The 24 elders.

Rev. 1:5-6 ......loved us, and washed us from our sins...hath made us kings and priests unto our God....

Rev. 5:8-9 ...four and twenty elders ....sing a new song......and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation...and has made us kings and priests ...

Then the seals are opened.

The 24 elders are clearly the 'church' (ekklesia).

This is more than enough to convince this old horse of a pre-trib rapture.

lol, I know, I've heard that.
To me they're clearly angels,
not the church

were angels redeemed out of every nation by the blood of the Lamb?

Angels do not wear crows anywhere in the Bible.
The term Elder is always referred to in the Bible as man, not Angel.

You might want to look at 1 Chronicles 24.

That was good but I still got that 'out of every nation' not just Israel stuck in my head.

Maybe it's a new style?

You are quoting from the Bible as written by the later defective church. In the earliest manuscripts it says 'you have redeemed THEM'. The elders are angels who represent the church before God.

I'd like to see those earlier manuscripts. Where do I go? Thanks. That's right, I'm teachable! Smile!

If you can read greek they are available online.

Please supply a list of the "earliest manuscripts". Thanks

Scripture clearly states:

For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

For when they shall say peace and safety; then shall sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 1Thess. 5:2,3

(v.9) For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ. 1Thess.5:9

Since wrath is the tribulation occuring at the beginning of the day of the Lord, the saints of the church will be saved form it at the parousia.

Here is a sample of Papyrus 66 written circa 200 AD showing the account of the woman caught in adultery was missing.



Are you sure you want a list? Can you read even this?

Can you read it? If not then you would just have to trust someone that it says what it says. Right?

That's the case with all translations and lexicons, you have to trust what you are told each word means. I can read some of it but what does that prove? Manuscript scholars have debated for years which fragments and early manuscripts should be included and there are good men on both sides.
The outcome makes only minor differences in the text, where instead, close examination of the context usually is the best approach.

Here is something interesting the Lord showed me years ago with the number 24 in the book of Numbers chapter 31.

The Lord told Moses in Numbers 31:1-5"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war."

And then the Lord said here after the war...

Numbers 31:28
"And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:"

If you divide 12,000 by 500=24

There's a lot of cool stuff in Numbers.

So for Valiant to say:

Probably doesn't carry a lot of weight, and this coming from a person that skipped out on a dicussion on Daniel 9:25-27.

I would agree. One side has the 'oldest' and the other side has the 'majority' of manuscripts. Both schools have their reasons why their case is the best. I only shrug, but it is a tactic some use to try and win a point