Which Delivered Us from the Wrath to Come. (1Th 1:10)

[TheDivineWatermark]

[...] except for the argument that the apostasy is the rapture, which does not fit the context of that passage, and is contrary to the way Paul uses it elsewhere.

Sure it does. (And, no, it is NOT "contrary" to how Paul used it elsewhere.)

The word simply (at its most basic meaning) MEANS "departure".

So here's how Acts 21:21 reads (the ONLY other reference to it, that PAUL gives--and it is NOT "contrary" to how he uses it here), note, in the blb:

"Now they have been informed about you, that you teach all Jews among the Gentiles apostasy [(noun) a departure] from Moses, telling them not to circumcise the children nor to walk in the customs."

[note: "to forsake" (kjv) is a VERB... but the word ^ here is NOT a "verb," it's a noun]


Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1871) : "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [and then under THAT, says] "apostasis - [apo *stasis] - a standing away from [a previous standing], or a DEPARTURE"


[*see the word "stasis/stasin" in Hebrews 9:8-9a (the word is used 9x total--check them ALL out and COMPARE with how it is used in THIS verse, Heb9:8-9a!) SEE LISTING of occurrences on right side of page, here, thus HOW it is USED: https://biblehub.com/greek/4714.htm ]


note: 2Th2:3 has the definite article with it

 

[cv5]

Sure it does. (And, no, it is NOT "contrary" to how Paul used it elsewhere.)

The word simply (at its most basic meaning) MEANS "departure".

So here's how Acts 21:21 reads (the ONLY other reference to it, that PAUL gives--and it is NOT "contrary" to how he uses it here), note, in the blb:

"Now they have been informed about you, that you teach all Jews among the Gentiles apostasy [(noun) a departure] from Moses, telling them not to circumcise the children nor to walk in the customs."

[note: "to forsake" (kjv) is a VERB... but the word ^ here is NOT a "verb," it's a noun]


Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1871) : "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [and then under THAT, says] "apostasis - [apo *stasis] - a standing away from [a previous standing], or a DEPARTURE"


[*see the word "stasis/stasin" in Hebrews 9:8-9a (the word is used 9x total--check them ALL out and COMPARE with how it is used in THIS verse, Heb9:8-9a!) SEE LISTING of occurrences on right side of page, here, thus HOW it is USED: https://biblehub.com/greek/4714.htm ]


note: 2Th2:3 has the definite article with it

Totally agree. The term departure fits the context perfectly. Apostasy makes little sense.
Several old translations correctly use the term departure.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

In Matthew 24 no one is being gathered at all under any circumstances until the second return of Christ, which occurs after the great tribulation. There's no hint that anyone will get scooped up and spared from [...]

That is because everything in Matthew 24 (and 25) is speaking of things which take place FOLLOWING "our Rapture" / IN and DURING the trib years; i.e. that which leads UP TO His Second Coming to the earth, FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom which will commence upon His "RETURN" there (that is, to the earth).

The Subject Jesus is covering in that chpt (those chpts) is NOT "our Rapture" (which was disclosed and explained elsewhere, NOT in the Olivet Discourse).

"the beginning of birth PANGS" (Matt24:4-8 and its parallels) are equivalent to the SEALS of Rev6, and SEAL #1 (Rev6:2) is opened when Jesus will "STAND to JUDGE" (Isa3:13, Rev5:6, etc), where in that passage (chpts 4-5), the "24 elders" are shown to be saying, "hast redeemed US" (5:9) and are wearing "stephanos/crowns" which Paul said he would be "awarded IN THAT DAY" (not the day of his DEATH) and "not to me only," he said...as well as the scene showing that this [scene] takes place AFTER a "searching judgment" has taken place, as indicated by the wording "WAS FOUND" (5:4), which phrase is also used regarding Paul in his "trials / arrest" (in the latter parts of Acts) and his standing before their [human/earthly] "BEMA seat".

This is in addition to Paul having said that "the DOTL [earthly time period OF JUDGMENTS] will ARRIVE" like the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" which comes UPON a woman with child/in labor (this is not the SOLE "birth PANG [SINGULAR]," but it is the FIRST of MANY MORE that will follow on from that first one, JUST AS JESUS HAD SAID). But in 2Th2, Paul is saying that BEFORE "the DOTL" can be present to unfold upon the earth (with its JUDGMENTS unfolding, including the ARRIVAL of the "man of sin" and ALL he will DO), that ONE THING must take place *FIRST* (before the DOTL [with its "man of sin" and "JUDGMENTS"] can "BE PRESENT" to unfold upon the earth), "THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*"... and the definite article here points back to a DEFINITE event previously mentioned in the context. Verse 1's noun-event! Paul is telling the SEQUENCE here, and which agrees with the SAME SEQUENCE already spoken of in 1Th4-5.


[Matt24:29-31 = Isa27:12-13]

 

[garee]

Age of a doctrine (young or old) doesn't determine it's truthfulness, rather Scripture does.

Amen The wrath we are delivered from is Death. According to the letter of the law it provides a living hell, men dying suffering. Death and the sufferings it brought hell for a remnant of time .Those who have Christ have a rest in the sufferings of corruption .

On the last day death as to the letter of the law it will be cast into the final judgment along with its hell. It will never rise again and corrupt a whole creation.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Death and the sufferings associated with it are cast . Not dead mans spiritless, lifeless, bones. It returns to the field of clay from where beast are formed from

Death is cast having finished its work.

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

[presidente]

The rapture and doctrine of imminency go together. Imminency does not work with the tribulation.

Rev 3:3
But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

How about just sticking with direct teaching of scripture over inferred doctrines that require a bit of human reasoning. Is this type of argument you are making any less convoluted than cessationist arguments?

In Matthew 24, the gathering together of the elect takes place _after_ the tribulation. But before that, the love of many shall wax cold.

Compare that to II Thessalonians 2, where Paul writes of the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto Him and not to be troubled as if the day of the Lord had already happened. He says that that day shall not take place lest there be a falling away first (compare to love of many waxing cold). Also notice what Matthew 24 says about the sign of the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering together of the elect. Why wouldn't the gathering in Paul's writing be the same as in Matthew 24? Why wouldn't the love of many waxing cold be the same as the departing from the faith?

And why isn't there any hint in any narrative passage, even in the apocalyptic passages, of the rapture actually taking place according to a pre-trib scenario? There is no scene in Revelation where the church gets raptured up into heaven. Some pre-tribbers go allegorical asserting that John being told 'come up hither' symbolizes the rapture.

I see no reason to think that references to the parousia of Christ refer to multiple events, or that it starts in one year and takes seven years for Jesus to get all the way here. I just do not see it in the Bible. I find the loose, out of context arguments about wrath to be uncompelling considering the more direct evidence. Also, the imminence argument you are making is loose and requires a lot of steps of human reasoning. I'd rather go with direct readings of passages without having to read stuff into it to make pre-trib feasible.

 

[presidente]

Sure it does. (And, no, it is NOT "contrary" to how Paul used it elsewhere.)

The word simply (at its most basic meaning) MEANS "departure".

So here's how Acts 21:21 reads (the ONLY other reference to it, that PAUL gives--and it is NOT "contrary" to how he uses it here), note, in the blb:

"Now they have been informed about you, that you teach all Jews among the Gentiles apostasy [(noun) a departure] from Moses, telling them not to circumcise the children nor to walk in the customs."

[note: "to forsake" (kjv) is a VERB... but the word ^ here is NOT a "verb," it's a noun]


Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1871) : "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [and then under THAT, says] "apostasis - [apo *stasis] - a standing away from [a previous standing], or a DEPARTURE"


[*see the word "stasis/stasin" in Hebrews 9:8-9a (the word is used 9x total--check them ALL out and COMPARE with how it is used in THIS verse, Heb9:8-9a!) SEE LISTING of occurrences on right side of page, here, thus HOW it is USED: https://biblehub.com/greek/4714.htm ]


note: 2Th2:3 has the definite article with it

Departure from Moses would mean a doctrinal departure. Paul wrote to Timothy that in the last days many would depart from the faith. Jesus said the love of many would wax cold.

 

[presidente]

Sure it does. (And, no, it is NOT "contrary" to how Paul used it elsewhere.)

The word simply (at its most basic meaning) MEANS "departure".

So here's how Acts 21:21 reads (the ONLY other reference to it, that PAUL gives--and it is NOT "contrary" to how he uses it here), note, in the blb:

"Now they have been informed about you, that you teach all Jews among the Gentiles apostasy [(noun) a departure] from Moses, telling them not to circumcise the children nor to walk in the customs."

[note: "to forsake" (kjv) is a VERB... but the word ^ here is NOT a "verb," it's a noun]


Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1871) : "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [and then under THAT, says] "apostasis - [apo *stasis] - a standing away from [a previous standing], or a DEPARTURE"


[*see the word "stasis/stasin" in Hebrews 9:8-9a (the word is used 9x total--check them ALL out and COMPARE with how it is used in THIS verse, Heb9:8-9a!) SEE LISTING of occurrences on right side of page, here, thus HOW it is USED: https://biblehub.com/greek/4714.htm ]


note: 2Th2:3 has the definite article with it

Departure from Moses would mean a doctrinal departure. Paul wrote to Timothy that in the last days many would depart from the faith. Jesus said the love of many would wax cold. i recall doing a word study, and that was how Paul taught it. We know he had an end times teaching about a 'departure' that had to do with departing from the faith.

It is not really reasonable for Paul to say that the Lord wasn't going to return and gather saints before he raptured the saints. I see no reason why 'the day of the Lord' in II Thessalonians 2 isn't talking about that and all the events of II Thessalonians 1.

And in II Thessalonians 1, the church is here when Jesus returns, gives the church rest and executes vengence on them that believe not. Paul doesn't say anything about Jesus returning to give the church rest and going back up, then coming back and executing judgment on them that believe not. Paul refers to the parousia at the resurrection/rapture event in I Thessalonians 4, the famous rapture passage. In II Thessalonians 2, in his discussion of the man of sin, the wicked is destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming/parousia. Why shouldn't I consider this to be the same event described in I Thessalonians 4 when the rapture/resurrection takes place?

I prefer to reason from the clearer didactic passages rather than starting with the allegorical passages. Revelation, apocalyptic literature, doesn't even show the church being raptured before the tribulation. John is told to 'Come up hither' near the starts of the vision, and allegoricalizing that is a pretty flimsy basis for arguing that Jesus comes back multiple times. The 'not appointed unto wrath' argument, which takes the verse out of context, and leaves us with the problem of the tribulational saints being somehow 'appointed unto wrath' just by virtue of bein on the earth... is all loose reasoning. There is direct scripture on this topic. Why build an eschatology on loose human reasoning when there is direct scripture on the topic?

 

[cv5]

How about just sticking with direct teaching of scripture over inferred doctrines that require a bit of human reasoning. Is this type of argument you are making any less convoluted than cessationist arguments?

In Matthew 24, the gathering together of the elect takes place _after_ the tribulation. But before that, the love of many shall wax cold.

Compare that to II Thessalonians 2, where Paul writes of the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto Him and not to be troubled as if the day of the Lord had already happened. He says that that day shall not take place lest there be a falling away first (compare to love of many waxing cold). Also notice what Matthew 24 says about the sign of the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering together of the elect. Why wouldn't the gathering in Paul's writing be the same as in Matthew 24? Why wouldn't the love of many waxing cold be the same as the departing from the faith?

And why isn't there any hint in any narrative passage, even in the apocalyptic passages, of the rapture actually taking place according to a pre-trib scenario? There is no scene in Revelation where the church gets raptured up into heaven. Some pre-tribbers go allegorical asserting that John being told 'come up hither' symbolizes the rapture.

I see no reason to think that references to the parousia of Christ refer to multiple events, or that it starts in one year and takes seven years for Jesus to get all the way here. I just do not see it in the Bible. I find the loose, out of context arguments about wrath to be uncompelling considering the more direct evidence. Also, the imminence argument you are making is loose and requires a lot of steps of human reasoning. I'd rather go with direct readings of passages without having to read stuff into it to make pre-trib feasible.

Sorry man watch the full length Chuck Missler videos first and get back to me. You do not know enough to get started in a debate.

 

[presidente]

Sorry man watch the full length Chuck Missler videos first and get back to me. You do not know enough to get started in a debate.

Sorry, the superior appeal to superior knowledge trick doesn't work for me. If I were debating a thread on the details of Chuck Missler, I'd proably have to do some more. I just know I heard an end-times video and he did the same begging-the-question I've heard in sermon after sermon, reading pre-trib into passages where it doesn't make sense, except maybe he did that apostacy=raptures thing.

Why don't you answer the problem of the church being here and receiving rest when Jesus comes and executes wrath on the unbelieving I raised in my previous post in this thread?

 

[cv5]

Sorry, the superior appeal to superior knowledge trick doesn't work for me. If I were debating a thread on the details of Chuck Missler, I'd proably have to do some more. I just know I heard an end-times video and he did the same begging-the-question I've heard in sermon after sermon, reading pre-trib into passages where it doesn't make sense, except maybe he did that apostacy=raptures thing.

Why don't you answer the problem of the church being here and receiving rest when Jesus comes and executes wrath on the unbelieving I raised in my previous post in this thread?

That's not my point or intention. Please watch the videos believe me it will be worth it. Just take it at face value there is good information there. I am not extolling chuck Missler, but his analysis is extremely close to being correct. A pre-trib rapture is boilerplate doctrine IMO.

 

[presidente]

That's not my point or intention. Please watch the videos believe me it will be worth it. Just take it at face value there is good information there. I am not extolling chuck Missler, but his analysis is extremely close to being correct. A pre-trib rapture is boilerplate doctrine IMO.

The boilerplate stuff comes in with so many people reading this (recent) doctrine into passages without justification, in my experience.

I have seen some really boiler plate TV shows on pre-trib. The Laland (sp?) brothers, Peter and Paul, used to have a show where they'd pick some piece of technology-- the new microchip-- or something else in the news and explain how this could be the technology for the mark of the beast. But the second half of the show was pretty much the same, explaining a pre-trib rapture scenario and 7 years of tribulation.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Departure from Moses would mean a doctrinal departure.

And you know that BECAUSE of the ADDITIONAL words in the immediate context ("FROM MOSES"), i.e. CONTEXTUAL CLUES telling you "WHAT KIND" of "departure" is meant, here.

The phrase "FROM MOSES" is not inherent in the word itself, see.

Paul wrote to Timothy that in the last days many would depart from the faith. Jesus said the love of many would wax cold.

And you know this BECAUSE of the ADDITIONAL words in the immediate context ("FROM THE FAITH"), i.e. CONTEXTUAL CLUES informing of just "WHAT KIND" of "depart" is meant, here.

The phrase "FROM THE FAITH" is NOT inherent in the meaning of the word itself, see. It MUST be ADDED for you to know just "WHAT KIND" of "depart" is meant, in this text.

Because, this same word ("depart [G868]" in 1Tim4:1) is used in a DIFFERENT CONTEXT to be saying this: "And having passed through a first and a second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city, which opened to them by itself. And having gone out, they went on through one street, and immediately the angel departed [G868] from him." And surely you do not believe this "angel" is being shown as "depart[-ing] FROM THE FAITH," right?

No, this word (in THIS particular ^ context) is speaking of a "geographical/spatial" departure... which is one of its many applications/usages... the CONTEXT tells you "WHAT KIND" is meant. (Same as what I've been saying about the other context under discussion.)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Why don't you answer the problem of the church being here and receiving rest when Jesus comes and executes wrath on the unbelieving I raised in my previous post in this thread?

The word "RECEIVING" is not in this text (2Th1:7); the text is stating, "ye who are troubled rest/repose with us IN THE REVELATION of the Lord Jesus from heaven..."

[the text goes on to tell of a "SPANS of time" wherein MUCH will transpire WITHIN it, not merely a "point in time" alone]

 

[cv5]

And you know that BECAUSE of the ADDITIONAL words in the immediate context ("FROM MOSES"), i.e. CONTEXTUAL CLUES telling you "WHAT KIND" of "departure" is meant, here.

The phrase "FROM MOSES" is not inherent in the word itself, see.




And you know this BECAUSE of the ADDITIONAL words in the immediate context ("FROM THE FAITH"), i.e. CONTEXTUAL CLUES informing of just "WHAT KIND" of "depart" is meant, here.

The phrase "FROM THE FAITH" is NOT inherent in the meaning of the word itself, see. It MUST be ADDED for you to know just "WHAT KIND" of "depart" is meant, in this text.

Because, this same word ("depart [G868]" in 1Tim4:1) is used in a DIFFERENT CONTEXT to be saying this: "And having passed through a first and a second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city, which opened to them by itself. And having gone out, they went on through one street, and immediately the angel departed [G868] from him." And surely you do not believe this "angel" is being shown as "depart[-ing] FROM THE FAITH," right?

No, this word (in THIS particular ^ context) is speaking of a "geographical/spatial" departure... which is one of its many applications/usages... the CONTEXT tells you "WHAT KIND" is meant. (Same as what I've been saying about the other context under discussion.)

Agree with your analysis. I cannot comprehend why people disagree with something so obvious.

 

[cv5]

Departure from Moses would mean a doctrinal departure. Paul wrote to Timothy that in the last days many would depart from the faith. Jesus said the love of many would wax cold.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Simply read the text and agree with it, the meaning is perfectly clear.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And in II Thessalonians 1, the church is here when Jesus returns, gives the church rest and executes vengence on them that believe not. Paul doesn't say anything about Jesus returning to give the church rest and going back up, then coming back and executing judgment on them that believe not. Paul refers to the parousia at the resurrection/rapture event in I Thessalonians 4, the famous rapture passage. In II Thessalonians 2, in his discussion of the man of sin, the wicked is destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming/parousia. Why shouldn't I consider this to be the same event described in I Thessalonians 4 when the rapture/resurrection takes place?

"Parousia" carries with it the idea of "presence," right?

At the time of "our Rapture," His "presence" is IN THE AIR, when we are "CAUGHT UP/AWAY" to the meeting of the Lord "IN THE AIR" at "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" (speaking ONLY of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [those saved "in this present age [singular]"--See Eph1:20-23 WHEN (as to its existence)]... and what follows that point in time is the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3 (Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE' ['a certain one' bringing deception; i.e. SEAL #1 at the START of the trib]'"--but it doesn't END with this INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]"... that is NOT how "birth PANGS" WORK! And Jesus said there would be MANY MORE that FOLLOW ON from that FIRST ONE [i.e. PLURALS])

At the time of His Second Coming to the earth (Rev19; Matt24:29-31/Isa27:12-13), He will be in the "presence" of ALL people (EVERY "eye" shall see Him... believers, unbelievers alike... because THAT will be His "RETURN" to the earth, which Acts 1 was saying, "He shall SO COME *IN LIKE MANNER* as ye have SEEN Him [traveling] INTO Heaven," which VISIBLE ascension was the second time He went up to Heaven [this one being some "40 days" AFTER His FIRST "[ACTIVE] I ASCEND" (John 20:17) which He did ON "FIRSTFRUIT [/His Resurrection Day]" thus fulfilling Lev23:10-12])



So the word "parousia" is used in BOTH instances... but the context tells us IN WHOSE PRESENCE He will be (who will be in HIS "presence"); and WHERE it will be LOCATED.

The phrase "the DOTL" ALWAYS takes place "on the earth," is NOT "a singular 24-hr day," involves and includes "JUDGMENTS unfolding upon the earth"... etc (and is distinct from the phrase "the Day of Christ / our Lord Jesus Christ" etc [when WE will be UP THERE *WITH [G4862] Him"]... which is not the phrase that the text in 2Th2:2 says [it says "[purporting that] the Day OF THE LORD *is present [perfect indicative]*"]). Paul is telling of the SEQUENCE (WHAT must happen WHEN in relation [time-wise] to what OTHER THINGS, and more pointedly, in relation to THAT specific "time period").

 

[cv5]

"Parousia" carries with it the idea of "presence," right?

At the time of "our Rapture," His "presence" is IN THE AIR, when we are "CAUGHT UP/AWAY" to the meeting of the Lord "IN THE AIR" at "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" (speaking ONLY of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [those saved "in this present age [singular]"--See Eph1:20-23 WHEN (as to its existence)]... and what follows that point in time is the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3 (Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE' ['a certain one' bringing deception; i.e. SEAL #1 at the START of the trib]'"--but it doesn't END with this INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]"... that is NOT how "birth PANGS" WORK! And Jesus said there would be MANY MORE that FOLLOW ON from that FIRST ONE [i.e. PLURALS])

At the time of His Second Coming to the earth (Rev19; Matt24:29-31/Isa27:12-13), He will be in the "presence" of ALL people (EVERY "eye" shall see Him... believers, unbelievers alike... because THAT will be His "RETURN" to the earth, which Acts 1 was saying, "He shall SO COME *IN LIKE MANNER* as ye have SEEN Him [traveling] INTO Heaven," which VISIBLE ascension was the second time He went up to Heaven [this one being some "40 days" AFTER His FIRST "[ACTIVE] I ASCEND" (John 20:17) which He did ON "FIRSTFRUIT [/His Resurrection Day]" thus fulfilling Lev23:10-12])



So the word "parousia" is used in BOTH instances... but the context tells us IN WHOSE PRESENCE He will be (who will be in HIS "presence"); and WHERE it will be LOCATED.

The phrase "the DOTL" ALWAYS takes place "on the earth," is NOT "a singular 24-hr day," involves and includes "JUDGMENTS unfolding upon the earth"... etc (and is distinct from the phrase "the Day of Christ / our Lord Jesus Christ" etc [when WE will be UP THERE *WITH [G4862] Him"]... which is not the phrase that the text in 2Th2:2 says [it says "[purporting that] the Day OF THE LORD *is present [perfect indicative]*"]). Paul is telling of the SEQUENCE (WHAT must happen WHEN in relation [time-wise] to what OTHER THINGS, and more pointedly, in relation to THAT specific "time period").

Truly that is some magnificent exegesis.

 

[crossnote]

Amen The wrath we are delivered from is Death.

Are you sure?
That doesn't exactly fit the context...

Revelation 6:12-17 (KJV) And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

 

[garee]

Are you sure?
That doesn't exactly fit the context...

Revelation 6:12-17 (KJV) And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

The great day, the last day, the day of the lord. It would surely seem that way

One event .Its the last day the end of time .The Sun and moon under .Never to rise as time keepers again forevermore.

 

[cv5]

The boilerplate stuff comes in with so many people reading this (recent) doctrine into passages without justification, in my experience.

I have seen some really boiler plate TV shows on pre-trib. The Laland (sp?) brothers, Peter and Paul, used to have a show where they'd pick some piece of technology-- the new microchip-- or something else in the news and explain how this could be the technology for the mark of the beast. But the second half of the show was pretty much the same, explaining a pre-trib rapture scenario and 7 years of tribulation.

Hope this helps...

https://www.gracelifebiblechurch.com/PastorsPen/DOTL/DOTL Lesson 5.pdf