Rapture = Second Coming?

Blazer,

Sorry, do not have the RSV on disk, and seldom look up alt trans in paper, takes too much time. Sorry for suggesting that you deliberately mishandled the text. Thank you for your thoroughness in checking other sources re the interp of Gal 6:16. Have been very busy the last few days and not much time to keep up.

It is quite reasonable to translate the Greek as does the AV and the NAS. The NAS is generally known to follow the Greek quite closely, even to the point of awkwardness, in the interest of an accurate rendering of the text. I would suggest that many who come up with a variation MAY have been influenced by preconceptions.

Of course all of us must deal with preconceptions whenever we come to the Word. We all have preconceptions. It is impossible to approach Scripture without some, but we must seek to prevent these from coloring our interpretation of the text.

You suggest that I have allowed my preconceptions to color my interpretation, I suggest that yours do the same. Which ultimately leads us back to the text, and parallel and other related passages. We must examine them all closely.

No time for now. See you Monday! (Deo volente!)

 

Blazer,

Did mean to note that there were no believers prior to the cross who were saved on the basis of faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The church had not yet formed and the Holy Spirit had not yet come to indwell all believers and seal them. Sooooo, the fact that believers are called "elect" after the cross does not mean the term was used that way prior to the cross. It WAS NOT.

Here is the challenge, you cannot show me any passage prior to cross using the term "elect" to apply to any but the Jews, the Israelites according to the flesh!!!

I argue that all uses of the term in the Gospels must be understood in the pre-cross sense (for pre-cross sense, see Isa 42:1; 45:4; 65:9,22). Especially when you compare the “gathering” of the elect in the OD with the “gathering” of the Jews foretold in Deut 30.

Have noticed that no one has given much of a response to Deut 30, or was that on the land thread?

 

hhmmm! Sounds like a few blue trees may be wilting a bit.

Will see how directly the big guys are dealt with!

C.H. Spurgeon is reported to have said that "every minister ought to read Matthew Henry entirely and carefully through once at least." For 250 years, Matthew Henry's Commentary was the most widely used of all Bible Commentaries - LONG before Darby and Scofield came along.

That is precisely why I chose Matt Henry for the Commentator. It was standard pre-Darby thought that had prevailed for nearly 1,750 years. Now that should tell you something about the false prophets of Matthew 24:11 showing up at the end along with C.T. Russell, Miller, M.B.Eddy and Joe Smith! They sprung up like chaff along on the east coast and all within about 40-70 years of each other!

Galatians 6:16 speaks for itself. You can't find a reputable scholarly work anywhere that is pre-Darby that even remotely comprehended the idea that the church was separate and distinct from the Israel of God in this verse.

1) The challenge is to prove that to me first.

2) The second challenge is to come up a more reasonable interpretation of this verse if mine doesn't make sense - but I have the feeling that there won't be much to poke holes at because I see termites chewing away at those blue trees in the Darby-Scofield National Forest.

Why do I keep at this? It has to do with a girl named Nancy, I'll leave the story for later.

For now..."Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents." Hebrews 13:8-9

 

rjprince,

Oh, come now, RJ, surely you don't believe this?

TRINITY......is the word in the OT or NT?..Nooooooo!
CHRIST.......Is the word in the OT?.......Noooooooo!
HOLY SPIRIT..Are the words in the OT?......YYYes!!

Now would you like to try and tell me that because the word 'TRINITY' does not exist in the Bible - it didn't exist in the OT?

The word CHRIST is not found in the OT either but do you deny that Isaiah does not believe that:

I should hope not!

Now about the HOLY SPIRIT. You make this statement:

Now, for the sake of argument, I am going to assume that you do believe that the Holy Spirit existed in the OT (but again not in it's fullness) because in Psalms 51:11 we read

Soooooooo, just as the NT uses new "terms" to indicate that a fullness of that word has been revealed concerning it's OT form...IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS NEVER THERE ALL ALONG!

The NT "term" for the ELECT* means "CHOSEN ONES."** O offspring of Abraham his servant, son(s) of Jacob, his CHOSEN ones!


Now about this first statement:

For starters, out of the OT, we read: "Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!"***
Again, "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Now, if you will take note in the last verse of Dan 12:2, there is no use of the word "resurrection." But, the conclusion is inescapable! And it also goes back to my primary point in Gal 6:16 - that just because a word is not used as extensively or in the same form does not mean that the remnant of the faithful elect was not always there!This was due primarily because the time for it's fullness had not been revealed by God.

 

rjprince,
Looks like maybe, scripture has silenced yet another one??