 5:8, incensed is burning. Just as in the Earthly Temple overseen by Aaron, this should be read as the prayer of the saints. The "great whore" of Revelation 17:18 is doubly fulfilled, both entities being present and future, in that they represent the false teachings of man's religions, and the "religion" of misguided commerce and business -- that which is undertaken for personal enrichment rather than for the glory of God -- that rules the hearts and minds of men.

One possible interpretation.

This is the problem with prophetic books of what are possibly, if not likely still future events. It's all speculation. We don't know what they mean. We infer. Just like the Jews had varying inferences regarding the coming of the Messiah, the prophesies are only obvious to us after the fact and with inspired scripture confirming what has happened.

Given the evidence of there being such literal interpretations of figurative and allegorical language, it is not difficult to understand why we must see the Temple in Revelation 11:3 as a real, new temple in Israel. Nor is it impossible to conceive of the "final battle" of Armageddon (more properly translated as Har-Meggido -- "Armageddon" being largely the fault of the KJV translators) as being an actual gathering of opposing forces converging on the Meggido Valley to destroy Israel, believing doing so will stop the judgment of Christ.

Regarding "Armageddon" - I prefer what Revelation 16:4 calls it, "The battle of the great day of God, the Almighty." Armageddon is faster to say though.

But even that is open to differnt interpretations. Is it a literal gathering of the world's armies to Meggido to make war on Christ? Or is it allegory of the unified world system in rebellion against God, set in the place of Megiddo, a land famous for it's fierce, but ultimately futile, battles? Also, the name given in Revelation I think indicates this is allegorical or idealized. Har-Meggido = Mountain of Meggido. There are no mountains there. It's a valley in fact.

The Temple could also be something allegorical or idealized. It is described in a "literal" way but that proves nothing. Also at the end of the same chapter the "Temple of God" is seen in heaven. How do you know this isn't the same temple?

It is obvious, so I must question why you wouldn't believe it. But that, perhaps, is for another thread.Since you cannot point to any verses in the Bible which hand off the promises made to Abram to the church, and the indications in John's Revelation are that Israel's promises will be fulfilled, I believe you are incorrect. Of course their salvation is through Christ, but that fact does not negate the Father's promises.

It probably would be best in another thread. But remember I once believed exactly as you do. But examining the doctrines in light of scripture made me abandon those positions. The promises to Israel, according to the flesh, were fulfilled. They occupied the land and were given rest. That was the physical fulfillment. However the entirety of the NT teaches that the true Israel of God, the church, receive the greater spiritual fulfillment. We inherit the earth and are given eternal rest, in Christ, from all enemies. That's pretty much the point of Galatians and Hebrews.

No worries. I see what you were saying now. :thumbsup:

Well, at least we can agree on that :laugh:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think seeing it as 7 ages of the church is stretching it in fact. I would concede that they can be types of churches that have existed throughout church history, but to say that it is allegory of 7 stages in the church age is too far IMO.

There is evidence for both concepts. It's not critical to our beliefs either way.

This is the problem with prophetic books of what are possibly, if not likely still future events. It's all speculation. We don't know what they mean. We infer. Just like the Jews had varying inferences regarding the coming of the Messiah, the prophesies are only obvious to us after the fact and with inspired scripture confirming what has happened.

I would agree except for the fact that God makes it clear that nothing He reveals is impossible to understand. It requires reason to reach these conclusions.

But even that is open to differnt interpretations. Is it a literal gathering of the world's armies to Meggido to make war on Christ? Or is it allegory of the unified world system in rebellion against God, set in the place of Megiddo, a land famous for it's fierce, but ultimately futile, battles?

Where else would the world gather to attempt the futile? :laugh:

Also, the name given in Revelation I think indicates this is allegorical or idealized. Har-Meggido = Mountain of Meggido. There are no mountains there. It's a valley in fact.

To be recognized as a valley, it needs to be significantly lower than the rest of the land around it. There are several such valley names throughout Israel.

The Temple could also be something allegorical or idealized. It is described in a "literal" way but that proves nothing. Also at the end of the same chapter the "Temple of God" is seen in heaven. How do you know this isn't the same temple?

Why would God have Two Witnesses placed outside the heavenly Temple?

It probably would be best in another thread. But remember I once believed exactly as you do. But examining the doctrines in light of scripture made me abandon those positions.

It's funny when we all say we reached these conclusions int he same fashion. Both of us were undoubtedly sincere and convinced of the rightness of our conclusions. But one of us has to be wrong. I believe your view misses a great deal of biblical truth in coming to the conclusions it reaches.

The promises to Israel, according to the flesh, were fulfilled. They occupied the land and were given rest. That was the physical fulfillment.

The Old Testament prophecies promising the land in the "Last Days" requires a double fulfillment to be expected. The prophecies of Ezekiel, for example, clearly foresee a time that has not yet come to pass.

However the entirety of the NT teaches that the true Israel of God, the church, receive the greater spiritual fulfillment.

Seeing the church as "the true Israel" is, no offense, a gross theological error that cannot be supported biblically. It also leads to antisemitism. But again, another thread.

That's pretty much the point of Galatians and Hebrews.

Not really. But yet again, another thread.

Well, at least we can agree on that :laugh:

Amen, brother. :thumbsup:

 

[RLBosley]

There is evidence for both concepts. It's not critical to our beliefs either way.

Fair enough.

I would agree except for the fact that God makes it clear that nothing He reveals is impossible to understand. It requires reason to reach these conclusions.

True. But like you said one of us is wrong. Not everyone can understand everything God has revealed.

Where else would the world gather to attempt the futile? :laugh:

Congress??? :tongue3:

To be recognized as a valley, it needs to be significantly lower than the rest of the land around it. There are several such valley names throughout Israel.

OK.

Why would God have Two Witnesses placed outside the heavenly Temple?

Again, how do you know they are literal people who witness in Jerusalem for 3 1/2 years. There have been a TON of different interpretations on these two. I honestly don't know. They could be literal. So could the temple. But I think that would be very inconsistent with the rest of the eschatological framework given in the NT.

It's funny when we all say we reached these conclusions int he same fashion. Both of us were undoubtedly sincere and convinced of the rightness of our conclusions. But one of us has to be wrong. I believe your view misses a great deal of biblical truth in coming to the conclusions it reaches.

Back at ya.

The Old Testament prophecies promising the land in the "Last Days" requires a double fulfillment to be expected. The prophecies of Ezekiel, for example, clearly foresee a time that has not yet come to pass.

Maybe. But again, another thread topic.

Seeing the church as "the true Israel" is, no offense, a gross theological error that cannot be supported biblically. It also leads to antisemitism. But again, another thread.

Not at all. it can leas to antisemitism but it doesn't necessarily as your statement indicates. Dispensationalism can lead to a multitude of errors, but it doesn't have to. Also:
For both circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing; what matters instead is a new creation. May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy to the Israel of God!
Gal 6:15-16 HCSB

Not really. But yet again, another thread.

I oversimplified.

Amen, brother. :thumbsup:

Yes, amen.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Again, how do you know they are literal people who witness in Jerusalem for 3 1/2 years. There have been a TON of different interpretations on these two. I honestly don't know. They could be literal. So could the temple. But I think that would be very inconsistent with the rest of the eschatological framework given in the NT.

It's a basic rule of biblical hermeneutics. Exact dates or time frames-- both Daniel and Revelation say 1,260 days which is three and half years under the Hebrew lunar calendar -- require a literal interpretation.

Not at all. it can leas to antisemitism but it doesn't necessarily as your statement indicates. Dispensationalism can lead to a multitude of errors, but it doesn't have to.

It can, but it generally doesn't. :smilewinkgrin:

Also:
For both circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing; what matters instead is a new creation. May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy to the Israel of God!
Gal 6:15-16 HCSB

That's a different kettle of fish entirely. This requires a rather lengthy lexical explanation, but the short version (which will likely still require the longer version :laugh: ) is this: The kai after “mercy” is used in an ascensive sense (“even”) or copulative sense (“and”), indicating that Paul has in mind two groups: “Peace be upon them, and mercy even (or “also”) upon the Israel of God,” or “peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” “The Israel of God” is understood to be either believing ethnic Jews or the remnant of ethnic Jews chosen by grace who, according to Paul, will be saved in the future (see Romans 11:5-26).

I oversimplified.

We both have. If not, we'd have written competing books that would be on some obscure and unheralded best-seller list by now, most likely books bought by gluttons for punishment. :laugh:

Yes, amen.

And amen again.

 

[JeremyV]

Well I like your version better. :tongue3:

BTW, everyone's favorite IFB lunatic, Steve Anderson, is post-trib/pre-wrath. He even made a movie about it. I think he holds to the other version though. Can't remember. I try to avoid Anderson as much as possible - I like my brain cells.

Also, In your pre-wrath view, do you see the tribulation as 7 years long or what?

I do not see the tribulation lasting seven years. I see it as starting in the time of the Apostles (Matthew 24:34) and lasting till the cup of wrath is full (yet to happen).

 

[RLBosley]

It's a basic rule of biblical hermeneutics. Exact dates or time frames-- both Daniel and Revelation say 1,260 days which is three and half years under the Hebrew lunar calendar -- require a literal interpretation.

Dan 9 also says 70 weeks. By your "rule" above that must be taken literally. I assume you do not. Just because something has a number or seems "exact" doesn't really make it so. Context matters, as does the larger picture of scripture.

It can, but it generally doesn't. :smilewinkgrin:

Well....

J/k

Same with regarding the church as the Israel of God. That would be the most common reformed view, yet most reformed people are not antisemitic. So yes it can lead to antisemitism, but generally it doesn't. What I don't get is how dispensationalism escapes the antisemitism charge when most of the big dispensationalists think the Jews need to reoccupy Canaan, so that the end times can begin and the Antichrist can begin slaughtering them?? Seems pretty antisemitic to me.

That's a different kettle of fish entirely. This requires a rather lengthy lexical explanation, but the short version (which will likely still require the longer version :laugh: ) is this: The kai after “mercy” is used in an ascensive sense (“even”) or copulative sense (“and”), indicating that Paul has in mind two groups: “Peace be upon them, and mercy even (or “also”) upon the Israel of God,” or “peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” “The Israel of God” is understood to be either believing ethnic Jews or the remnant of ethnic Jews chosen by grace who, according to Paul, will be saved in the future (see Romans 11:5-26).

Nope. It doesn't work. He clearly has only the one group in mind, those who obey the rule of the new creation, i.e. regeneration. Therefore the only group he has in mind is Christians, not Christians + ethinic Jews. Also if he had Jews in mind here then he would have literally contradicted himself from the preceding verse, as well as the rest of the book. The preceding verse says that circumcision or circumcision doesn't matter. That's incredible! Circumcision was THE defining mark of being a Jew. It was such a big deal that God almost killed Moses because he didn't circumcise his son! So Paul is essentially saying, "Being a Jew or being a gentile doesn't matter now, all that matter's is being born again." The entire book is about how the Old Covenant is over and being Jewish doesn't save. He would completely turn his whole argument on its head if at the end he says peace and mercy on the church AND ethnic Jews.

I do not see the tribulation lasting seven years. I see it as starting in the time of the Apostles (Matthew 24:34) and lasting till the cup of wrath is full (yet to happen).

Bingo! :thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

Dan 9 also says 70 weeks. By your "rule" above that must be taken literally. I assume you do not. Just because something has a number or seems "exact" doesn't really make it so. Context matters, as does the larger picture of scripture.



Well....

J/k

Same with regarding the church as the Israel of God. That would be the most common reformed view, yet most reformed people are not antisemitic. So yes it can lead to antisemitism, but generally it doesn't. What I don't get is how dispensationalism escapes the antisemitism charge when most of the big dispensationalists think the Jews need to reoccupy Canaan, so that the end times can begin and the Antichrist can begin slaughtering them?? Seems pretty antisemitic to me.



Nope. It doesn't work. He clearly has only the one group in mind, those who obey the rule of the new creation, i.e. regeneration. Therefore the only group he has in mind is Christians, not Christians + ethinic Jews. Also if he had Jews in mind here then he would have literally contradicted himself from the preceding verse, as well as the rest of the book. The preceding verse says that circumcision or circumcision doesn't matter. That's incredible! Circumcision was THE defining mark of being a Jew. It was such a big deal that God almost killed Moses because he didn't circumcise his son! So Paul is essentially saying, "Being a Jew or being a gentile doesn't matter now, all that matter's is being born again." The entire book is about how the Old Covenant is over and being Jewish doesn't save. He would completely turn his whole argument on its head if at the end he says peace and mercy on the church AND ethnic Jews.



Bingo! :thumbs:

The Apostle Paul was pronouncing a peace and blessing upon those who are the israel of God, which in his mind would indicate those jews who became spiritually reborn in Jesus now, so within natural israel was also spiritual israel, which also made up the Church/body of Christ!

true jews/Israel to paul would be the saved remnant jews, who are also within now the Body of christ!

So to paul views, the saved jews were spiritual true israel, and the Church would be them and the gentiles!

 

[RLBosley]

The Apostle Paul was pronouncing a peace and blessing upon those who are the israel of God, which in his mind would indicate those jews who became spiritually reborn in Jesus now, so within natural israel was also spiritual israel, which also made up the Church/body of Christ!

true jews/Israel to paul would be the saved remnant jews, who are also within now the Body of christ!

So to paul views, the saved jews were spiritual true israel, and the Church would be them and the gentiles!

So the "Israel of God" in Gal 6:16 is only Jews in your opinion?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Dan 9 also says 70 weeks. By your "rule" above that must be taken literally. I assume you do not. Just because something has a number or seems "exact" doesn't really make it so. Context matters, as does the larger picture of scripture.

Daniel's prophecy and the "space" between the 69th and 70th week is accounted for in the Bible. This is a whole 'nuther subject, Daniel's Seventy Weeks. Discussion of it here would derail the thread. I'll start another thread sometime in the next few days to address it. :thumbsup:

 

[RLBosley]

Daniel's prophecy and the "space" between the 69th and 70th week is accounted for in the Bible. This is a whole 'nuther subject, Daniel's Seventy Weeks. Discussion of it here would derail the thread. I'll start another thread sometime in the next few days to address it. :thumbsup:

It is not another subject, at least not in relation to what we were already talking about... in relation to the OP, yeah maybe. :tongue3:

You said, "It's a basic rule of biblical hermeneutics. Exact dates or time frames-- both Daniel and Revelation say 1,260 days which is three and half years under the Hebrew lunar calendar -- require a literal interpretation."

So let's boil that down to the basic statement: "Exact dates or time frames require a literal interpretation."

If that were so, then you cannot come to Daniel 9 and say that Gabriel meant anything other than 490 days.

This is one of the times dispensationailsm is criticized, rightly so, for "forgetting" it Literal hermeneutic. You believe that not only is it really 490 years (Which I agree with BTW), but that there is also a vast, 2000+ year gap after the 483rd year, that is not in the text. So that's at least 2 ways that Dispensationalism interprets this phrase in a non-literal manner. I don't see how they then have any right to criticize anyone else for a non-literal interpretation, especially in the most symbol filled book in scripture.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So let's boil that down to the basic statement: "Exact dates or time frames require a literal interpretation."

If that were so, then you cannot come to Daniel 9 and say that Gabriel meant anything other than 490 days.

You couldn't if not for the fact that the use of the word "week" -- the Hebrew shabuwa' -- is used in the exact same fashion throughout the Old Testament, beginning here:

Genesis 29, NASB
27 "Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for another seven years." ​

Laban tells Jacob that, despite the deception of passing off Leah as Rachel, Jacob must still work another full seven years -- a "week" of years -- in order to marry his beloved. It was the common use of the word, as a collective, to describe either days or years. So it is a literal translation, and this ...

This is one of the times dispensationailsm is criticized, rightly so, for "forgetting" it Literal hermeneutic.

... is another unjust and unfair criticism of premillennial dispensationalism. Again, to explain the Seventy Weeks requires far more room than this thread provides. I've got a busy week -- a regular week, not a "week of years" :laugh: -- but I'll get to it in a day or so. :wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

So the "Israel of God" in Gal 6:16 is only Jews in your opinion?

The remnant jews, like paul, who God saved out in each generation going foward from time of Jesus...

As don't see Israel and the Church as referring to same thing in the bible

 

[RLBosley]

You couldn't if not for the fact that the use of the word "week" -- the Hebrew shabuwa' -- is used in the exact same fashion throughout the Old Testament, beginning here:

Genesis 29, NASB
27 "Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for another seven years." ​

Laban tells Jacob that, despite the deception of passing off Leah as Rachel, Jacob must still work another full seven years -- a "week" of years -- in order to marry his beloved. It was the common use of the word, as a collective, to describe either days or years. So it is a literal translation, and this

Your argument does not support your theory that a exact dates or time frames demand a literal interpretation. The Hebrew word used in Dan 9 for weeks or years, is used elsewhere for literal weeks. Same as the word for "day" which you say must b applied in a literal fashion, even though scripture uses the term in non-literal ways occasionally.

...... is another unjust and unfair criticism of premillennial dispensationalism. Again, to explain the Seventy Weeks requires far more room than this thread provides. I've got a busy week -- a regular week, not a "week of years" :laugh: -- but I'll get to it in a day or so. :wavey:

Nope. Not unjust and certainly not unfair since Dispensationalism prides itself on a so called literal hermenuetic... until it's inconvenient. There is no gap demonstrated in Dan 9 at all. You may infer one from an outside source (You really can't but you can try :smilewinkgrin, but that fact is it just ain't in the text. AT ALL.

Anyway, I'll leave off that topic. Feel free to start a new thread. Weren't you going to start on on violence too?

If you do either, or both, I'll be here. Slow week ahead. :laugh:

The remnant jews, like paul, who God saved out in each generation going foward from time of Jesus...

As don't see Israel and the Church as referring to same thing in the bible

So within a space of a single breath Paul contradicts himself?