Kept according to Rev 3:10

[frankDH]

I have attempted to study the meaning of this verse using every avenue of investigation I could conceive of. The following research provides the results of this study.

Context,
Throughout the passage addressing the church of Philadelphia, the word kept/keep appears3 times [once in Rev 3:8 and twice in Rev 3:10]. Kept, as used in rev 3:8, is linked to possessing strength in the Lord and not denying His name. The thought here is that through faithful observation of biblical instruction one will have strength in the Lord and not deny Christ’s name.

We find a similar example of remaining faithful to God’s Word, in Rev 3:10, by having “kept the word of my patience”. Again, the connotation is a patient observation of God’s instruction leading to endurance [strength unto fidelity] in His word.

In the greater context of the full counsel of God we find the reward from God is reciprocal in nature.

Luk 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luk 12:9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

And we find in Rev 3:10 this reciprocation on the part of God is maintained, in that those who have watched in their walk will be watch over as they walk.

This reciprocal reaction of God is further confirmed in His promise “ and I will write upon him my new name. “ for those who overcome [keep the word of His patience], in Rev 3:12.


Definition,


G5083
τηρέω
tēreō
tay-reh'-o
From τηρός teros (a watch; perhaps akin to G2334); to guard (from loss or injury, properly by keeping the eye upon; and thus differing from G5442, which is properly to prevent escaping; and from G2892, which implies a fortress or full military lines of apparatus), that is, to note (a prophecy; figuratively to fulfil a command); by implication to detain (in custody; figuratively to maintain); by extension to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively to keep unmarried): - hold fast, keep (-er), (ob-, pre-, re) serve, watch.

G5083
τηρέω
tēreō
Thayer Definition:
1) to attend to carefully, take care of
1a) to guard
1b) metaphorically to keep, one in the state in which he is
1c) to observe
1d) to reserve: to undergo something
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from teros (a watch, perhaps akin to G2334)
Citing in TDNT: 8:140, 1174

The definition of tereo [Strong’s G5083] indicates a guarding or preservation of the believer. I am particularly stuck by Strong’s explanation “by extension to withhold (for personal ends; figuratively to keep unmarried): “. This is in keeping with the notion of remaining chaste until united with the one to whom we have been espoused. [2Cor 11:2]

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Or as Thayer’s states this, “to keep, one in the state in which he is”. In other words, the definition suggests that we are kept by God’s maintaining our faith as we face the temptations of life. [See notes on prior usage - Jn 17:15].


Tense, voice and mood of the verbs

The following information was taken from the Blue Letter Bible site
[ http://www.blueletterbible.org/ ]

Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept [aorist, active, indicative] the word of my patience, I also will keep [future, active, indicative] thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come [present, active, participle] [present, middle or passive deponent, infinitive] upon all the world, to try [aorist, active, infinitive] them that dwell [present, active, participle] upon the earth.


Explanation of verb tense:

Aorist -The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar
action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without
regard for past, present, or future time. There is no
direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is
generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a
number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these
include a view of the action as having begun from a certain
point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point
("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point
("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can
be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these
finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases
they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation,
being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice
of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should
suffice in most cases.


Future - The future tense corresponds to the English future, and
indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event
which has not yet occurred.


Present - The present tense represents a simple statement of fact
or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases
this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English
will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are
termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize
the event described as if the reader were there watching the
event occur. Some English translations render such historical
presents in the English past tense, while others permit the
tense to remain in the present.


Explanation of verb voice:

Active - The active voice represents the subject as the doer or
performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "The
boy hit the ball," the boy performs the action.


Middle or passive deponent - The middle or passive deponent forms in almost all cases are
translated as being in the active voice.



Explanation of verb mood:

Indicative - The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an
action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be
rendered in the indicative mood.


Participle - The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the
English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed
to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either
like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed
a "verbal noun."


Infinitive - The Greek infinitive mood in most cases corresponds to the
English infinitive, which is basically the verb with "to"
prefixed, as "to believe."

Like the English infinitive, the Greek infinitive can be used
like a noun phrase ("It is better to live than to die"), as
well as to reflect purpose or result ("This was done to
fulfil what the prophet said").

Note that the “hour of temptation” that shall come ids expressed in the present tense, while the keeping will continue due to future tense. This indicates there is no difference between the keeping during this test of temptation, in the future, and the way we are kept in the present. [See notes on prior usage -Jn 17:15]


Prior usage of the union of tereo [keep] and ek [from]

Joh 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Jn 17:15 is the only place in the New Testament where tereo and ek are combined in the same manner as Rev 3:10. Prior usage of this combination would suggest that there is a figurative spatial difference between our physical presence in temptation and our spiritual position in Christ.

Greek grammar

VINE’S WORD STUDY
A1. Keep, Keeping (Noun) [Verb]
tereo denotes
(a) "to watch over, preserve, keep, watch," e.g., Acts_12:5,6; Acts_16:23; in Acts_25:21, RV (1st part), "kept" (AV, "reserved"); the present participle is translated "keepers" in Matt_28:4, lit. "the keeping (ones);" it is used of the "keeping" power of God the Father and Christ, exercised over His people, John_17:11,12,15; 1_Thess_5:23, "preserved;" 1_John_5:18, where "He that was begotten of God," RV, is said of Christ as the Keeper ("keepeth him," RV, for AV, "keepeth himself"); Jude_1:1, RV, "kept for Jesus Christ" (AV, "preserved in Jesus Christ"); Rev_3:10; of their inheritance, 1_Pet_1:4 ("reserved"); of judicial reservation by God in view of future doom, 2_Pet_2:4,9,17; 2_Pet_3:7; Jude_1:6,13; of "keeping" the faith, 2_Tim_4:7; the unity of the Spirit, Eph_4:3; oneself, 2_Cor_11:9; 1_Tim_5:22; James_1:27; figuratively, one's garments, Rev_16:15;
(b) "to observe, to give heed to," as of keeping commandments, etc., e.g., Matt_19:17; John_14:15; John_15:10; John_17:6; James_2:10; 1_John_2:3,4,5; 1_John_3:22,24; 1_John_5:2 (in some mss.), 1_John_5:3; Rev_1:3; Rev_2:26; Rev_3:8,10; Rev_12:17; Rev_14:12; Rev_22:7,9. See RESERVE.

VINCENT’S WORD STUDY

From the hour (ἐκ)
The preposition implies, not a keeping from temptation, but a keeping in temptation, as the result of which they shall be delivered out of its power. Compare Joh_17:15.

Both of these students of Greek grammar indicate the keeping from temptation is the preservation of the believer while in the presence of temptation as opposed to being removed from the temptation itself.

[CTZonEdit]

The saints must "endure" the temptations and wrath that God will pour out over the entire planet in order to be proven worthy?

[CoreIssue]

Frank, that is true for the word tereo/kept.

But that is not what is applicable in Rev 3:10. Tereo ek is.

It is an adverbial phrase that means protected by removal to keep from entering the situation. It means not there.

Not protected in, during or through. Simply not there.
Strong's Number: 5083threÑwOriginal WordWord Origin threÑw from teros (a watch, perhaps akin to (2334 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=2334)))Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Tereo tay-reh'-o http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=5083g.rm) Parts of SpeechTDNT Verb 8:140,1174 Definition
to attend to carefully, take care of
to guard
metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
to observe
to reserve: to undergo something
Strong's Number: 1537eÍkOriginal WordWord Origin eÍk a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or causeTransliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Ek ek http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=1537gb.rm) http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=1537g.rm) Parts of SpeechTDNT Preposition literal or figurative Definition
out of, from, by, away from
Clearly means not there.

In every NT example the person(s) are kept from the place of issue. Be it a city or country.

In Revelation the place of testing is the whole earth. One cannot be on the earth and be kept from the testing. That is keeping through the testing.

It says all on the earth are tested. Not some.

[CoreIssue]

Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept [aorist, active, indicative] the word of my patience, I also will keep [future, active, indicative] thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come [present, active, participle] [present, middle or passive deponent, infinitive] upon all the world, to try [aorist, active, infinitive] them that dwell [present, active, participle] upon the earth.

Shall come is present tense?? Since when?

10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

All future tense. No present tense.

[frankDH]

Core,

Since the resources I used are generally accepted as authoritative by all camps I didn't think a debate would be merited so I posted this in Bible study. I'll repost it in a debate forum.

[kay-gee]

I'm interested, but I'm not sure I get your point. Can you clarify?.....All the best..............

[frankDH]

I'm interested, but I'm not sure I get your point. Can you clarify?.....All the best..............

Not exactly sure who you are addressing or if it is a particular point or the point of the entire OP you would like clarified. Basically I'm attempting to investigate the meaning of being "kept from" something through as many avenues of sound scriptural study as I can come up with. [context, definition, prior usage, grammar, etc]. I have attempted to use resources that are held as credible by the majority that would come here.

It is as exhaustive a study as I have been able to manage thus far. I believe, as an overall work, the balance of the information gathered would lead to the conclusion that being kept is predominately spiritual in nature. Not require but not prohibiting a physical disconnect between the believer and whatever they are being kept from [in this case, the hour of temptation].

I believe that the study suggests that God keeps one from the hour of temptation by providing strength in faith so as the believer does not fall in his hour of temptation.

I am not suggesting that the believer is being purified in the sense of being cleansed of his sins. That would already have been accomplished on the cross by our Lord. What I am suggesting is that those who received this promise had already attained to patience by suffering tribulation and overcoming it's temptations.

Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

If tribulation worketh patience then those who have sufficient patience no longer need fear tribulation, but rather can rejoice in it.

Jam 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

It isa a part of the perfection process the believer goes through as he matures to godliness through diligence in their walk. That process being as follows.

2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

It is the process whereby the Christian matures into a Christ-like godliness until he can shed the weight of the cares of this world and rejoice in tribulation.

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

As Christ-like beings, we learn to joy in tribulation, which is our cross to bear.

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

For the believer who has developed patience in the Lord, the hour of temptation loses its threat. Only then can the joy that James 1:2 speaks of replace the fear of suffering enabling a witness unto death if so called on by God

Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days; be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Rev 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

[CoreIssue]

What I see as a problem, Frank, is you are trying to use Biblical applications as word meanings and applications.

That will mislead you to wrong conclusions.

The only thing concrete in every application is the dictionary meaning of the phrase. It always mean 'not in the issue.'

To try to extend it to a universal larger meaning is establishing doctrine, not definition.
I believe that the study suggests that God keeps one from the hour of temptation by providing strength in faith so as the believer does not fall in his hour of temptation.
That is a doctrinal conclusion. Not using the literal meaning of the words in context. And is the source of many false doctrines.
I am not suggesting that the believer is being purified in the sense of being cleansed of his sins. That would already have been accomplished on the cross by our Lord. What I am suggesting is that those who received this promise had already attained to patience by suffering tribulation and overcoming it's temptations.

Conclusion and assumption that is not the context of Rev 3:10. Different issue, in other words.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

If tribulation worketh patience then those who have sufficient patience no longer need fear tribulation, but rather can rejoice in it.

Which is a Church Age issue and not a Trib one. God says we will not experience the testing of the Trib.

You have just established a contradiction.
Jam 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

It isa a part of the perfection process the believer goes through as he matures to godliness through diligence in their walk. That process being as follows.

2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

It is the process whereby the Christian matures into a Christ-like godliness until he can shed the weight of the cares of this world and rejoice in tribulation.

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

As Christ-like beings, we learn to joy in tribulation, which is our cross to bear.

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

For the believer who has developed patience in the Lord, the hour of temptation loses its threat. Only then can the joy that James 1:2 speaks of replace the fear of suffering enabling a witness unto death if so called on by God


Which disregards the simple fact Rev 3:10 says we won't be there.

You are looking for a work around to escape the literal meaning of the phrase.

It means not in it. Does not mean in and through. Tereo ek/from does not allow being in it. Not when read by word meaning.
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days; be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Which is not about the Trib, but part of the Church Age.
Rev 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Saints, not Church. OT Israel were saints while being not Church. Those who were neither Israel or Church are saints, as well.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
And saints still does not mean Church.

[frankDH]

What I see as a problem, Frank, is you are trying to use Biblical applications as word meanings and applications.

That will mislead you to wrong conclusions.

The only thing concrete in every application is the dictionary meaning of the phrase. It always mean 'not in the issue.'

To try to extend it to a universal larger meaning is establishing doctrine, not definition.
I believe that the study suggests that God keeps one from the hour of temptation by providing strength in faith so as the believer does not fall in his hour of temptation. That is a doctrinal conclusion. Not using the literal meaning of the words in context. And is the source of many false doctrines.
I am not suggesting that the believer is being purified in the sense of being cleansed of his sins. That would already have been accomplished on the cross by our Lord. What I am suggesting is that those who received this promise had already attained to patience by suffering tribulation and overcoming it's temptations.
Conclusion and assumption that is not the context of Rev 3:10. Different issue, in other words.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

If tribulation worketh patience then those who have sufficient patience no longer need fear tribulation, but rather can rejoice in it.
Which is a Church Age issue and not a Trib one. God says we will not experience the testing of the Trib.

You have just established a contradiction.
Jam 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

It isa a part of the perfection process the believer goes through as he matures to godliness through diligence in their walk. That process being as follows.

2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

It is the process whereby the Christian matures into a Christ-like godliness until he can shed the weight of the cares of this world and rejoice in tribulation.

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

As Christ-like beings, we learn to joy in tribulation, which is our cross to bear.

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

For the believer who has developed patience in the Lord, the hour of temptation loses its threat. Only then can the joy that James 1:2 speaks of replace the fear of suffering enabling a witness unto death if so called on by God

Which disregards the simple fact Rev 3:10 says we won't be there.

You are looking for a work around to escape the literal meaning of the phrase.

It means not in it. Does not mean in and through. Tereo ek/from does not allow being in it. Not when read by word meaning.
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days; be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Which is not about the Trib, but part of the Church Age.
Rev 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. Saints, not Church. OT Israel were saints while being not Church. Those who were neither Israel or Church are saints, as well.
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.And saints still does not mean Church.

I understand you believe what you are saying. But I happen to know for a fact that Greek scholars consider more than a dictionary when seeking the meaning in Greek. It doesn't make sense that the greater the education a man has the further from the only reliable source of meaning he gets.

I have always maintained a distinction between the church and Israel. But that doesn't mean that all someone has to do is say church not Israel and I accept it. Behind every discussion you and I have participated in I have held the hope that you would one day provide real proof of a pretrib rapture because I would prefer to be pretrib. But instead of proof I get these declarations that things are so. And in my mind that just doesn't weigh heavier than the things I see in scripture.

It isn't enough, for me, that you say church age, meaning something that ends at a pretrib rapture, unless you establish it actually ends there. I see to many things in scripture that contradict this declaration. It isn't enough for me that you say the only reliable hermenuetic is the application of dictionary meaning, especially when dictionaries allow an interpretation that supports the conclusions of people like Vine and Vincent.

Keep

G5083
τηρέω
tēreō
Thayer Definition:
1) to attend to carefully, take care of
1a) to guard
1b) metaphorically to keep, one in the state in which he is
1c) to observe
1d) to reserve: to undergo something
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from teros (a watch, perhaps akin to G2334)
Citing in TDNT: 8:140, 1174

From
G1537
ἐκ / ἐξ
ek / ex
Thayer Definition:
1) out of, from, by, away from
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative

These are the definitions of the words we are considering. Each has meaning. You would have me believe that when they are used in combination only one of them has meaning. The other ceases to mean what it says. That's one inspired word cancelling another. That's not a good biblical approach. It makes much more sense to me to find a meaning that incorporates both meanings without the sacrifice of any inspired word. So I look for something that can maintain one in the state they are in while separating them from the danger that is in focus. Your approach doesn't do that. But Vine'sand Vincent's does.

You say things as if you have the authority that comes from understanding. Write your own dictionary. See if student's of scripture hold you up as as a credible authority the way they do with these men. It won't happen. They have the education that provides them the tools to speak in greek meaning that you and I do not.

No opinion that either of us holds will outweigh the informed opinions of these men. You wouldn't opt to have someone who says he can perform a heart surgery you might need over a man who had spent years studying the methods need to perform that surgery. That's what you are expecting from me when you make these claims.

I know my limitations. Knowledge is based on actual experience or divine revelation. I have neither. But I do have access to those who do. You have an opinion, just like me. But yours is based on the conviction of your doctrinal beliefs. You just know it without the education to confirm it. I can't do that no matter how much I would prefer it be that way.

I have to acknowledge my limits and seek out those who have exceeded them. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat these things if you lack the background that establishes you as an authority. Anyone can be dogmatic.

Give me one shred of evidence that your understanding of greek is on a par with these authorities and your opinion will carry more weight with me.

You say the dictionary is the final authority. I've had a lot of these talks with you. I've seen you elevate context beyond definition. I've seen you offer scripture to explain scripture. And I've seen you argue from dogma. You're a diehard debater. If you have the proof you present it and if you don't you claim it. We have both done it. These men, in this instance, are speaking from knowledge. They carry the greater influence IMO.

[CoreIssue]

Well, Frank, I don't see the definitions you posted disagreeing with me.

But a simple question, different angle.

Who are the 24 Elders at the First Seal?

[frankDH]

Well, Frank, I don't see the definitions you posted disagreeing with me.

Sure is, but you won't see it. The definition of tereo connotates being protected in some manner. That much is compatible with what you say. But you take the position that the addition of ek demands a removal from a location. The definition of ek denies it MUST be a location. Ek can prevent one from experiencing a particular time or a cause for the temptation of this hour. By ignoring the other definitionaly valid possibilities you turn definition into dogma. Your case that tereo ek can only mean a physical removal from the location of the hour of temptation disagrees with what other possibilities the definition allows.



But a simple question, different angle.


Who are the 24 Elders at the First Seal?

LOL. Different angle on Rev 3:10 or different angle on when the rapture takes place?

I believe they are an heavenly priesthood comprised of OT saints who were raised at Christ's resurrection.

[CoreIssue]

Well, Frank, I don't see the definitions you posted disagreeing with me.

Sure is, but you won't see it. The definition of tereo connotates being protected in some manner. That much is compatible with what you say. But you take the position that the addition of ek demands a removal from a location. The definition of ek denies it MUST be a location. Ek can prevent one from experiencing a particular time or a cause for the temptation of this hour. By ignoring the other definitionaly valid possibilities you turn definition into dogma. Your case that tereo ek can only mean a physical removal from the location of the hour of temptation disagrees with what other possibilities the definition allows.

And denying the context of the passage is also a problem.

You are neglecting the other stated conditionals, which are:
1. The whole earth.
2. All on the earth are in the testing.

To be on the earth says you are tested. God say not tested. You are creating a contradition by saying on the earth but not tested. Or protected in the testing.

It states not tested.

That eliminates the answer you are attempting.

But a simple question, different angle.

Who are the 24 Elders at the First Seal?

LOL. Different angle on Rev 3:10 or different angle on when the rapture takes place?

I believe they are an heavenly priesthood comprised of OT saints who were raised at Christ's resurrection.

A different angle on Revelation 3:10, yes. It shows the Rapture takes place, which is the Church from the earth. If the OT saints go, so does the Church.

As for the other, no one but Christ was resurrected. That is stated very clearly.

[frankDH]

And denying the context of the passage is also a problem.

You are neglecting the other stated conditionals, which are:
1. The whole earth.
2. All on the earth are in the testing.

To be on the earth says you are tested. God say not tested. You are creating a contradition by saying on the earth but not tested. Or protected in the testing.

Do you read the definitions? You can either take the same dogmatic approach and eliminate possibility or consider every possibility on its own merit.

world [Strong's]
G3625
οἰκουμένη
oikoumenē
oy-kou-men'-ay
Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire: - earth, world.

World [Thayer's]
G3625
οἰκουμένη
oikoumenē
Thayer Definition:
1) the inhabited earth
1a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
1b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
1c) the whole inhabited earth, the world
1d) the inhabitants of the earth, men
2) the universe, the world
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093)
Citing in TDNT: 5:157, 674


Earth [Strong's]
G1093
γῆ
gē
ghay
Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.

Earth [Thayer's]
G1093
γῆ
gē
Thayer Definition:
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
4a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
4b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: contracted from a root word
Citing in TDNT: 1:677, 116

Both words can represent a planet wide occurrence or a regional one. A regional possibility eliminates the neccessity for rapture you see. It is perfectly reasonable to see the hour of temptation [if indicating the 70th week] would be regional to Israel because the 70 weeksare determined against Daniel's people and the holy city. Not the whole world or earth.

It is not enough to tell me I think it's this one so there are no other choices. You can do that when choosing your own interpretation. But you can choose for others. I need to see one option proven or one disproven to know it isn't my own bias determining meaning.


It states not tested.

Agreed



That eliminates the answer you are attempting.

No, you are denying definitional options that allow my answer and claiming they are eliminated. You never attempt to prove or disprove them because you do not acknowledge they are there.

A different angle on Revelation 3:10, yes. It shows the Rapture takes place, which is the Church from the earth. If the OT saints go, so does the Church.

As for the other, no one but Christ was resurrected. That is stated very clearly.

Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Scripture says others rose from the grave and the church didn't exist at this time. They could be no other than OT saints. So I have a resurrection of believers connected to a time before the trib begins that can be demonstrated in scripture. You cannot do that. You can show me verses that indicate that believers will be resurrected and raptured, but you cannot show me anything specific to a pretrib timing.

[CoreIssue]

10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

Read, Frank.

It says the test is upon the WHOLE world, not a region. To test those that live on the earth, the WHOLE world.

If you are on the earth, you live on it and will be tested.

WHOLE denies being in PART.
[Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Scripture says others rose from the grave and the church didn't exist at this time. They could be no other than OT saints. So I have a resurrection of believers connected to a time before the trib begins that can be demonstrated in scripture. You cannot do that. You can show me verses that indicate that believers will be resurrected and raptured, but you cannot show me anything specific to a pretrib timing./QUOTE]
Matter of opinion. It sure wasn't the time of Israel, because Daniel says he died AFTER the 69th Week on Israel.

I say it was Church Age. But that is another discussion.

Lazarus also came out of the grave, before Christ resurrected. You saying he was resurrected?

It does not say they were resurrected. Says Christ was and they rose from the grave. Two different issues.

The Resurrection of the saints is a future event.
[QUOTE]Acts 24:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=15&version=31&context=verse)
and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.ul says the Resurrection of the saints is a future event.
1 Cor 15
23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
The resurrection is when he comes. Not when he left.

[frankDH]

Quote:
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

Read, Frank.

It says the test is upon the WHOLE world, not a region. To test those that live on the earth, the WHOLE world.
If you are on the earth, you live on it and will be tested.
WHOLE denies being in PART.

If earth can mean region then yea, the whole region would be indicated. The bible mentions locusts covering the whole earth and limits it to Egypt. It’s whole something. Or the entire portion of whatever the something is. So if world means planet, it’s the whole planet. But if world can mean a country or region whole would apply to that portion of the planet.

Exo 10:15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

Core, you’re not getting the big picture here. My case doesn’t rely on any word or phrase. It relies on a total body of information. You can’t refute part of it and gain any ground. The context can’t deny the definition of the words. The definition of the words can’t deny the grammar. All of these points are the result of a single study. There’s no subjective language to pick apart in what Vine and Vincent said. So it all has to agree with them.

If you were building a road and there were 10 trees in your way you couldn’t cut one of them down and expect the rest to no longer be a problem. That’s what you are attempting to do with this objecting to one word at a time. Even if you made some small dent in the evidence there’s enough to prove the case after you’re done.



Matter of opinion. It sure wasn't the time of Israel, because Daniel says he died AFTER the 69th Week on Israel.

I say it was Church Age. But that is another discussion.

Lazarus also came out of the grave, before Christ resurrected. You saying he was resurrected?

It does not say they were resurrected. Says Christ was and they rose from the grave. Two different issues.

The Resurrection of the saints is a future event.

Quote:
Acts 24:15
and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.ul says the Resurrection of the saints is a future event.

Quote:
1 Cor 15
23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

The resurrection is when he comes. Not when he left.

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Do you understand the term firstfruits of them which slept? The firstfruits offering was an offering from the increase God supplies.

Pro 3:9 Honor the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

If you planted a seed and only reaped a seed there was no firstfruits to offer. The entire firstfruits concept was designed to give God the credit for supplying the increase man received from his labors. If you separate these resurrected saints from Christ’s resurrection you eliminate any claim to Christ being the firstfruits when He rose. The firstfruits had to be gathered and offered to God before the harvest could begin. Take away the firstfruits and there can be no resurrection/rapture.

This isn't some postie teaching I'm presenting to you. I was taught this as a pretribber. Here's Scofield's remarks on those resurrected with Christ.

Mat 27:52 -

graves

That these bodies returned to their graves is not said and may not be inferred. The wave-sheaf (Lev_23:10-12) typifies the resurrection of Christ, but a sheaf implies plurality. It was a single "corn of wheat" that fell into the ground in the crucifixion and entombment of Christ (Joh_12:24); it was a sheaf which came forth in resurrection. The inference is that these saints, with the spirits of "just men made perfect" (Heb_12:23) from Paradise, went with Jesus (Eph_4:8-10) into heaven.

[CTZonEdit]

Frank your interpretations dont make any literary sense. Let's review this article about how to properly discern context.

Never Read a Bible Verse (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5466)

(http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5466)
Only when you are properly informed by God's Word the way it is written in its context can you be transformed by it. Every piece becomes powerful when it's working together with the whole.


So apply the methods used there to determine context here:

Original verse: "10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth."

A) 10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole local area/region to test those who live on the local area/region.

or

B) 10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole planet to test those who live on the whole planet.

Now do you see the literary nonsense of having someone live ON a local area? One does not live ON a town or city. They live IN it. Therefore the ONLY literary conclusion to come to is that the testing happens on the ENTIRE planet. And what Core has been saying all along that in order to be kept from something happening to the ENTIRE planet one must be removed from the planet.

It also makes no sense for testing to happen to a planet. A planet doesnt need to be tested. The people ON the planet are getting tested not the land or area or region or planet. So world means every person on the planet in this context.


Earth [Thayer's]
G1093
γῆ
gē
Thayer Definition:
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
4a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
4b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: contracted from a root word
Citing in TDNT: 1:677, 116




10Since you have kept my command...on the arable land. = Whole earth.
10Since you have kept my command...on the ground. = Whole earth.
10Since you have kept my command...on the main (dry)land = Whole earth.
10Since you have kept my command...on the earth as a whole. = Whole earth.
10Since you have kept my command...on the earth as opposed to the heavens. = Whole earth.
10Since you have kept my command...on the inhabited earth. = Whole earth.
10Since you have kept my command...on the a country,territiory, region. = Literary nonsense.

You dont live on a country. You live in it.
You dont live on a territory. You live in it.
You dont live on a region. You live in it.

Im not going to go thru this approach with the definition you gave of "world" but you will get the same result. When you apply the local definition to the verse then the context makes no sense literarily.

[CoreIssue]

That these bodies returned to their graves is not said and may not be inferred.

Why not, Frank? It isn't said they didn't either.

Be consistant. When I gave evidence of things you said it was not said clearly enough.

But this completely unsaid conclusion is okay?

A distinction is in the verse statement. It says Christ was resurrected and the saints were raised from the dead. Two different terms and phrases used? Why?

We are told Christ resurrected. We are told our resurrection is future. We are told those to be judged and damned will be resurrected.

We are told the saints were raised from the dead. We are told Lazarus, among others, was raised from the dead.

Lazarus and the others mention prior most assuredly died and went to the grave.

So, if raised from the dead means resurrected, then Christ was not the first resurrected.

If resurrected is restricted to eternal resurrection, in usage, they returned to the grave.

So, was Lazarus resurrected?

And note those raised from the dead were known by sight by the locals. That means they were recent dead, still able to be resusitated.

We have had the discussion on the differences between clinical and final death before. I think.

[frankDH]

Frank your interpretations dont make any literary sense. Let's review this article about how to properly discern context.

Never Read a Bible Verse

That’s a great article. I do believe deeply in considering the influence of context on how a verse should be interpreted. Contextual use of words found in the phrase under consideration was the first point I addressed. You may disagree with my findings but how can you suggest I have not attempted to reconcile the verse to the context it is found in?

BTW, I’m impressed with the structure of your post. I’m a nuts and bolts kind of guy. You lay things out in a manner that builds as it progresses. An approach like this avoids a lot of miscommunication. Looking forward to further talks.




So apply the methods used there to determine context here:

Original verse: "10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth."

A) 10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole local area/region to test those who live on the local area/region.

or

B) 10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole planet to test those who live on the whole planet.

Now do you see the literary nonsense of having someone live ON a local area? One does not live ON a town or city. They live IN it. Therefore the ONLY literary conclusion to come to is that the testing happens on the ENTIRE planet. And what Core has been saying all along that in order to be kept from something happening to the ENTIRE planet one must be removed from the planet.

If one can dwell on a planet one can live on a portion of the planet. A region is just a portion of a planet and the Greek allows the “land” to be a valid application for the words world and earth.

This touches on your point about context and goes to the root of our differences. You and Core are approaching things as if it is the English rendition of things that it at the essence of what establishes context. So you see the English word and apply the common English take on things. Scripture wasn’t given in English and there are connotation in the Greek that would never occur to someone speaking in English that can be lost when considering meaning.

Let me give you an example.

Rev 14:15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

Anyone accustomed to speaking in English would understand this verse to mean vitally matured and ready for consumption. At the peak of its usefullness. But look at the definition of the word in Greek.

G3583
ξηραίνω
xērainō
xay-rah'ee-no
From G3584; to desiccate; by implication to shrivel, to mature: - dry up, pine away, be ripe, wither (away).
Can you honestly say that this is the impression you get when someone tells you, in English, that a grape is ripe for harvest? If you base connotation on our perceptions in English language you miss the actual meaning portrayed in the Greek. That’s what makes word study such an essential part in the interpretation of scripture. Greek is another language with nuance that is lost in translation. That loss prohibits a deeper understanding of what is indicated in the text. And that understanding is part and parcel of the context of a passage.

English isn’t even consistent in meaning from region to region. When people in the USA say football they mean something entirely different than when the rest of the world says football. It’s not even the same game. Greek isn’t like that.

G1093
γῆ
gē
ghay
Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.

G1093
γῆ
gē
Thayer Definition:
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
4a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
4b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: contracted from a root word
Citing in TDNT: 1:677, 116

Both of these authorities give specific mention of regional application for this word and it is perfectly acceptable and sensible to translate to English that one can live ON a tract of land or a place to stand. And take a look at the word translated as on/upon.

G1909
ἐπί
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

IN is an acceptable use of this word and one can live IN a country or IN any area of land with fixed boundaries without sounding nonsensical. It’s only when you approach scripture as if itv was written in English that the problems you see arise. When you consider all the Greek meaning entails there are options that must be considered before a thorough study can be had. Why do you think lexicons, concordances and dictionaries are a part of every serious student of scriptures library? It’s so people who speak English can understand what Greek means in English. Consideration of just the English doesn’t provide that understanding. It’s just a matter of do you want to draw conclusions based on full data or partial data.


It also makes no sense for testing to happen to a planet. A planet doesnt need to be tested. The people ON the planet are getting tested not the land or area or region or planet. So world means every person on the planet in this context.

That’s like saying no test can possibly be taken ON campus. Testing is like any other event. It has to have a location to take place. No one has even suggested that it is planet that is judged. I don’t understand why you try to make that an issue. The planet is just one possible description of the location where the test can be had. And there is no demand anywhere in context, definition or grammar that the testing would happen simultaneously to all locations on the planet if planet is the indication. The judgments in the trib are not all worldwide. If they were, there would be no sense in warning the woman to flee Judea or calling “my people” out of Babylon before her destruction.

You are framing everything so that a pretrib rapture is the only conclusion that can be drawn. That’s doctrine establishing meaning. Not doctrine based on meaning. It’s an agenda driven interpretation. I do not exclude any possible meaning that can be supported in the definition of the words provided. I weigh them all against the totality of scripture and then make a conclusion. Every argument that has been presented to me has been based on a selective approach to word meaning. Earth has to mean planet and the rest of the definition gets thrown out the window with no consideration. It has to be ON because that makes your point. IN was only valid to the Greeks. There is no place for it in English. You can make scripture mean anything you choose with that kind of approach. It is exactly that kind of approach that allows the Mormons to introduce a whole extra book of revelation beyond what we see. They demand that “other sheep” opens the door for other scripture. And then they fill in the blank their dogma creates.

I’m not comparing your intent to theirs. But a good intent doesn’t make a bad methodology better. Any conclusion drawn on partial data is suspect no matter who limit’s the data or why.

I didn’t become a postie until sometime in the last decade. My whole family is pretrib. I know that one can be a pretribber and have a desire to study in earnest. But it’s hard to tighten a bolt with a hammer. Methodology is the tool we use to study with. And a method that only considers part of the information available doesn’t build as strong a foundation as can be had.

[frankDH]

Why not, Frank? It isn't said they didn't either.

Be consistant. When I gave evidence of things you said it was not said clearly enough.

But this completely unsaid conclusion is okay?

I am consistent. I have not relied on the lack of mention as the basis of my case. I have relied on biblical teaching [in this case teaching on the purpose of firstfruits offerings] to show the lack of mention does not support your position. I’m not saying the lack of mention is proof of anything. That wasn’t how you did it in Daniel. Your case was the lack of mention means a statement was made there was no royal birth. You used lack of mention as if it established fact. I used it to show further passages must be used to gain understanding.


A distinction is in the verse statement. It says Christ was resurrected and the saints were raised from the dead. Two different terms and phrases used? Why?

We are told Christ resurrected. We are told our resurrection is future. We are told those to be judged and damned will be resurrected.


You are nitpicking, Core. It’s intellectually dishonest. You do not treat those sleeping souls who rise from the dead, in the resurrection you refer to, in the same manner as these. The same terms are used in all instances. The only difference is the term “in Christ” and that only goes to support my belief that these sleepers who were raised in Mt 27:52 were not a part of the body but instead OT saints.

Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

1Co 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


We are told the saints were raised from the dead. We are told Lazarus, among others, was raised from the dead.

Lazarus and the others mention prior most assuredly died and went to the grave.

So, if raised from the dead means resurrected, then Christ was not the first resurrected.

If resurrected is restricted to eternal resurrection, in usage, they returned to the grave.

So, was Lazarus resurrected?


Lazarus was absolutely resurrected as were others prior to Christ’s resurrection. But this was done to establish Christ’s identity as the Son of God. Not to illustrate a firstfruits resurrection to eternal life. As has been pointed out more than once in this thread, context is everything.


And note those raised from the dead were known by sight by the locals. That means they were recent dead, still able to be resusitated.

We have had the discussion on the differences between clinical and final death before. I think.


Yes we have. And your argument takes the same approach you criticize in amill presentations. Rather than relying on scripture and the definitions of the words found there you resort to a secular data base for your argument. I do not agree with it when they do it and I don’t agree with it when any premill does it either.

[CTZonEdit]

If one can dwell on a planet one can live on a portion of the planet. A region is just a portion of a planet and the Greek allows the “land” to be a valid application for the words world and earth.


You are applying a context that is not allowed in the verse given. It doesnt make any sense looking at this verse alone. What one can do is irrelevant. What we are given literally and what we know about proper grammar (and I am no expert by any means) is that it's not proper to say one lives ON a region. Proper grammar is that one lives IN a region.

This touches on your point about context and goes to the root of our differences. You and Core are approaching things as if it is the English rendition of things that it at the essence of what establishes context.

These are the best tools we are given right now. If you can show that all major translations are now wrong, that the Greek structure and usage of the word ON/IN are now interchangeable and are proper grammar go for it. Better yet prove to us that this was common usage of the word in the Greek at the time. You know for a fact that this is how they spoke and was the understood meaning and grammatically correct in Greek?

So you see the English word and apply the common English take on things. Scripture wasn’t given in English and there are connotation in the Greek that would never occur to someone speaking in English that can be lost when considering meaning.

You are opening a whole can of worms here by claiming that the bible can only be understood in its original language or written language, when it its proclaimed that God would preserve his word.

It seems to me you are straining the context. You are forcing definitions on words and throwing off the context and then have to prop it up by claiming that English translations are in error and that we cant know unless we are steeped in Greek culture and language.

[CTZonEdit]

Well, frank, I have no clue what would lead you or anybody to believe that true believers in Christ are left here to endure the wrath of God. It's my experience that all non-pretrib views fall apart in either the foundation they base their interpretations on or the way they splice together scripture.

And so far you are following those same trends.

The simplest interpretation of the verse in question is as it is written. The whole world is effected by a planetary wrath. Not straining it to mean something it "could" possibly be and then fitting it in.

Dealing with Lazarus is really a simple exercise. Bible states that a man is appointed to die once then the judgement. You have Laz dying two times contradicting what the bible states. You cannot die twice so either they (Laz and all the others brought back to life) were not clinically dead or the bible lies.

You see the trend? You reject the simple and have to add, alter, change, or use nonsensical methods together on otherwise simple verses and themes in order to get to a postie view. Every postie I have encountered has had to jump thru hoops, not only in their trib views, but in every other theme that runs thru their biblical views.

I believe yall's brains are wired differently or sumthin' :D

[frankDH]

Well, frank, I have no clue what would lead you or anybody to believe that true believers in Christ are left here to endure the wrath of God. It's my experience that all non-pretrib views fall apart in either the foundation they base their interpretations on or the way they splice together scripture.

And so far you are following those same trends.

The simplest interpretation of the verse in question is as it is written. The whole world is effected by a planetary wrath. Not straining it to mean something it "could" possibly be and then fitting it in.

I do not believe that true believers in Christ are left behind to endure God’s wrath.

Nah 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

This verse is as true in the trib as it was in the OT. It is a false premise that God, in any time frame would vent His wrath on believers. There is no such teaching anywhere in scripture. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Jer 25:7 Yet ye have not hearkened unto me, saith the LORD; that ye might provoke me to anger with the works of your hands to your own hurt.
Jer 25:8 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Because ye have not heard my words,
Jer 25:9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and a hissing, and perpetual desolations.
Jer 25:10 Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle.
Jer 25:11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
Jer 25:12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.
Jer 25:13 And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations.
Jer 25:14 For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands.
Jer 25:15 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it.

Anger [Strong’s]
H3707
כּעס
ka‛as
kaw-as'
A primitive root; to trouble; by implication to grieve, rage, be indignant: - be angry, be grieved, take indignation, provoke (to anger, unto wrath), have sorrow, vex, be wroth.

Anger
H3707
כּעס
ka‛as
BDB Definition:
1) to be angry, be vexed, be indignant, be wroth, be grieved, [b] provoke to anger and wrath
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be vexed, be indignant
1a2) to be angry
1b) (Piel) to provoke to anger
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to vex
1c2) to vex, provoke to anger
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1016

Fury [Strong’s]
H2534
חמא חמה
chêmâh chêmâ'
khay-maw', khay-maw'
From H3179; heat; figuratively anger, poison (from its fever): - anger, bottles, hot displeasure, furious (-ly, -ry), heat, indignation, poison, rage, wrath (-ful). See H2529.

Fury
H2534
חמא / חמה
chêmâh / chêmâ'
BDB Definition:
1) heat, rage, hot displeasure, indignation, [b] anger, wrath, poison, bottles
1a) heat
1a1) fever
1a2) venom, poison (figuratively)
1b) burning anger, rage
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H3179
Same Word by TWOT Number: 860a

Israel captivity to Babylon was a display of God’s wrath. Does this mean God poured out Hiswrath on believers like Daniel? Not if you consult scripture it doesn’t.

Jer 24:1 The LORD showed me, and, behold, two baskets of figs were set before the temple of the LORD, after that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, and the princes of Judah, with the carpenters and smiths, from Jerusalem, and had brought them to Babylon.
Jer 24:2 One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad.
Jer 24:3 Then said the LORD unto me, What seest thou, Jeremiah? And I said, Figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil.
Jer 24:4 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jer 24:5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good.
Jer 24:6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.
Jer 24:7 And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.
Jer 24:8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt:
Jer 24:9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.
Jer 24:10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers.

God never pours His wrath on His own. Being not appointed to wrath is just the flip side of God reserving His wrath for His enemies. This is an old pretrib argument that gets dragged out every time someone with a different view puts up a defense. It’s not a scripturally based premise at all. It’s just a way to try to shame someone into silence when you don’t have the verses to prove a point. The thought behind it is the presence of believers is incompatible with the presence of wrath. Scripture teaches in many examples that this is a false premise.

It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convince people, not mine. I didn’t post my study to cause a debate. I read the rules and posted in this forum so that people could read it and accept it or reject it as they were led by the Spirit. I only entered this debate to accommodate Core’s need for debate. I’m totally fine with your rejection of all of it, and anyone else who is led in that direction. I’ve offered scripture and authoritative resources as proof of what I found. All I’ve seen in response is selective use of definition and dismissal of information. Go with that if it satisfies you. I can hang in there as long as you need the debate to continue. But if you are looking for the last word just say so and it’s yours. I’m not ashamed of my presentation or my defense. I’ve done my best to provide scripture and an exhaustive body of resources that are held in esteem by the Christian community in general. If the effort is wasted, so be it.


Dealing with Lazarus is really a simple exercise. Bible states that a man is appointed to die once then the judgement. You have Laz dying two times contradicting what the bible states. You cannot die twice so either they (Laz and all the others brought back to life) were not clinically dead or the bible lies.

You see the trend? You reject the simple and have to add, alter, change, or use nonsensical methods together on otherwise simple verses and themes in order to get to a postie view. Every postie I have encountered has had to jump thru hoops, not only in their trib views, but in every other theme that runs thru their biblical views.

I believe yall's brains are wired differently or sumthin'

Scripture states man is appointed to die once. At least. It does not limit it to one. Scripture also teach there will be a 2nd death [Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; and 21:8] after men are resurrected to judgment. So misinterpreting this verse gets you nowhere. The bible proves that after this judgment resurrection death is re-experienced.

We are wired differently. I would never claim man can only die once in one breath and turn around in the next and point to Lazarus dying twice. Your own examples disprove your arguments but you are wired so you can’t see it. I’m wired to notice contradictions in arguments. There is difference between reasoning in scripture and contending with one another.

People needed a debate, I gave them one. Now they need to belittle. I’m not interested. If you want to keeps this on an adult level and continue, I’m game. I’ve seen you guys continue to argue with people after they are gone. You don’t need me to do that. What’s it gonna be?

[frankDH]

If one can dwell on a planet one can live on a portion of the planet. A region is just a portion of a planet and the Greek allows the “land” to be a valid application for the words world and earth.
You are applying a context that is not allowed in the verse given. It doesnt make any sense looking at this verse alone. What one can do is irrelevant. What we are given literally and what we know about proper grammar (and I am no expert by any means) is that it's not proper to say one lives ON a region. Proper grammar is that one lives IN a region.

This touches on your point about context and goes to the root of our differences. You and Core are approaching things as if it is the English rendition of things that it at the essence of what establishes context. These are the best tools we are given right now. If you can show that all major translations are now wrong, that the Greek structure and usage of the word ON/IN are now interchangeable and are proper grammar go for it. Better yet prove to us that this was common usage of the word in the Greek at the time. You know for a fact that this is how they spoke and was the understood meaning and grammatically correct in Greek?

So you see the English word and apply the common English take on things. Scripture wasn’t given in English and there are connotation in the Greek that would never occur to someone speaking in English that can be lost when considering meaning.You are opening a whole can of worms here by claiming that the bible can only be understood in its original language or written language, when it its proclaimed that God would preserve his word.

It seems to me you are straining the context. You are forcing definitions on words and throwing off the context and then have to prop it up by claiming that English translations are in error and that we cant know unless we are steeped in Greek culture and language.

I'm not saying God's word isn't protected. Men gave us the translations and other men gave us the lexicons and concordances to have the same chance the Bereans did. It's not the translation that inspired it's the message.

I would delete the whole study just to give you guys peace if I had the ability to delete it in this forum. Then you could claim grammar was on your side without any hint that those who understand the grammar disagree with you. You wouldn't have to debate in aforum you set up as a no debate zone. You wouldn't have to claim men only die once and admit they can die twice too. Feel free to delete it. You really can't afford to let people see these things and check them out for themselves. You want to hear there isa pretrib rapture. There's a pretrib rapture. I hope it gives you peace. You have conquered the guy that came to pervert scripture. You are true warriors of the faith. And my final gift? I'll slink back into the darkness from whence I came and your world will be pure again.

[CoreIssue]

I do not believe that true believers in Christ are left behind to endure God’s wrath.

But you don't see the whole Trib as his wrath. Just where the word wrath is used.

Which is a false demand, since that logic says God had no wrath in sending the Flood because the word wrath was never used.

[CoreIssue]

I would delete the whole study just to give you guys peace if I had the ability to delete it in this forum.
Why? People learn from discussion.
Then you could claim grammar was on your side without any hint that those who understand the grammar disagree with you.
You keep saying that, but when I read the material you posted I don't see where it disagreed at all.

Can you give me a quote where they straight out claim it does not mean removed, but in, through and protected.

Honestly, Frank, I don't see them saying what you say they did.
You wouldn't have to debate in aforum you set up as a no debate zone.
Want me to move it?

But really, you did attach a doctrinal statement to it that we simply did not agree with.

A pure study would have just been to post the words meanings. Nothing more. All the words meanings, and nothing more.

No one is getting upset that you added an opinion. But in saying yours we had a right to say we disagreed.
You wouldn't have to claim men only die once and admit they can die twice too.
Depends on how you define death. And there are different definitions as to what death is.
Feel free to delete it.
No.
You really can't afford to let people see these things and check them out for themselves.
Of course we can, and will.

Check away, everyone. We want you to.
You want to hear there isa pretrib rapture. There's a pretrib rapture. I hope it gives you peace.
And you constantly work to disprove it. Which is your choice and right.

We just do not agree with you, for what we see as very valid, literal reasoning, based on sound logic.

You don't see it that way.
You have conquered the guy that came to pervert scripture.
No one accused you of that.

You came to discuss, which means we are allowed to disagree. Does it not?
You are true warriors of the faith. And my final gift? I'll slink back into the darkness from whence I came and your world will be pure again.
What is with this anger? I don't understand it.

Can you post where those guys actually flat out state we are in the Trib? Did they ever make that direct statement? Or is that what you are seeing in the words?

[CoreIssue]

Frank. Maybe we should just let this discussion go, at least for awhile?

I would really hate to see you leave.

[kay-gee]

FRANKDH, come back. I have been studying this thread quietly (not posting) trying to learn something. You obviously are a studied man and I know you have much to offer. I haven't really been able to add anything because I am neither a Scholar nor a theologian. All the best.............

[Sid]

FRANKDH, come back. I have been studying this thread quietly (not posting) trying to learn something.


Dittos, I have also been watching with interest.

[CoreIssue]

I just don't understand, Frank, how you can say 'kept from' means 'kept in.' Or 'whole' actually means 'part.' Or 'all' means 'some.'

To me you are saying every translation is translated incorrectly. From the oldest to the newest.

Is that what you are saying? They are all wrong?

[CoreIssue]

A study of Revelation 3:10. (http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=105)

[CTZonEdit]

Frank, Im surprised at the anger as well. My intention was not to get you angry but to promote legit discussion. If you felt belittled by my comment on brain wiring? I though it was obvious that it was a joke the way I phrased it and the smilie I ended it with. If you took it the wrong way then I apologize.

As Core said we are not going to stand by even in a non debate forum and let something we disagree with go unchallenged. Thats the whole premise of CTZ and why so many other boards are just fluff.

But it would be a shame to lose you as a contributing member over something like this.