Author Claims To Debunk Rapture Theory Popularized By 'Left Behind'

Agape Press ^ | May 5, 2004 | By Allie Martin

[TaxRelief]

As you read this press release, watch for the attempt to create conflict within the ranks of believers.

(AgapePress) - A Christian author says the popular "Left Behind" books are filled with biblically inaccurate teachings.

The cornerstone of the best-selling book series by authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins is "the rapture." That term describes God's removal of true Christians from the world as the initial event that many Christians believe will usher in a seven-year period of tribulation leading to the visible return of Jesus Christ.

But in his new book End Time Delusions (Destiny Image, 2004), Steve Wohlberg asserts that the idea of a rapture before Christ's second coming is not biblical. "There's three major verses used in the New Testament to prove the doctrine of disappearing Christians," he says, citing 1 Thessalonians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 15:52, and Matthew 24:40. But he says the pre-tribulation rapture theory is not borne out in these scriptures.

"I have studied every one of those of those verses in the Bible and also in the light of history," Wohlberg says, "and I have discovered clearly that every one of them does not apply to a secret rapture before a seven-year period of tribulation; but they all apply definitely to the visible, loud, glorious second coming of Jesus Christ at the very end of the world."

A poll by Barna Research Group (barna.org) found that one in every ten Americans has read a book from the popular Left Behind series. However, Wohlberg feels the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture as described and dramatized in the popular books is a dangerous notion.

[Sorensen]

I do not think I understand your question, Noah lived over 4000 years ago, and the account in Mt. 24, is yet future.
Maybe, you can clarify what you mean

[Seven_0]

Matthew 24:37-40
37But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Verse 37 sets up the comparison. verse 38 and 39 give two groups in Noah's time, verse 40 and 41 give two groups in some future time.

Same question; does Noah represent the one taken or the one left behind?

[Teleosis]

You wrote:

...you are reading the "wrong" Bible, now please bear with me for one moment. The NIV is based on two "surviving" (as in never used) Eusebio/Wescott/Hort "Frauds",in the "Classical Greek", called "Vaticanus-B" and "Sianiticus-codex-Aleph". This is what we refer to as "corrupted text"

I have researched this extensively, and your complaint is a little dated. The modern versions of the Bible, including Zondervan's NIV which I use for simplicity of language with its thought-for-thought format, are based not on Wescott/Hort but rather on the Greek New Testament texts of Nestle-Aland (27th edition, 1993).

I have done an extensive research so I don't use "corrupted text" in order to present my commentary. Using Essential Guide to Bible Versions by Philip W. Comfort Ph.D., I have made a comparison between the KJV and NIV portions of Luke which go back to the earliest Alexandrian papyri we have (P75) and have concluded the additions (which describes in large part the differences the Byzantine texts have when compared to the Alexandrian sources) do not make a material difference.

The Byzantine texts are noted for their smooth Greek, and as Dr. Comfort explains, the textual critics regard that type of text as showing subsequent editing to the manuscripts. Textual critics tend to favor the shorter when it can be shown that material was not erroneously omitted (as can be shown in various texts).

My conclusion is that you can use whatever Bible version you feel comfortable with, and if you're fluent in Shakespearean English, the King James Version is just fine. But since every indication we have after all the recent research in the past several decades with information unavailable before shows that the Apostles and earliest NT writers used the common everyday language of the people, then I ought to be able to do the same. I also like the NASB for the best word-for-word translation and use that for my study Bible.

While I own and like the Revised KJV, I am wary that anyone would restrict me on a legalistic basis that only the KJV is the proper version to use.

[Sorensen]

LiteKeeper, You say, that my referring to your lack of spiritual maturity, "is Ludicrous" and "Unfounded".
Have you forgotten, that I merely replied to a "Gentleman"
who ,without knowing my "Person" or "Biblical Premise", promises to "prove me all wet and wrong"? with out even knowing anything of what I have written ? And you think you do not come across as being "arrogant"? and ,now accuse me of elitism, for pointing out your arrogance?
Please, Give me a BREAK !!!!!

Not that I intended to talk about myself, or to sound
"boastful",but only for your "edification". I am a missionary, in ministry since 1963,I speak more than half dozen Languages, other than English. That's all YOU need to know, for now

[Sorensen]

O.K. I understand your question now.You have misunderstood the passage you are quoting. It is not Noah who was "Eating and drinking" and "giving and taking in Marriage", but the people around him, on whom , God was going to bring judgment, they were "taken" by the flood and drowned. Read verse 38-39 again, Slowly.....

Sorensen

[Teleosis]

You wrote:

In the Mt.24, the word "taken", is in context of judgment, or death, hence the warning for the believing "Jews" to flee out of Jerusalem "when they see" the setting up of the "Abomination that maketh desolate".

I disagree.

You have not done any word study on taken or you wouldn't say that it is used in reference to "judgment" which I would say is taken (no pun intended) out of context.

[Seven_0]

"Read verse 38-39 again, Slowly..... "

So Noah was left behind. Right!

[Sorensen]

We are not dealing with Shakespearian English, we are dealing with Source. Nestle's revisions of Idioms was for the purpose of "covering up " the problems discovered when questions were asked about the source. (common Greek or Classical Greek) The disciples as "unlearned men" did not master the Classical Greek. I am not willing to be "drawn into" a lengthy discussion on this now, as my time is limited for this application. Suffice it to say, that the KJV. is the ONLY book in the English language, that uses the Hebrew "Masoretic" text, for the Old Testament, and the common Greek for the New testament.
If you are so confident in you assumption, then you should have no problem answering my question , should you?
So go ahead, answer the question, Who killed Goliath, and what does your FALSE Bible say about it in 2.Sam.21:19 ?
Please write it out verbatim as in your NIV, for all the readers of this forum to read.

Sorensen

[Teleosis]

You wrote:

Secondly, to answer your comment about the Greek, the answer is Yes and No,. The "Greek" you are referring to here, does agree, I believe, with the "Byzantine", ( I am sitting in a public place on "their" computer, and have no "material" such as a Bible with me at this time, I apologize for that) However, your conclusion is incorrect.

This is interesting, as the KJV did not have a good Greek copy of Revelation and so used the Latin, translated that back into Greek, and then into English. The book of Revelation in the KJV is perhaps, its weakest point.

If you cannot tell me what the proper inflected Greek is for "harvested," then you have no basis for your conclusion. Anyone can say this is that or that is this, but without any substantiation, it is nothing more than just a declarative statement.

You wrote:

If you will take a moment and read Mt. 13:24-43, in the KJV, you should be able to understand it.

I understand that in the world there are two groups, the wicked and the righteous. And in concert with Ezekiel chapter 18:20b-27, there are two outcomes for them. The tares are the wicked and the wheat is the righteous. Jesus' parable is exactly inline with other timeline sequences of events which stipulates that the righteous are harvested and then the wicked are burned. This follows the theological principle that those of us who have "washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb" are to be spared the Wrath of God, and are not going to be judged with the world.

[Sorensen]

You are entitled to your opinion.

Sorensen

[LiteKeeper]

I am at work, and don't have the time right now to write at length. But, to answer your question - I hold to a Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil position. I will be happy to elaborate this evening when I get home.

(I am currently involved in a tent-making ministry mode - I have a full-time job as a computer application developer)

[Sorensen]

No, those who were eating and drinking , given in marriage and taken in marriage, in other words, the "Peoples" that Noah was preaching to in the Thirty or Forty years the Ark was being built, they were taken , "Swept away" by the flood. The passage you are quoting in Mt. 24, deals with judgment on the wicked. There will be two in the field, the one will be taken (as in judgment) If you read a little further on , it speaks of where the Carcass is, their the eagles(vultures) will be gathered. This refers to the Battle of Armageddon.

[Teleosis]

Who killed Goliath, and what does your FALSE Bible say about it in 2.Sam.21:19?

This corruption of the Masoretic text is the result of a copy error in the text. The KJV shows the addition of a correct by inserting the brother of in italics showing it is an addition as well and was not in the original Masoretic text.

The actual person killed was Lahmi and can be read in 1 Chronicles 20:5 in both the KJV and the NIV.

I'm sorry, but copy errors happen among scribes. While the NIV and NASB both have this error, both also correct them in the notes and commentary.

Based on this one word test, which I avoid, you could say both versions are "corrupt" based on one known error in the Masoretic text. This puts the accuracy of the OT text we have at something less than 100%, perhaps 99.99%.

Again, I see no demonic influence that prevents me from using the modern texts based on this test of yours.

Now could we get back to the Rapture without you sidelining and diverting the thread?

[Seven_0]

I'm beginning to think that you don't understand analogies. In your post #125 you seem to say that the ones "Eating and drinking" and "giving and taking in Marriage", are the ones taken. Now you are saying that they are left behind and Noah is taken. Which is it?

[Teleosis]

You wrote:

There will be two in the field, the one will be taken (as in judgment) If you read a little further on , it speaks of where the Carcass is, their the eagles(vultures) will be gathered. This refers to the Battle of Armageddon.

I disagree.

After the Rapture (which from the Greek is translated into Latin, and comes from the act of being caught up we see in Paul’s explanation to the Thessalonians) we find evidence for the Great Multitude in Heaven with the Sixth Seal in Revelation 7:9. After that, there is a period of silence (proving there are no cell phones in Heaven -a little levity for you there) which marries the silence Amos 8:3 describes with bodies being flung everywhere. Then there is the Wrath of God with the Seventh Seal.

The Seventh Seal reveals four trumpets, the first four act in thirds upon the Earth. The last three are woes. The text in Revelation 11 omits the third woe, but it is revealed later as the seven bowl judgments. Only after all this does our Lord go out with His host (the 144,000) to do battle.

P.S. There is no Armageddon mentioned in the Bible other than the one mention of it in Rev 16:16. Now there is a Har Magedon which would be the mountain by the plain of Megiddo in the hill country of Ephraim. This is an ancient battle field involved in Israel's battle for existence going back to the times of conquering the Promised Land. Whether this represents a scribal error or not, the name is more than a little of a consequence to dismiss.

[Teleosis]

I will be happy to elaborate this evening when I get home.

I'll gladly read it, but I will be out for Friday and Saturday and may not be able to respond for a while.

[Teleosis]

My apologies:

the name is more than a little of a consequence to dismiss.

Should have read:

the name is a little more than of a coincidence to dismiss.

[Sorensen]

I can tell that your ,so called studies on this subject have, 1.) either only been here in thr U.S., or under the
same "masonic controlled" system of theology.

Your assertion that "they" did not have a "good" Greek, as you put it,is firstly NOT true, as the KJV committee of 1604, had all the Words of God extant today. We have since that time found more "manuscripts" Yes, But NO NEW WORDING !!! This deceptive theological information that you refer to , is the same system that has lied to Christians about the origin of the Septuagint, as being written BEFORE Christ, which is another LIE.
If you choose to believe that, then be my guest, but do not post it here as if it is "Gospel".
The KJV panel did not rely on the Latin of Jerome, as they understood it to be part of the Eusebion corruption of 330 A.D., of which 50 copies were ordered by Emperor Constantine, and by Decree enforced as the only "Official" Bibles of the "Church". And all other "Dissenter"Bibles Outlawed.( this in fact, is what brought about the "Dark Ages" ) Until 1453, when the "Ottoman Empire" overran Greece, and Christians fled to France and Germany and the Netherlands, and flooded Europe with "common Greek" text,
which did not say the same thing, at all ,as did Jerome's Latin text. Then Martin Luther and the Wittenberg Cathedral etc,etc. ( I said I did not want to get into a drawn out discussion on this,) so let me close this by

explaining that the KJV panel used the common Greek text that "popped up" from Christians that fled the Ottoman Empire ( that is where Luther got his text as well) and the KJV diligently compared that with the several common Greek based texts, as the "Stephens" text and the "Waldenses" text .
If you choose to believe the misinformation out there , do as you please, "But for me and my House....."

You say you "understand" Mt. 13:24-43, and the you quote Ezek.18. I am not so sure, I am getting the feeling that you are trying to "Look educated", also I am having
"mixed feelings" about your "spiritual background". Would you care to share that with us ?
If, as you say , you understand this subject of Mt.13 , may I ask you , how long is this "gathering period" of the "Tares", "for to be burned" before the "harvest" of the "wheat"
Finally, I am still waiting for your reply , on who Killed Goliath ? and your posting the verse of 2.Sam.21:19 , for all of us to see.

Sorensen

[Sorensen]

What is this , word play? I said it is "Taken" as in judgment. They (the unbelieving people )were taken by the waters of the flood, they died. Do you not understand plain English? I think Your Error stems from the fact, that you are reading into the text of Mt.24, the "taken", to mean "Rapture" ? If so ,that is your error, it is taken, as in judgment !!!!!!

Sorensen

[Teleosis]

You have judged me incorrectly. I have been overseas and I am not in some masonic system of theology. I use generally accepted texts such as Bromiley's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Rogers Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, Grudem's Systematic Theology, various commentaries including the Expositor's, various Zondervan and Libronix Bible programs for computers, various exhaustive Concordances for different versions with their lexicons, and Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited in part by a premier Hebrew scholar, Gleason L. Archer Jr.

Furthermore, I am not interested in getting into personal stories of spiritual background to say I'm better than you or visa versa. I have found when people cannot make an argument for a position in a discussion they typically shift the focus to the person rather than the subject at hand.

If you cannot discuss the language of the Bible, and present a view that is inline with the whole of the Bible in a systematic manner and maintain the integrity of the language through translation and so render a proper interpretation, I am not willing to go off on this tangent with you.

Likewise, I have answered your protest of the modern versions and have found it does not try to dupe anyone into believing anything other than what has been corrected in the KJV. This does not prove the superiority of the KJV since they are operating with the same source text error -they just added a correction in 2nd Samuel. If you want to excoriate the NIV, then you can prosecute your case. I want to talk about the Rapture.