The Town Hall Archives

Ferder- · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 9:59 am Post subject:

I'm trying to be optimistic by saying that he's not going to come for another few 1000 years. Not that the return of Jesus would be bad, its just all that end times and ani-christ freeks me out.

-Mellow boy · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 10:28 am Post subject:

what freeks me out is reading Revelations. Monsters and Dragons and wars, Oh My! Shock

Jared · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 3:30 pm Post subject:

No man knows the day or the hour and I won't even TRY to be adamant on a date. I would GUESS, however, that we're not as close as some think. I disagree with Hawkeye in his assessment that it will be quite soon, as I think things will get much worse before the time comes. It will be, according to the Bible, as it was in the days of Noah. And I don't see it as quite that bad yet.

A wild guess that means nothing: somewhere around 3500 AD. Working against it is that it seems that this world can get as evil as it was in Noah's time a lot quicker than that, but then again, there's nothing to say that there won't be some more major revivals. I'm sure that a lot of other times in history, people were convinced that the return of the Lord must be drawing near because of the world's wickedness.

For it? Well, just a wacky and speculative theory of mine. Most Jewish and Christian historians place the world's start at about 5,500 years ago, putting the time of Christ at approximately 3,500 years after the foundation of the earth. In prophesy, three and one halves and sevens are important numbers. If Christ's birth or death (either could be considered the fulcrum in time) WERE 3,500 years after creation, then, theoretically, perhaps that was a halfway point and the end comes 3,500 years later?

If that's the case, it's hard to assign an exact date even then. Christ could have been born anywhere from 6 B.C. to 3 A.D., according to most scholars, placing his death somewhere between 27 and and 36 A.D. So, even if this probably wrong theory WERE true, the end of the second 3,500 years still could be any one of eighteen different years. Furthermore, there could be debate about whether the seven years of tribulation is outside of or included in that final 3,500 years. I would venture to say included, as the tribulation is one of - a skipped one of, actually - Daniel's seventy weeks.

So, there's my theory. Somewhere in the span of 3494-3503 or 3527-3536 A.D. But I would say that I am most likely 100% incorrect.

It will probably be a lot sooner than that.

I strongly disagree with Samwise's view of the events of Revelation, though. Pre-, mid- and post-tribbers all disagree strongly on when the church is raptured, but with some cause: the verses in question ARE hard to understand and its easy to see how people could come to differing conclusions. But, and I know that by saying this, I'm going to create huge argument, I find the post-mil view extremely unbiblical.

It takes a knife to the passages about the rapture, scratches out the references to the time being worse than the days of Noah, throws out half the book of Revelation by denying the existence of the tribulation, also cutting out pages from Ezekiel, Daniel and other books referencing the great tribulation or "time of Jacob's trouble", ignore any mention of the battle of Armageddon... in short, ignore everything about the end times except the glorious appearance and thousand year reign. The post-mil view throws out a TON of scripture.

skygazing · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 6:23 pm Post subject:

I'm not gonna really say anything either way about this subject now, except one thing my youth pastor told me a few months ago. (paraphrased) It's not a matter of salvation. If the pre-mil people and living-in-end-times ppl are right, we'll be raptured because we're Christians. If the rapture doesn't happen now or at all, we'll die and go to heaven because we're Christians.