Pre-tribulation rapture

1. I think "one and only first" is redundant.
Kinda like "this is my sons one and only first birthday".
Or "This is my one and only FIRST day on the job".

normally we would say "this is my FIRST day on the job".

2. There are no verses in the greek text -

So the text in question is in fact

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.[/b]
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

And from this we see that "THEY CAME TO LIFE" before the 1000 years which makes the FIRST resurrection a reference to those who CAME TO LIFE BEFORE the 1000 years not after.

They are the "BLESSED AND HOLY" who come to life FIRST ... ie. those in the FIRST resurrection.

Even Paul agrees "The DEAD in Christ rise FIRST" 1Thess4.

And it is only these in the FIRST resurrection (the blessed and holy) over whom the SECOND DEATH has no power.

For all of these reasons it is easy to see that the FIRST group is in the FIRST resurrection.

Even you claim that (I think) you just think that the FIRST resurreciton is in fact "The SECOND FIRST resurrection" if I am not mistaken.

(Which leaves you in quite a pinch given the language of this text).

So my question to you is simply -- IF you ACCEPT my view THEN where do you see that same level of "pinch" when it comes to the language in a Bible text?

Doesn't your five resurrection list leave us with something like this

"FIRST FIRST resurrection pre-trib followed by SECOND FIRST resurrection post Trib at the second coming"??

Did I miss something?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ed said

Number 3 and 4 happen at the same time and are in fact ONE resurrection - listed in Rev 20 -- called the FIRST resurrection -- even in your reference above you apply the Rev 20 reference "FIRST" to the one at the 2nd coming.

But you need 3 to be the "FIRST FIRST resurrection" that John sees in the future and #4 to be the "SECOND FIRST Resurrection" that he sees in the future.

in Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan: //Number 3 and 4 happen at the same time
and are in fact ONE resurrection - listed
in Rev 20 -- called the FIRST resurrection -- even
in your reference above.//

Amen, Brother BobRyan -- Preach it! !

I'll agree if you change 'time' to 'day'.
BTW, it is on the same day: the Day of the Lord.
#3 happens when the day begins; #4 happens
as it closes.


But, if one wishes to call it two parts of the
FIRST RESURRECTION, on can just look at the
Greek word being translated:


G4413
πρῶτος
prōtos
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253;
foremost (in time, place, order or importance):
- before, beginning, best, chief (-est),
first (of all), former.

The Greek would be satisfied totally if
the event ending at Revelation 20:4-6 were
called 'The Chief Resurrection'.

(This name, 'The Chief Resurrection', wouldn't be
near as confusing to English speakers who grew up
thinking that 'First' always means 'one and only one'
AND were taugh by those of the 80% of Elementary
teachers not qualified to teach Math, those of the
75% of Intermediate (Jr. High) teachers not qualified
to teach Math, and those of the 70% High School
Math teachers not qualified to teach Math.)

 

BobRyan:

 

I'm going to check with the Powers that Be (PTB)
and see if we need to start a #2 Topic.

It's name should be:

#2 Pre-tribulation rapture

(This is so if just part of a line shows up in a list,
one can still see it is #2).e

 

Except that each of your "events" is in fact a full resurreciton of the saints and you need to avoid calling these resurrections "resurrections" so youhave "First event" followed by "second event" -- instead of your existing "First resurrection followed by second first resurrection".

Problem is that the "term for event" in Rev 20 where you want to say "second event" is "First resurrection" which after replacement becomes "second first resurrection".

Just no way out of that one.

....

Now let's imagine some spots where my view COULD have gotten into trouble IF the Bible actually supported your TWO "events" (i.e TWO "First resurrections") idea.


Jhn 14:1-3 IF Christ had said "IF I Go will will come again and again -- two times to gather the saints to Myself"..

THEN My view would have been in huge problem. My view "needs" Christ to say "IF I GO I WILL COME again" period.


Another pinch point for me COULD have been Matt 24. IF the text had said "BEFORE The tribulation of those days ... He will gather His elect" I would have been in the same trouble your view is in today.

My view NEEDED the text of Matt 24 to say "AFTER the Tribulation of those days... he will gather His elect".

Whew! How lucky for me - eh?


Then we have no-pretrib rapture making the Resurrection Rapture in Rev 20 THE FIRST resurrection of all saints John to see in the future. How sad it WOULD have been for my view if that text had said "THIS is the SECOND resurrection"!

Again I would be having the same problems your view has today.


And we see the same thing again in 2Thess 2 IF that text speaking of the APPEARING of the Lord and our GATHERING together to him had said "That day will come BEFORE the great falling away and appearing of the man of sin" then AGAIN - my view would have been in as much trouble as the PTR view is in today.

So again I ask - IF you can bring yourself to assume my view is correct for a second -- WHERE do you see "the pinch" for my view in the language of an actual Bible text?:saint:

in Christ,

Bob

 

Occurances of Strong's 2532 bolded
and numbered /for Reference/
(that is the Greek word 'kai')
in Revelation 20:4 (NASB):


1 Then I saw thrones,
2 and they sat on them,
3 and judgment was given to them.
4 And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus
5 and because of the word of God,
6 and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image,
7 and had not received the mark on their forehead
8 and on their hand;
9 and they came to life
10 and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

without worrying now about HOW the 'and' (1 'then') connects
two or more items, let me show some examples of
which items are connected by which 'and'.

1 Then
1A - events of Revelation 20:3
1B - events of Revelation 20:4

1C - the thrones
1D - (whatever is next at the top level of the verse)

(connects the event of Revelation 20:3 to
the event(s) of Revelation 20:4)


2 and
2A - I saw thrones,
2B - they sat on them,

3 and
3A - they sat on them,
3B = judgment was given to them.

4 And
4A - seeing the thrones
4B - seeing the souls: "I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus"

9 and
9A the things John saw
9A1 - the thrones
9A2 - the souls
9B they came to life

10 and
10A the things John saw
10A1 - the thrones
10A2 - the souls
10B the things that came to life
10C the things that "reigned with Christ for a thousand years"

The whole result is a hierarchal outline
of Revelation 20:4 --

I.
I.A
1 Then I saw thrones,

I.B
2 and they sat on them,

I.C
3 and judgment was given to them.

II.
II.A
4 And I saw the souls

II.A.(1)
of those who had been beheaded because of
their testimony of Jesus

II.A.(2)
5 and because of the word of God,

II.B
6 and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image,

II.C
II.C (1)
7 and had not received the mark on their forehead
II.C (2)
8 and on their hand;

III.
9 and they came to life

IV.
10 and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Notice that sometimes 'and' is in more than one
hierarchal structure.

(I've seen other divide those who were beheaded
from those who did not worship the beast,
but I beleive them to be the same group of people.
The penalty for not worshiping the Beast from the Sea
is to have one's head lobbed.


The meaning of the 10 occurances of 'kai' in Revelation
20:4 (among other things) determines what one's
eschatology might be. One needs to example all
such incidents in the Scripture and get a set that
hangs together.

This 'and': "And I saw the souls" I believe to be the
'two different sets of events' connector/divider
that shows two differnt events in the one 'first resurrection'.
Two different groups of people raptured/resurrected at
different times in the Tribulation Day.

The other word is 'first' as in 'first resurrection".
I believe the 'first resurrection' is the resurrection
of the just -- i.e. a type of resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:4-5, John Wycliffe Bible (c.1380)

4 And Y say seetis,
and thei saten on hem,
and doom was youun to hem.
And the soulis of men biheedid for the witnessyng of Jhesu,
and for the word of God,
and hem that worschipiden not the beeste, nether the ymage of it,
nethir token the carect of it in her forheedis,
nethir in her hoondis.
And thei lyueden,
and regneden with Crist a thousynde yeeris.

5 Othere of deed men lyueden not, til a thousynde yeeris ben endid.
This is the first ayen risynge.

In verse #6 is the phrase (later 'First Resurreciton'):
'firste ayenrysyng'. I guess 'again rising' ('modern English
'again' comes from middle Enlgish 'ayein'). I don't know enough
middle English to know different than that??? I do know
'resurrection' literally means 'standing again' - and figuratively
means 'living again'.

 

Surely in your view the "DEAD in Christ" in 1thess 4 "are the just" - so you admit that it "THE FIRST resurrection" and even Paul says "they rise FIRST".

I agree.

Surely in your view we see the just raised in Rev 20:4-5 and surely you admit that THIS THE first resurrection.

I agree.

The problem you have is that you want to turn them into TWO DIFFERNT resurrecions -- two different events separated by 7 years (using very quesitonable arguments about slicing up timelines into discontiguous segments -- an argument that does not work with any timeline in all of scripture)

Whereas I want to admit that "THE FIRST resurrection" i distances from the SECOND by exactly 1000 years not 1007 years.

Again - your view seems to be in "another pinch".

in Christ,

Bob

 

In my last 3 posts I basically point out that yours is an uphill battle all the way through scripture trying to turn each text of scripture dealing with this topic away from what it appears to say... why work so hard Ed??

Note your challenges --

-1000 is not actually one thousand
-First is not really the first resurrection event -- but the second first resurrection.
- Contiguous timelines have to be sliced up
- "AFTER the Trib.. he will gather his elect" has to be "reworked" in Matt 24.
- "IF I go go -- I WILL come again" John 14:1-3 -- ONE leaving and ONE return have to be sliced into ONE leaving and MULTIPLE returns.

It is like you took a wrong turn at some early point and then had to swim uphill on every bible text dealing with this sequence ever since.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Slicing is done by the Bible, not me.
Adding is illegal according to Revelation 22:18
(i.e. the Bible). Here is John 14:1-3:

John 14:1-3 (NASB):
Do not let your heart be troubled;
believe in God, believe also in Me.
2 In My Father's house are many dwelling places;
if it were not so, I would have told you;
for I go to prepare a place for you.
3 If I go and prepare a place for you,
I will come again and receive you to Myself,
that where I am, there you may be also.

But a person has to ADD in the 'one and only one's

John 14:1-3 (NASB+ 'one' add-ins):
Do not let your heart be troubled;
believe in God, believe also in Me.
2 In My Father's house are many dwelling places;
if it were not so, I would have told you;
for I go to prepare a place for you.
3 If I go and prepare a place for you,
I will come again ONCE & ONLY ONCE and receive you to Myself,
that where I am, there you may be also.

Again, in my writing FIVE RESURRECTIONS
I show the difference between two resurrections, both
of which are part of what the Bible calls
THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

I have told you of the HOPE THAT IS WITHIN ME:
the hope I'll never Die because of the Wonderful
Plan that God has to 'save all Yisrael.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to quit hoping that
(even though I know I might die someday - it
is all up to God) because of being slapped* around
with a used wet fish entrails*.

*this is a metaphor

 

Just for fun, a few more uses of "dispensation".

I Cor. 9:17 - KJV, WYC.

II Cor. 3:7, 8 - AMP.

Eph. 1:10 - KJV, NKJV, ASV, YLT, KJ21, WYC.

Eph. 3:2 - KJV, NKJV, ASV, YLT, KJ21, WYC.

Eph. 3:9 - ASV, WYC.

Col. 1:25 - KJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, KJ21, WYC.

I Tim. 1:4 - ASV, DARBY.

FTR, "variety unknown" for the KJV cited here, from Bible Gateway.

Gonna' quote Eph. 3:9 here.

The ASV correctly renders "οικονομια" as 'dispensation', here, and not "κοινωνια" as 'fellowship' as in the KJV. The evidence for "oikonomia" is simply too great. The overwhelming number of the MTs here agree with p46, Aleph, A, B, and C so the MT & UBS reading of this is undoubtedly correct.

Aland/Black list all these as supporting "pantas", as well - (A, 1739, & 1881 do not support "pantas"). The above along with G, K, P, Psi, 33, 81, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 629, 630, 1241, 1877, 1962, 1985, 2127, 2492, 1495, and the great majority of Byz (MT) Mss.

It's "and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery..."!

File this one away, folks, as a "red-letter" day. The correct reading is neither that found in W/H, nor the TR, but rather two "critical texts" amassed from many multiple sources, with both coming from opposite ends of the spectrum. You'll seldom see that occur!

Ed

 

Thank you brother Ed! You have added much insight into
the Scripture by your study.

May ALL God's Best Blessings be unto Brother Ed Sutton,
his family, and his ministries. May this be done so that
we might give all the more Honor and Glory unto
our Blessed Lord, Savior, and Redeemer:
Messiah Jesus. Amen!

 

And as I keep asking -- suppose you allow yourself to view my position as the correct one for second - WHERE do you see a "pinch" (the uphill struggle you are faced with ) in my view as confronted by the apparent normal reading of the text of scripture --- the way your view is so constantly being contradicted by the text of scripture?

Where are those points for my view?

You have not listed any - and yet the problem spots for your view are incredibly easy to spot.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Question left as an exercise for the reader in Rev 20: does the Bible say there are 1007 years between the first and second resurrection -- or 1000 years?

 

Stupid Question.
I already said that the First Resurrection lasts for
one day, the 70th week of Daniel, 7 years. It is 1,000 years
from the end of the First kind of Resurrection (the Resurreciton
of the just in Christ) to the start
of the Second kind of Resurrection (resurreciton of the unjust).

Anyway people sell soap that is 99.44% pure
(1,000 years is 99.30% of 1,007 years)

 

The question was not "how long does the first resurrection last".

The question is "how much TIME BETWEEN the event of the first resurrection and the second".

A reading of Rev 20 shows the answer. (leaving that as a simple exercise for the reader for now).

Hint: There is no "first KIND of resurrection" language in all of scripture.

What is interesting is that you are not taking up the challenge to show where I am forced to make all the Bible inserts that you have to do to get your view to work.

So why keep going uphill against the flow of scripture Ed?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Why do you keep damning ME about my use of God's time?
Talk to 'da man' (slang for the Boss, I.E. God).

What does 'and' mean?
Feel free to search the scripture for definitions
or shortcut & check dictionary.com or
/shudder/ look in a dictionary book*

*book - pre-computer data handling (storage &
retrieval) device

And what was the rules the translators of the
KJV (King James Version, first printed in 1611)
use to deside if to use an amperand (&) or to use
the word 'and'? Actually I think the rules have been
lost in the last 397 years, so the question isn't
answerable. I do know by the KJV1769 Edition
that the ampersand (&) wasn't there at all --
just 51,709 uses of 'and' in 23,872 verses.
(The ampersand /&/ is used only about 2% of
the time in the KJV1611 Edition).

Some 2½% of the words in the Bible are 'and'.
Seems we aught to know what it means.
Frankly, except for 'first' (Revelation 20:5) and
'departure' (2 Thessalonians 2:3, also 'falling away'
and 'apostasy') the post-tribulation only rapture
differes from the pre-tribulation rapture/resurrection
by occurances of 'and'.
So we could at least shorten our

discussion
and say things like

Well, I believe that 'and' relates two names for the same thing
WELL, IT SEEMS MORE LIKELEY TO ME THAT
IT IS TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF EVENTS.

 

That is not what I am doing. I never impugne your salvation status simply because you are mistaken on this particular doctrine.

My point is more objective. I am simply observing that you have to resort to some pretty creative gymnastics to get out of the problem each text poses for PTR.

My question is then - why keep fighting the normal reading of the text -- having to work something up each time? Why not simply accept the normal reading of the text?

If your answer is that this places your doctrine with even MORE difficulties from scripture - then SHOW me where that is!

in Christ,

Bob