The Post Tribulation Rapture position

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... The Hebrew word used in Dan 9 for weeks or years, is used elsewhere for literal weeks.

Did you not read my post?

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.

If you'll check those posts referencing yowm', you will find that I stated that the context and modification of the Hebrew word determines it's usage. Specifically, when yowm' is used with a cardinal number, it has to mean a literal day. That, in the Hebrew writings, is unequivocal. Similar rules would apply with shabuwa', specifically that in reference to longer periods of time as influence by the context, it must mean "weeks of years." By the way, that's also the Hebrew name for the Feast of Weeks, which you might want to study carefully.

There is no gap demonstrated in Dan 9 at all.

Did I say it was explained in Daniel?

 

[asterisktom]

This can't be referring to any future "Tribulation" for 2 main reasons:

1. This hour of testing was then, 2000 years ago, "about to come."
2. This church does not exist today, and has not for centuries so either the rapture was WAY more pre-trib than the dispys think (and localized) or the verse is being misinterpreted.

I believe carefull attention to that "about to come" is a major key in clearing up the picture. If you follow through consistently, appling the same observation to the other "about to come" verses you will also, IMO, end up outside of a futurist framework altogether.

But consistency requires that we allow the chips (that is, the verses) to fall where they may. But I have noticed that most Christians just cannot be this consistent. It hands them a very unsatisfactory conclusion.

 

[RLBosley]

Did you not read my post?

Maybe I missed something. It seemed like you were saying the OT consistently uses it figuratively to describe a period of seven years instead of a literal week.

If you'll check those posts referencing yowm', you will find that I stated that the context and modification of the Hebrew word determines it's usage. Specifically, when yowm' is used with a cardinal number, it has to mean a literal day. That, in the Hebrew writings, is unequivocal. Similar rules would apply with shabuwa', specifically that in reference to longer periods of time as influence by the context, it must mean "weeks of years." By the way, that's also the Hebrew name for the Feast of Weeks, which you might want to study carefully.

OK that's fine. I have no disagreements with that. I think you're missing my whole point. The point is that the most "literal" reading of "70 weeks" is 70 weeks - 490 days. I agree that it should be interpreted as years, but that means it is figurative and not literal. That's all I was getting at.

Did I say it was explained in Daniel?

No but I've seen people try. I'll save the rest for the thread you start on this topic later.

I believe carefull attention to that "about to come" is a major key in clearing up the picture. If you follow through consistently, appling the same observation to the other "about to come" verses you will also, IMO, end up outside of a futurist framework altogether.

But consistency requires that we allow the chips (that is, the verses) to fall where they may. But I have noticed that most Christians just cannot be this consistent. It hands them a very unsatisfactory conclusion.

Yes. That would be why I've moved from futurism to historcism and am sympathetic to partial-preterism in some texts.

 

[DHK]

Cutsie comments are easy on the internet. Let's see a rebuttal. Point by point.

Revmitchell is right.
Well thought out theological positions held by a great segment of Christianity, and then attributed by you to "a mystic," don't need "a reasonable response," as he said.