The Rapture

Denadii · Jul 2, 2017

It could be fallen angels because the bible does call them stars so I don't have a problem with that. But the bible goes another step further and links the stars to the fig tree... I could be wrong but I think that means the children of Israel... not that they are falling in a bad way, but they are the FRUIT of the fig tree that Christ gathered when he came the first time.

The tree was about to be destroyed so God cast them from the tree and gathered them.

What about the timing of it?

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

Ahwatukee said:

Who wrote the bible, people back then or God? The bible isn't bound by people back thens view, God is the author and God meant what he said when he said stars.

I don't get why you have such a problem with this because you say the sun, moon and stars represent Israel in the description of the woman in Revelation. why are the stars not Israel in this instance?

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

Denadii said:

When did was the fig tree destroyed? When did Israel cast her untimely figs? When did Jesus say no fruit would grow on the fig tree FOREVER? Forever means forever, there is no second go round at the end where the fig tree will produce fruit again.

Limey410v2 · Jul 2, 2017

KJV1611 said:

Do you think it was a fig tree that bore the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? It doesn't tell us in scripture, but Adam and Eve were in shame, naked and grabbed Fig leaves to cover, stands to reason it was a fig tree? I'm not trying to derail this thread

, just curious.

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

Limey410v2 said:

Good question. I don't know but I've always thought the fig tree represented the old testament way... saved by works. Sewing your own fig leaves on would be attempting to cover your own nakedness.

Denadii · Jul 2, 2017

Limey410v2 said:

LOL We're only assuming fig leaves because they're not tiny. They could cover a little bit.

Limey410v2 · Jul 2, 2017

KJV1611 said:

What are you saying about the rapture? You can give me the summary, i don't want to go back on through this thread, call me lazy!!

Gabriel2020 · Jul 2, 2017

No, every tree that was in the Garden are buried deep beneath the bottom of the ocean,except the tree of life ,which is in paradise. The bones of the old world is also buried beneath the ocean where no man can reach.

PlainWord · Jul 2, 2017

Denadii said:

Maybe on some other planet in a different time.

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

Limey410v2 said:

The rapture topic is long gone lol. This thread is all the place as far as end times go. My view is that Jacob had his trouble in AD 70, Daniel 9:27 is Christ and we are waiting on the rapture, second coming and 1000 year reign.

Just jump in and start talking lol.

Limey410v2 · Jul 2, 2017

Denadii said:

Haha, yeah, no assumption though it is in scripture that they were fig leaves.

VCO · Jul 2, 2017

KJV1611 said:

You have got to be kidding me? You NEED to READ the Original Preface of the 1611 KJV, they admitted that they paraphrased lots of it from earlier English Versions. I think you will find you have put the KJV on WAY TOO HIGH OF A PEDISTAL. Here, I have pulled some excerpts out for you:

ORIGINAL 1611 KJV PREFACE

The Translators To The Reader

Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, . . .
. . .
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? . . . so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. . .
. . .
Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. . . . he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jewes his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventie, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace. . . .
. . .
(and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greeke Translations of the old Testament. . . .
. . .
There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, . . . Now the Church of Rome . . . Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. . . .
. . .
And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. . . .
. . .
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. . . .
. . .
to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place. . . .
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. . . .
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { The very same thing many KJO Believers want to do to MODERN Translations. }
For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? . . .
. . .
But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us: But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. . . . { That makes it a PARAPHRASE and not an actual Translation from the original languages. }

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

Limey410v2 · Jul 2, 2017

KJV1611 said:

I would, but I would surely show my ignorance on the topic.

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

VCO said:

You have got to be kidding me? You NEED to READ the Original Preface of the 1611 KJV, they admitted that they paraphrased lots of it from earlier English Versions. I think you will find you have put the KJV on WAY TOO HIGH OF A PEDISTAL. Here, I have pulled some excerpts out for you:

ORIGINAL 1611 KJV PREFACE

The Translators To The Reader

Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, . . .
. . .
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? . . . so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. . .
. . .
Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. . . . he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jewes his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventie, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace. . . .
. . .
(and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greeke Translations of the old Testament. . . .
. . .
There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, . . . Now the Church of Rome . . . Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. . . .
. . .
And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. . . .
. . .
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. . . .
. . .
to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place. . . .
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. . . .
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { The very same thing many KJO Believers want to do to MODERN Translations. }
For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? . . .
. . .
But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us: But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. . . . { That makes it a PARAPHRASE and not an actual Translation from the original languages. }

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? The KJV translators didn't know God inspired them to write what they wrote.

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

Limey410v2 said:

There are many views being discussed, yours is as good as any of ours... we learn when we discuss things. I've completely changed my view of 70 weeks because of the discussion on this thread.

VCO · Jul 2, 2017

Limey410v2 said:

No, you will do fine, if you believe these three verses literally.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Revelation 3:10 (HCSB)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] Because you have kept My command to endure, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is going to come over the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

Matthew 25:13 (ESV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

Denadii · Jul 2, 2017

Gabriel2020 said:

What? Where did you get this?

VCO · Jul 2, 2017

Denadii said:

Here is my guess.

[video=youtube;NzlG28B-R8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y[/video]

Lots of posts here, coming from there.

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

VCO said:

It comes from here:

Genesis 3:7 KJV
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

KJV1611 · Jul 2, 2017

Interesting fact, "fig tree" is found in the KJV exactly 33 times. Jesus died at 33, a third of the stars that fell is 33%.

I like numbers in the bible, they tell a story also.

The Rapture

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned