Debate between lastday.info and linkjesus.com

Page 2 of the debate between
Randy Loudenslager <randy@lastday.info> from www.LastDay.info
and
Jason Hommel <bibleprophesy@yahoo.com> from www.linkjesus.com
Click Here to start from the beginning

8-16-2002 Randy's counterpoint:

Jason wrote: Regarding the Day of the Lord, and whether it is 24 hours or 1000 years:

Well, 2 Peter 3:8-10 tells us that we are not to be ignorant that "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," and yes, the context is the Day of the Lord, verse 10. As for me, I refuse to remain in willful ignorance on this. As for you, here are two more witnesses of this testimony, that a day with the Lord is as 1000 years. Psalm 90:4, Gen. 2:17. --Genesis is very important, because God said that Adam would die within a day, but Adam, and others before the flood, lived over 900 years, and thus, they did die within a day, according to the Lord, if and only if, a day with the Lord is as 1000 years.

My reply: The Psalm 90:4 reference does not support your view of 2 Peter 3:8-10. Other than embodying the same words the context says no more to substantiate your claim. The context never lies.

Your reference to Genesis 2:17 intrigued me, so naturally I looked it up an examined the context and the Hebrew.

The context: We see that indeed, just as you have said, Adam didn't die after introducing sin into the world. He went on to propagate and live an exceedingly long life.

The Hebrew: The Hebrew word here for die is 'mut' and can be interchanged with the word 'mawet.' Both words are used to refer to death or as in this example, 'dying or doomed to die.' This is substantiated by Romans 5:12-14:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned - for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was the pattern of the one to come.

And Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death. So, just as Adam's sin did not lead to his immediate demise so it is also true with us, without repentance unto Jesus Christ we are doomed to die. Not exactly evidence to support your theory.

Jason wrote: The point of 2 Peter 3:8 is rather specific and clear, and I'll urge you as Peter did, please don't remain in ignorance of this any longer; the day of the Lord is 1000 years, as Rev 20 also testifies.

My reply: Again,2 Peter:8-10, and supporting context, show Peter addressing the need to be patient in waiting for God's coming. The verses teach us that God is patient in allowing for everyone to have opportunity to come to repentance. God, being eternal spirit, is not subject time, hence a thousand years are like a day and a day like a thousand years. We do not know the timing of the LORD's return because we do not know at this point the day or hour, these are matters of time and relate to our fleshly existence, but God doesn't live by the clock as humanity does, hence our need to be patient. The context says exactly this, why read something else into it?

Would you ask me to read Revelation chapter 20 and join you in assuming the thousand year reign of Christ would support your argument and that it would be something other than a literal thousand years, I think not! The context never lies.

Jason wrote: Here is another way to quickly prove that the Day of the Lord is not 24 hours long: We both agree that the Day of the Lord is when the wrath of God is poured out, yes?

Revelation 15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Well, one of the vials contains quite a specific kind of wrath, let's see:

Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Ah, and how long do these sores last, these torments that fall upon the men who take the mark of the beast? How long does this wrath last? Is it 24 hours or longer?

My reply: Yes and no. Which wrath? Wrath poured out from heaven before the last day or the wrath that God delivers personally when he comes on the last day? If you are referring to the latter then I agree.

The scripture references you provide when read in their context show these vials leading up to the seventh vial in verse 17 in which the end is announced with a resounding voice from the throne of God saying, "It is done!" Following this proclamation we see the prophesied events of the day of wrath, the day the LORD comes back. Therefore, if read in their proper context, these verses are in the time of the desolation and lead up to the last day.

I don't know. Does it say? The context seems to strangely omit this piece of information you insist on adding.

Jason wrote: Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Rev 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Ah, here we see these torments upon the men who take the mark of the beast last 5 months, so the wrath of God lasts at least 5 months, so the Day of the Lord, containing the wrath of God, lasts at least 5 months. It was the certainty of this argument that converted some who rejected the pretrib, and who were post trib, to change to the "pre wrath" position, where they feel the rapture will take place at least 5 months (or more) prior to the end of the tribulation.

My reply: I have no problem equating the the sores in chapter 9 with the stings in 16. It appears that you are correctly viewing the vials as synonymous with the trumpets, only being a different perspective. If this is so, then I applaud you.

The lack of eye to eye on this one seems to be that you are equating the wrath from God in these vials and trumpets with the wrath of God that he personally delivers on the last day. They lead up to this day and are not the day itself, until the last vial and trumpet blast. It is entirely plausible that marked followers of the beast can suffer 5 months prior to the final day, as depicted within the context.

I see a lack of certainty in your last statement that reminds me of something Jesus said, The blind lead the blind and together the fall into the pit!

Jason wrote: There are numerous other examples, of course. Famine is an event of the day of the Lord.

Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

Famine takes longer than one 24-hour day to take hold, otherwise, it's just a simple fast that anyone can endure, and certainly not a plague.

My reply: I believe that the NIV reads more appropriately from the Greek on this one.

Revelation 18:8 (NIV): Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her; death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the LORD God who judges her.

The Greek word, 'heko,' found in the Greek text of this passage is not represented in the KJV translation. 'Heko' translates in English as, 'overtake.' When applied within this context we can see that she (Babylon the Great) already was possessed by these plagues and now they 'overtake' her on the last day, in other words, her wasting away was more than she could stand up under and then she was consumed by fire.

Jason wrote: There's simply no justification to claim that the Day of the Lord is 24 hours; you have to maintain willful ignorance to make such an absurd claim.

My reply: Although I am far from untarnished and I am at times very willful, to my shame, I would suggest you too are also possessed of a will. I am not a scholar and yet I can make efficient and thorough study of this. I am sure you can as well.

Jason wrote: Regarding the "many nations" that come against Israel in Ezekiel 38 and the "whole world" that comes against Israel at the end of the tribulation in Rev 16:14. I see that as a difference. In Ezekiel 38 there appears to be a dialogue, a discussion about the impending invasion. Other nations, not Israel, seem to ask about the invasion.

Ezekiel 38:13 Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil? This is a contrast with Armageddon, when there are no bystanders, the entire world is against Israel.

My reply: The dialogue doesn't imply neutrality. Why use the metaphor 'young lions' in the context if there wasn't 'prey' to be had? These countries are seeking a share in the spoils. You haven't proved the contrast yet.

Jason wrote: When you simply said, "this is a disagreement on semantics", I don't see how that refutes my point that the Gog & Magog war is not Armageddon.

My reply: Ezekiel 38:5 lists some of the nations with Gog. Among them is Put and Cush, Libya and Sudan respectfully. They are allied against the antichrist until he defeats Egypt (Daniel 11:42-43), but they are listed in alliance with this person called by God, "Gog," and have already submitted to him (Daniel 11:43). There is a break in Ezekiel 38 between accounts of battles. The break is the time of plundering in verses 10-12. Therefore what I see in Ezekiel 38 & 39 is a conglomeration of events that shows the invasion and subsequent re-invasion of the Holy Land. This is seen in the multiple scourges that flow over Israel in Isaiah 28:18-19 and the detailed account of those battles in Daniel 11:21-12:1.

Jason wrote: When you say "Fire from God will consume the enemies of Israel only twice", I really don't know how to respond. Where is your evidence? Yes, I know about Rev 20. What you should really try to prove is that the fire of God falls at the end of the tribulation--but you didn't even try to do that. But even if you did that, you still have not proved that the fire of God that falls in Ezekiel 38 is not a third case of the fire of God falling, as you asserted without evidence.

My reply: Ok, we are agreed on Revelation 20:9. Here are a few scriptures: Psalm 46:6 - The earth melts, context shows last day. Psalm 68:1-2 - The whole Psalm is a beautiful picture of the last day. Psalm 97:2-6 - Another great last day Psalm. Isaiah 10:17 You might note that this happens in a single day, The continuing context is a good read. Isaiah 13:1-13 - A cruel day. Isaiah 24:6 - As always, read the context for proof. Isaiah 29:6 - Great contextual support. Isaiah 30:27-30 - What a day! Isaiah 66:15-16 - More. Ezekiel 38:22 Context reads the same as the others. Ezekiel 39:6 Part of same context as 38. Amos 9:5 - Great chapter. Habakkuk 2:13. Zephaniah 3:8 - same story. Malachi 4:1. Matthew 3:11-12. Luke 12:49. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. 2 Peter 3:3-13 - Context is everything. Let me know if you need more 'evidence.'

I light of the above 'evidence,' if read in its own proper context, will show you that the consuming fire of God is indeed reserved for the last day, God's day of wrath. Further, the burden of proof resides with you to prove that the fire from God in Ezekiel 38 is a third fire or concede the point. Please provide ample evidence and less rhetoric for the sake of our readers.

Jason wrote: Regarding the length of the coming tribulation, and whether it is 7 years or 3.5.

You admit Daniel 9:27 speaks on this, but you claim that only the second half is tribulation, or distress. Well, what is Daniel's 70th week based upon? The 70 weeks. The entire 70 weeks are described as a "curse" from God (Dan 9:11), a "great evil" (Dan 9:12-14), God's "anger and fury" (Dan 9:16) described as "troublous times" (Dan 9:25). Likewise then, the first half of the 70th week will also be a curse from God, a great evil, a time of his anger and fury, and troublous times. Tribulation, or distress (same concept), are words that aptly describe those things.

My reply: In reading Daniel 9:4-19 we see that this is a prayer to God by Daniel and is not prophetic about the future. In examining its surrounding context, it is obvious that Israel's 'distress' from the Deuteronomy 28 curses would encompass more than the last seventy weeks since it refers in part to Daniel's time as well.

The last 'seven,' being defined in Daniel 9:27, speaks of the ruler (antichrist) establishing a covenant with many for seven years, the last of the seventy weeks. In the middle of this seven years he puts an end to sacrifice and sets up the abomination that causes what? DESOLATION! The desolation of Israel has come whenever she forsakes or rebels against the covenant. This desolation will carry on until the end that is decreed is poured out on him (antichrist).

The first half, sees Israel in her covenant with death, as I wrote last time. This produces for her a temporary time of peace and not desolation. Ezekiel 38:8 & 11 show Israel at peace before desolation takes place. Isaiah 28:14-22 again shows Israel making a covenant that she hopes will grant her safety only to become horribly desolate as she is run over by the scourge. Ezekiel 39:25-29 shows us that Israel lived in safety in unfaithfulness and will be scattered and have to be brought back by God himself to the land where he will pour out his Spirit on them. Daniel 8:25 shows destruction at the hand of the antichrist when the 'holy people' feel secure.

Jason wrote: You claim that there is no Biblical support for saying the tribulation lasts seven years. I'm glad you recognize Daniel 9:27 at the least. I've already mentioned another one, evidence that you reject, from Ezekiel 39. It clearly mentions 7 years.

My reply: I recognize half of the seven as 'desolation' in Daniel 9:27, just as the context speaks for itself. Seven years still does not say tribulation, it just says seven years. Please explain how burning weapons as fuel for seven years equates to seven years of tribulation.

Jason wrote: Now, it does not say they have a seven-year supply of weapons to burn. They may have an 8-year supply, or a 15 year supply, but they only burn them for 7 years. Or, they might have a 4-month supply of weapons for fuel, that they manage to stretch out for 7 years as Jesus multiplied the fish and loaves. The point scripture is making in Ezekiel 39 about this is not that they "have a lot of weapons to burn". That is not how you interpret specific quotations of time periods. The time is specific, and it's for a reason.

My reply: The context clearly shows that they had enough weapons to burn for seven years. How do we know this? 'They will not need to gather wood from the fields or cut it from the trees, because they will use the weapons for fuel.' (Ezekiel 39:10) The context never lies.

Your viewpoint about this scripture does not match what is written.

Your 'method' of interpretation leaves a lot to be desired, I think I will stick with what I see in the Word. It is alive and active and has no need for man to interpret it, it speaks quite clearly on its own, as demonstrated above.

It most certainly is time specific, it will take seven years to burn the weapons as fuel.

Jason wrote: And you have not explained why you believe it is appropriate for them to be burning weapons during the time when you think this war takes place. If the invasion happens in the middle of the tribulation, as you assert, but the enemies are not destroyed by God until the end of tribulation, as you assert, why then, would they continue to burn weapons for fuel after Jesus has returned? Such a thought MAKES NO SENSE out of the mention of the 7 year time period. But it makes perfect sense that the 7 years they burn weapons for fuel is the length of the tribulation, the 7 years of Daniel's 70th week, of which Ezekiel was well aware.

My reply: You 'assert' that Jesus' coming back will bring Paradise. I answered this and I still believe that you are looking through Paradise tinted glasses. There will be crops, rivers, nations, people, fig trees and vines, houses, a physical temple, and on and on. People will be using cooking pots and various other activities we take for granted. We will be raised imperishable but it isn't New Jerusalem time yet. Fuel will be burned. These are not assertions and a glance in your concordance and the Bible will secure this. If in doubt then I will provide the necessary scripture. Jesus presence does not spell the end of cooking fires.

You ask your questions as if your position is fact, but you criticize my position with little regard for context. Your questions are rhetorical. Prove your 'perfect sense' theory that seven years of fuel is the so-called tribulation.

Jason wrote: Regarding the covenant with death of Isaiah 28, and Daniel's 70th week. I'm glad we agree these are the same reference.

My reply: I am glad of this as well.

Jason wrote: You assert without feeling the need to support your assertions (as if all your assertions are factual), "The only time Israel will live in safety with no fear of enemies is when they enter the seven year covenant with the antichrist." Hey now, need I remind you of the peace that Israel will live in during the millennium? So, obviously you are wrong.

My reply: My apologies, you are correct and I agree. I 'assumed' you would understand the context from which I was speaking and we were debating (how unfactual of me).

Jason wrote: But upon what authority do you say that the peace of the first 3.5 years is the "ONLY" peace Israel will see? It does not say that in Daniel 9:27, nor in Isaiah 28, so where do you get this concept, upon what is it founded? Are you just making things up out of thin air? Where is your Biblical support for your idea?

My reply: I am sorry I did not clarify this earlier. In the last seven years Israel will only taste a fleeting peace with her enemies before they turn on her (as I have shown many times). In Daniel 8:25 the idea that the holy people (Israel) are feeling secure is presented followed by the abomination. In the middle of the seven Daniel 9:27 we see an end to the first 3.5 years by the abomination. In Isaiah 28 she makes a covenant with death and feels secure with it. On the other hand, Israel has not known real peace, as a people, since the days of Solomon. And based on her stiff necked ways and penchant for leaning on allies she can't entirely trust, the last peace might seem surreal in comparison to her history. God said to Israel that wherever they were they would be pursued by plague, sword and famine. They would be abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth and an object of cursing, horror, scorn and reproach to all the nations (Jeremiah 29:18-19). Based on this I see no rest or peace for Israel except that of the 3.5 year fake peace before her desolation and, of course, in the thousand year reign and beyond.

Jason wrote: But if the first peace that comes to Israel is the covenant with death, or the man of sin, then why does God tell us to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem"?

Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

My reply: I would hope that it is obvious to all who love Israel that the peace spoken of is the final peace ushered in by the LORD Jesus, the Messiah, upon the establishment of his reign on earth at his second coming. We have read about it near the end of Ezekiel 39, or should you choose, in Jeremiah 30.

Jason wrote: Instead of praying for the antichrist to come so that he can bring a false peace to Israel, I will pray that Israel lives in peace now, and becomes wealthy now.

My reply: Why would anyone, as a believer, pray for the antichrist to come? Additionally, I would not pray for Israel's peace now or her wealth until she repents of her rebellion against the covenant. My prayer is that all who will repent will do so soon and the peace that can only come from God will come upon Israel when Jesus comes and pours out his Spirit upon them - Come LORD Jesus! Even the Jews understand that their promised salvation will come through the Messiah.

Jason wrote: Regarding the "captivity of Jacob". I quoted this in Ezekiel 39 and Jeremiah 30 to show that after the invasion, it is the tribulation, the time of Jacob's trouble, also the time of travail, and the time of the Day of the Lord.

You looked up Ezekiel 39 in the NIV, but you neglected Jeremiah 30. The point I made is that it is the same thing, in the NIV it is the same thing, that Israel is coming "back from captivity".

NIV Jer 30:3 The days are coming,' declares the LORD , 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity [1] and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD ."

You wrote, "After the battle Israel is gathered by God, not exiled into captivity again." Yes, we agree on that. I did not assert that Jacob would be going into captivity after the Gog & Magog war. The point was that the similarity between the two passages shows that after the Gog and Magog invasion, it is the time of Jacob's trouble, it is the tribulation.

My reply: I am referring to the battle on the last day. I may not be understanding you correctly, hence my thought that it is possibly a semantics problem on a few points so please be patient. A battle does indeed usher in 'Jacobs trouble.' This time of 'trouble' is referred to by Jesus as the time of punishment and wrath against this [Jews] people (Luke 21:22-24). It is followed by the coming of Christ on the last day of that trouble. Unless I missed your point, the disagreement is still, at this stage, about the length of tribulation. This tribulation is clearly marked out as 42 months (Revelation 11:2), or 1260 days or 3.5 years (Daniel 12:7). Your references do not suggest otherwise.

You still not have established that the last day starts the tribulation.

Israel has come out of tribulation as seen in the text. The invasion starts the tribulation, they come to plunder and they do (Ezekiel 38:13). Then they are vanquished on the last day by God (38:17-39:8) and he gathers the exiles and pours out his Spirit on them (verses 25-29).

The last day will be horrifying for the faithful Jews and yet they will be saved out of it and enter the millennium kingdom on that day. I see no pause for seven years in Jeremiah 30. These particular passages from Ezekiel and Jeremiah do not mesh together as simply as you would suggest. Jeremiah talks about the last day in chapter 30 while Ezekiel gives more description of events leading up to the last day and then both give us a glimpse into the kingdom of God to come. Isaiah shows a covenant with death (Isaiah 28:15) as seen in Daniel 9:27. The covenant will be a strategic military alliance allowing the antichrist to pass through the region (Isaiah 28:15-19) to war with the king of the South [Egypt](Daniel 11:25-28 ), while guaranteeing Israel's safety. The antichrist swarms through and battles the Southern kingdom (an alliance with Libya and Sudan - Daniel 11:42-43) but he is stopped by foreign ships (11:30). It is at this point he vents his frustration against Israel and sets up the abomination in the temple (11:30-31). This sets off the desolation of Israel which although resisted by some (11:32) it will last to the appointed time, the last day (11:35). The antichrist will prevail over all of his enemies (11:36-39), but still has resistance to his rule from the southern alliance so he goes to war against them again but this time his forces are overwhelming and he destroys Egypt and her allies surrender (11:43). But something is happening back in Jerusalem. Israel, or what is left of her in the holy land rebels against the antichrist. He receives the report and sets out in a rage and destroys all in his path (11:44). He pitches his tents at Megiddo (11:45). Michael the chief prince and protector of Israel rises to defend Israel (12:1) and then we see the resurrection (12:1-2) which is followed by the antichrist's end, this being the last day. How long given for the desolation? 1290 days (3.5 years) (Daniel 12:7 & 11).

Jason wrote: Now, the type of peace in Ezekiel 38 appears to be different than the peace of the first half of the 7 year tribulation. There is no indication that the pace in Ezekiel 38 is a 3.5 year peace, nor is there any mention of the antichrist. In Ezekiel 38, we can see that Israel also has grown wealthy, and that the wealth is the occasion for the invasion. (Ezek 38:12,13) I don't know if 3.5 years is enough time to transform Israel of today into the wealthy nation that would inspire invasions against it. Besides, the invasion in the tribulation is not because of the wealth of Israel, that other invasion to come is due to the wrath of Satan, see Rev 12 again.

My reply: What is different about the peace? Man-made peace is man-made peace, fleeting at best and deceptive as usual!

Maybe the antichrist goes by the nickname 'Gog.' I guess it depends were you are viewing from.

Plunder is always the fruit of war when waged by oppressive nations and leaders. Israel is considered a first world country surrounded by third world countries - she has plunder enough for the wanting.

The invaders are deceived by demons to come to Israel (Revelation 16:13-14). Yes, it is Satan's wrath, but that is not something the invaders will understand. They will have these thoughts come into their minds and will act on them (Ezekiel 38:10-12). Wealth can easily motivate and more so if combined with the goods of her neighbors (Daniel 11:39, 40-43). The antichrist doesn't just pick on Israel, whoever doesn't submit willingly will be forced to.

Jason wrote: We know that the antichrist comes to power through peace; he comes making peace. (Daniel 8:25, 11:21,24) This is during the first part of the tribulation, before he takes the title of God and goes out making war for the second half. If the antichrist brings peace, then it must be after a time of war. What war would you suggest happens prior to the peace of the antichrist? I suggest it is the Gog and Magog invasion that God destroys with fire.

My reply: I followed what you said and praised God that we had found some more agreement and then I became puzzled by your assumption that peace would have to be preceded by war. Based on what? The Bible says differently, it says that the antichrist is a master of intrigue(Daniel 8:23) and that by acting deceitfully he will come to power with only a few people. If you mean war among others and himself then I agree with you, but if you mean war with Israel to be followed by peace then I disagree. I will need to see the evidence as your suggestion, by itself, is not supported.

Jason wrote: You suggest the Gog and Magog invasion lasts 3.5 years, the second half of Daniels 70th week. However, there is nothing in Ezekiel 38-39 that suggests the invasion or plundering lasts that length of time.

My reply: When did I say that?

To set things straight, I never said that or suggested the invasion will last that long. The desolation will last 3.5 years. The invasion kicks it off.

Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39 are alike enough in pattern and details with other prophecies that, although not embodying every detail, still presents the same message as Daniel, Isaiah, etc. etc. Isaiah 28:18-19 show a picture of the scourge passing through multiple times and each time it does it carries away more and more. The scourge is obviously plundering constantly - like a river flows constantly.

Jason wrote: I think you have an overly optimistic idea of the conditions of life on earth during Daniel's 70th week. You say that Israel will be at peace the first half, and that the world will be at peace the entire time, because, and I quote you, "Most of the world will be worshiping the antichrist as some form of savior, so naturally they will claim peace and safety. Only Israel and the true believers in Christ will endure the trials of the desolation and Satan's rage for 3.5 years (1260 days)."

As I understand that time, 1/2 the population of the world will be killed. First, a fourth is killed, and then, of the remaining three fourths, a third is killed, leaving only two fourths, or a half left.

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Revelation 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

My reply: When has the world ever been free of war? Yet, people always claim peace and safety when they want to believe someone has an answer, that is the implication of my statement. It speaks of the condition of the minds of men who are under a delusion andbelieve the lie. How is it possible to apply the criticism 'over optimistic' to that?

The desolation is Satan's focus of rage, through the world, against the Jews and the body of Christ. That is not understood from what I wrote?

The verses you quote indeed happen during the desolation, but they are against the rest of humanity as opposed to the Jews and the true believers.

Jason wrote: So then, I do not think that the peace described in Luke 17:26-37 is describing the tribulation, when 1/2 the population of the earth is wiped out within 7 years. No, the peace in Luke 17:26-37 is describing the peace prior to the tribulation, prior to the Day of the Lord, prior to the pretribulation rapture, prior to the Gog & Magog invasion. Luke 17 describes people as taking no note of the day--this describes conditions prior to the pretrib rapture, because peace is not a description of the tribulation, when the men of the earth are humbled, and terrified, and killed, and are making war, and are gathering for war in the valley of Armageddon.

Look again at the verse I quoted for you, and ask when does it apply?

My reply: Are you to say that these events couldn't be piled into a period near the end of the last 3.5 years? Where is your proof? Which one of these things has a time set on it. This is just like your 5 months of plague theory earlier. What says that these are stretched out along 7 years or even 3.5 years?

I do not know your life story, but from your writing it appears you understand little of suffering and the human penchant for seeing a brighter tomorrow. People fell in love in Nazi concentration camps and were married as soon as they were liberated. It may seem ok now, but go through that and I can only imagine the different perspective it would give us. They came through hell and back and resurrected enough hope in tomorrow that they married each other and planned their lives. Any bright spot, like the coming of a false messiah, during bleak times will most certainly raise cheers of peace and safety, humans survive on hope - no matter how misdirected. After all, they are claiming peace and safety, it doesn't say they are living it. It's kind of like watching skyscrapers falling to the ground and then waiving the flag and saying, 'God bless America.' In a sentence it sounds ludicrous, but as you know, it happened. There is more to the letter of the law than meets the eye, its called the spirit of the law. Compared to what God will unleash when he is present , the verses you quoted will be a Sunday picnic.

Where does it say men are humbled coming to Armageddon? As various plagues are unleashed I read that men cursed God and would not repent in various places in Revelation.

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

Can this apply at the middle of the tribulation? No, because there is no "sudden destruction" at the middle, and certainly, Israel WILL ESCAPE the destruction sent by the antichrist. She is given wings of eagles to escape, Rev 12.

Can this apply at the end of the tribulation? No, because 1/2 the population of the world was just destroyed by war in the prior 7 years, and the rest of the world's armies are gathering together for war in Armageddon. If anything, the end of the tribulation will be the most war-filled time in all of human history, there certainly will not be peace.

My reply: Again, they 'say' peace and safety.

You are mixing up who says what. We don't hear claims of peace and safety from Israel, instead we are shown here temporary peace that is suddenly ended with invasion. Obviously, whatever is happening to Israel is going to be worse than what is happening elsewhere. She will be desolate, those who are left alive will be enslaved and the land destroyed. Israel as a people will cease to exist as a nation. The world that supports the antichrist will believe that their new world order will bring peace and safety, but Israel will not claim peace during her desolation - it would be absurd. Instead some of her people will cry out to God, but he will hide his face from them until the day he redeems them.

As for escaping Jews. Just who do you think are the 144,000 faithful Jews? Remember, only a remnant will be saved out of Israel. The rest of Israel will not fair so well. I never said 'sudden destruction' comes in the middle, it is at the end and comes from Christ. The invasion of Israel is not synonymous with the last day, these are two separate events separated by 3.5 years.

Jason wrote: The application of 1 Thess 5:3 is to the beginning of the tribulation, the beginning of the Day of the Lord. Ezekiel 38 describes the peace of Israel prior to the invasion, and the fire of God falling is the "sudden destruction" which begins the tribulation and Day of the Lord, as I showed. Likewise, the peace in Luke 17 is prior to the tribulation and the Day of the Lord.

My reply: Regarding 1 Thess 5:3, as can be seen from earlier statements, this is not so.

It is not difficult for any reader to see what follows the fire from God in Ezekiel 39, peace, everlasting peace. The context leaves no doubt that this is seen by all nations as proof that He is the God of Israel. If one believed your theory, the antichrist could easily deceive them into thinking he was the messiah. He calls down fire from heaven and performs counterfeit miracles and vanquishes his enemies with superior might. He may even justify these things as fulfillment of scripture and the Koran. This might be acceptable to a world expecting a new order that will bring peace when the enemies of God are defeated, not realizing they are persecuting and waging war against the very children of God and thus against God himself. This is more than suggested by Jesus in Matthew 24:9-13.

Jason wrote: On a concluding note regarding this debate so far: Thanks for attempting to address the issues I raised in my opening letter. You did, indeed, speak at the issues, and you spoke of the issues, but you did not refute the points I made. Making unsubstantiated assertions, as you mostly did, does not prove or refute anything.

Example: I listed 4 proofs for why the Ezekiel war starts the tribulation.
You gave one proof for your idea that the invasion starts in the middle of the trib, and the fire of God falls at the end of the trib. Your one proof consisted of you asserting that the peace of the first half of the tribulation is the peace in Ezekiel 38. You made the assertion, but you gave no evidence or reasoning. In contrast, with my proofs, I gave evidence, listed reasons, and I went over it thoughtfully.

Now, when you compare evidence, and it's one unsubstantiated reason, shown to be poor, verses 4 solid reasons, which remain unrefuted, then I feel this debate has served its purpose quite well. Thank you for making my view look so good.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

My reply: I will and have endeavored to bolster my evidence considerably. I wasn't under the impression that this debate was supposed to be quick and decisive with the man licking the least amount of wounds declared the winner. I entered this debate with prayer, to God, asking him to teach me through you, if needed. I'm reasonably patient man and I'm still here.

God gives grace to the humble but he opposes the proud.

8-20-2002 Jason writes back:

The depths to which you have attempted to rationalize, to ignore the obvious, is pitiful...

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I begin with this introduction, because one of your arguments has become absurd to the extreme. I believe most people would recognize that you are only deceiving yourself.

I understand the rationalization you are attempting to make to avoid recognizing the truth of what it means with Adam living nearly 1000 years, after God said to him, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Clearly, since God cannot lie, and since Adam lived nearly 1000 years, the implication is that... since Adam did not die within 24 hours, but within 1000 years, then when God said "day", he was be referring to a 1000-year time period.

But no, you struggle so hard to avoid this CLEAR TRUTH (that a day with the Lord is as 1000 years) that is also presented in Psalms 90:4 and in 2 Peter 3:8-10.

I understand your argument: That if God, instead, said, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely [begin to die]," then the word "day" in the verse does not so strongly imply a 1000 year time period, but rather, may well just mean a 24 hour day. So, I have to hand it to you, you certainly know how to go about deceiving yourself, because you have provided yourself a "rational" escape from having to recognize this truth that is staring you in the face:

...that if the Day of the Lord is 1000 years, and not 24 hours, then maybe your theology is wrong, and then also, maybe the rapture is pretrib. I believe it is extraordinarily apparent that you do not have a love of the truth, and that you would much rather continue to deceive yourself.

Here's what's obvious to me: Your definition for "die" in the Hebrew, does not match with any of the definitions in my concordance and dictionary, Strong's:

04191 muwth {mooth}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v
AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835
1) to die, kill, have one executed 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to die 1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death 1a3) to die, perish (of a nation) 1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct) 1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch 1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death 1d) (Hophal) 1d1) to be killed, be put to death 1d1a) to die prematurely

Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument, just for the moment, I will admit that perhaps your definition is one of the acceptable definitions of the word, perhaps in another dictionary, or another root word or something. However, if it is, it is a rare definition, and not a common one. And furthermore, your attempt to use Greek words, to define Hebrew words, is almost silly. The word "death" in Greek is not the same as "die" in Hebrew, and the words are not even the same in English. ..."in that day you shall surly death"??? Ridiculous! The word "death" is not an appropriate word to use to substitute for "die" at all. So, it really looks like you are just absurdly desperate to hope to prove your point.

But let's, by all means, explore this so-called "truth" you have "discovered", and assume your interpretation of Genesis 2:17 is correct for a moment, and imagine what the implications would be: Would it, in fact, refute the point that a day with the Lord is 1000 years?

Very interestingly, we still have the fact that the longest-lived man in the Bible, Methuselah, still lived less than 1000 years.

Gen 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

He, like Adam, like all men, all died within 1000 years. Nobody ever lived over 1000 years. If Adam's death sentence was that he was to actually die (not begin to die) within a "DAY" (1000 years), then his children, who all inherited the same death sentence, so did all his children "die within a day (1000 years)".

Therefore, the implication regarding a day as 1000 years REMAINS, despite your desperate wrangling with the text.

And, of course, we still have 2 Peter 3:8-10, and Psalm 90:4. Either of those two verses, alone, is sufficient enough to build a doctrine which says "If God says "day", we need to remember that has a strong possibility that that could mean "1000 years" to us, particularly if it is HIS day, such as "the Day of the Lord", and we always need to keep this in remembrance when thinking about the Day of the Lord, or teaching about the Day of the Lord, especially since Peter tells us to not be in ignorance regarding this topic."

Let's look into another word on this topic. What might the word "day" mean?

03117 yowm {yome}
from an unused root meaning to be hot; TWOT - 852; n m
AV - day 2008, time 64, chronicles + 01697 37, daily 44, ever 18, year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8 always 4, whole 4, alway 4, misc 44; 2287
1) day, time, year 1a) day (as opposed to night) 1b) day (24 hour period) 1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 1b2) as a division of time 1b2a) a working day, a day's journey 1c) days, lifetime (pl.) 1d) time, period (general) 1e) year 1f) temporal references 1f1) today 1f2) yesterday 1f3) tomorrow

Oh, look there, "day", as used in Genesis 2:17, can just as easily mean a general time period. "1d) time, period (general)" It certainly does not have to mean a 24 hour time period.

By the way, same word for "day" in Isaiah 13, as used in "day of the Lord", "yowm".

Therefore, all your wranglings with the word of God has profited you NOTHING. And that's even if you are right, and it is EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL that you are right regarding your proposed definition of Genesis 2:17.

Therefore, it is time for a rebuke for you.

1. You are teaching contrary to scripture if you say the Day of the Lord cannot be 1000 years long; and you teach it is something else, 24 hours only!

1Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

2. You consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, because you are doting about questions and strifes with words, giving rise to your evil surmisings... that the day of the Lord is not 1000 years, but only 24 hours, and thus giving rise to the evil surmising that you won't have to face the rapture before the tribulation....

1Timothy 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

3. Your striving about words profited you NOTHING in this debate on this point, it refuted nothing, made you look foolish, and had only one purpose, the subverting of the clear doctrine of the Bible regarding the point.

2Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

I strongly believe you need to repent of this, and renew in your spirit a desire to really seek out the truth on things, otherwise, this debate will not be beneficial to you at all, but only to those who happen to look in, because those who do have a heart for the truth will certainly see it at this point.

----------------
Now, I will comment in general before I begin to address the issues around the timing of Ezekiel 38-39. I have to admire several things about how you are handling yourself in this debate. First, as I said before, you certainly do address many of my comments, which is extremely gracious of you. Second, you certainly do know plenty of scripture, and you gave me much to look up, which I did.

There are a few things troubling me. You don't present your ideas so well; in many places you are extremely vague, so much so that I don't know what you are saying, or why you are saying it, so how can I comment? If I commented on them all, this debate would be too long. You chastised me for 'rhetoric', but this is what you need to do to communicate. In some cases it looks like you are refuting me, but we actually agree. On some things, it looks like you misunderstand my position, and for that I apologize, and I will try to be more clear myself.

You also engage in a lot of speculation yourself, because scripture does not come out and say directly what you are preaching in every case.

So, to try and clear up some confusion, I will point out a few things on which we agree. We agree on a time period of 7 years in the future, Daniel's 70th week, the first 3.5 years of which will see the antichrist rise to power through peace, and making peace with Israel. Then, the antichrist breaks the covenant in Dan 9:27 to make war on Israel for the next 3.5 years. And finally, after that, Christ will return with fire and sword to vanquish his enemies and set up his kingdom of peace on earth. Believe it or not, this represents a tremendous area of agreement on prophecy with regard to specifics, and some people would say even those things are mere "speculation"... but we know better, and fortunately, don't need to wrestle each other to the ground to get the other to admit those things. 8-)

Now, to comment in general on the timing of Ezekiel 38-39. Here are the various interpretations I've seen with regard to saying when this happens within the framework that we both agree is coming:

1. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of god falling on the enemies, takes place BEFORE the 7 years. (a pre trib rapture position)
2. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place AT THE START of the 7 years, and this is my position. (a pre trib rapture position)
3. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place IN THE FIRST HALF of the 7 years. (a pre trib rapture position)
4. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place AT THE MIDDLE of the tribulation. (a mid trib rapture position)
5. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place IN THE SECOND HALF of the 7 years. (a pre wrath rapture position)
6. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place AT THE VERY END of the 7 years. (a post trib rapture position)

And then, we have your position, which is different from all the above: The invasion against Israel takes place at the middle of the 7 years, and fire of God falling on the enemies takes place at the end of the 7 years. I apologize that I misunderstood the specifics of what you believed by assuming that you thought the invasion lasted the entire 3.5 years.

As I see it, regarding the proofs of my position that I presented, you attacked what I said and wanted "more proof" to really prove my view, such as how can I know with certainty that the 7 years of burning weapons are specific to the 7 years of time we are talking about.

Well, here's my answer: I don't have to prove that the 7 years of burning weapons is the length of the tribulation. The abundantly clear point is that this piece of evidence from the passage in Ezekiel only supports ONE VIEW, mine. It does not support any other interpretation or view, instead, it refutes them all, all at once. I don't need to prove my view with 100% certainty, I only need to prove my view is far better than all the others. And the clear mention of a 7 year time period that follows the fire of God falling, proves and supports only one view, mine.
---------

Now, let's talk about the fire of God falling; you asserted it would happen only twice; once at the end of the tribulation, and after the millennium. You listed a fantastic bunch of scriptures about the fire of God, and about the earth melting, but not a single one of those verses said what you said about this "only happening twice", or "only happening once".

Now, I do not need to prove that there will be "three" occurrences of fire of God falling in order to prove Ezekiel 38 happens prior to the end of the tribulation. For all I know, the fire of God might fall another 20 times; it matters not to me. All I need to do, to refute your view, is present evidence that the fire of God will fall prior to the end of the tribulation, and your opinion will be refuted. Here are a few evidences of that:

1. The two witnesses, in the tribulation, call down fire of God upon their enemies.

Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

2. ALL GRASS ON EARTH burns up when the fire of God falls during the tribulation; before the end.

Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

3. I actually believe the following verse applies to the middle of the 7 year tribulation (or beginning of the final 3.5 year trib as you might say):

Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

The reasons are lengthy, and perhaps beyond what is necessary to the topic at hand, but instructive, so I will briefly mention them. I believe the Harlot woman, who rides the beast, is best represented by the wealthy Jews who rule the kings of the earth through wealth; so that the Harlot woman of Rev 17-18 is "Jerusalem" in scripture. Perhaps God will give it to you to see this is the correct interpretation, since you already agree that the antichrist turns on Israel in the middle of the 7 years (as the beast turns on the woman). Here's two key proofs of this:

Compare Rev 17 to

Deuteronomy 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

Clearly, the woman is wealthy, and rules the nations, or "rides the beast". The prophecy in Deut 15:6 connects the two concepts, the wealth gives the power to rule the nations. There is no other power mentioned in scripture that rules the nations through wealth; if there was, then Deut 15:6 would not be a true prophecy. And, of course, Israel is described as a whore many times in the Hebrew scriptures.

That's the biggest proof, and here's the second: Jerusalem, like the whore, kills the prophets.

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Now, it is not the "literal city" of Jerusalem that killed the prophets, nor is it that "literal city" that rules the nations through wealth. It is a small group of individuals, the powerful and wealthy ones, who lived in Jerusalem, and who are the descendants of, or modern-day equivalent of, those wealthy ones of Jerusalem, who will be judged and destroyed by fire as described in Rev 18. Therefore, when Rev 18 says she shall "never more be inhabited", it is not talking of the "literal city of Jerusalem", but rather those evil power brokers... the same ones who make peace with death, with the antichrist.

This interpretation also explains why, in Rev 18, there is time for the merchants of the earth to mourn the loss of her wealth. If this was at the end of the tribulation, there would be nobody to mourn their loss, because the wicked are all destroyed at the end.

But anyway, this issue is a huge one, far beyond what I intended to discuss for the purpose of establishing the timing of Ezekiel 38. I present it only because you said, "I entered this debate with prayer, to God, asking him to teach me through you, if needed." There are actually a mountain of other support verses for this interpretation, and I'm working on a study that will present this issue.

If you study the issue of Rev 17-18, you will find that typically the only ones who connect the harlot to Jerusalem are the preterists or historicists, who say it all happened in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and that Revelation was already fulfilled. That view is nonsense. Unfortunately, the futurists typically say the Harlot is either Rome, the USA, or the Catholic Church, if they venture any guess at all.

--------
Regarding whether there will be peace for Israel prior to the false peace of the first half of the coming 7 years. Read Ezekiel 36, just prior to our key passage. It relates about the people of Israel coming back to the land, and growing wealthy through agriculture, as we see today. It almost describes conditions today. You quoted Jeremiah 29:18-19 as saying that Israel won't see peace, but those verses describe the same reproach that Israel faces when scattered among the nations, as described in Ezekiel 36. Jeremiah 29:18-19 has no application to describe Israel when Israel begins to return to the land of Israel.

This view is also connected to the one above. Since it is Jerusalem, or the very wealthy Jews who control many of the nations of the world through wealth, they certainly do have the power to bring peace (and their wealth) to Jerusalem in our day. I think they will succeed.

---------
Regarding whether the peace upon which the Antichrist brings is preceded by war: You wrote, "if you mean war with Israel to be followed by peace then I disagree. I will need to see the evidence as your suggestion, by itself, is not supported." I think you have begun to see the rationale for the antichrist's peace coming after war when, later you wrote,

"It is not difficult for any reader to see what follows the fire from God in Ezekiel 39, peace, everlasting peace. The context leaves no doubt that this is seen by all nations as proof that He is the God of Israel. If one believed your theory, the antichrist could easily deceive them into thinking he was the messiah. He calls down fire from heaven and performs counterfeit miracles and vanquishes his enemies with superior might. He may even justify these things as fulfillment of scripture and the Koran. This might be acceptable to a world expecting a new order that will bring peace when the enemies of God are defeated, not realizing they are persecuting and waging war against the very children of God and thus against God himself. This is more than suggested by Jesus in Matthew 24:9-13. "

I think you understand EXACTLY my point, a point I have not raised until now. The Gog and Magog war of Ezekiel 38-39 (that ends with the fire of God falling thus starting Daniel's 70th week) will be the occasion for the rise of the antichrist as he comes in brokering peace. The antichrst WILL be seen as the messiah, returned after a false Armageddon-like conflict, bringing in the peace (and messiah figure) that the world expects to come after such an event. In fact, it would seem that it would be much more difficult for the antichrist to fool the world into accepting him as the messiah unless he appeared after an Armageddon-like conflict. Now, if this view is correct, this certainly would be a "strong delusion" (2 Thess 2:11) as you seem to admit.

In fact, this strong delusion should even be described as being "sent by God", in several ways, since God did cause Ezekiel 38-39 to be written in this way, and since God will be the one sending the fire of God on Israel's enemies.

But believing that my view is the correct one would certainly NOT be the CAUSE of the deception that the world will face. In fact, recognizing the truth of what will come beforehand IS HOW TO AVOID BEING DECEIVED when the deception comes. There is no great mass of people who believe Ezekiel 38 will be fulfilled exactly at the start of the coming 7 years. In fact, perhaps only half of those who believe the pretrib rapture are aware enough of the specifics of Ezekiel 38 to even have an opinion, and perhaps only half of those believe it will happen right at the start of the 7 years. As noted above, even within the pretrib viewpoint, there are several possibilities. But there IS a mass of people who believe in a coming "Armageddon" and "christ returning with peace afterwards"--practically the entire world of professing Christians believes in that basic scenario, and even the unbelieving world knows enough of Christian prophecy to know these things, who will easily be deceived.

--------
Regarding whether the tribulation is 7 years or 3.5:

I agree with you that Israel, in the second half of the 7 years, faces greater tribulation than in the first half. I agree that Israel makes the false peace with the antichrist in the first half. But this does not disprove that the first half of the 7 years is not a time of "distress", or "trouble", or "tribulation", as you assert. This trouble consists also of the great delusion that is sent (the false Armageddon), and the fact that the antichrist is rising to world power through peace, which will fool the world into accepting him as "god" in a short three and a half years later. THIS IS TROUBLE!!! Also described as a time of testing, or an hour of temptation, or trial, in Rev 3:10.

In fact, part of the delusion could well be the idea that the tribulation is only 3.5 years long. Half way into the start of the tribulation, those who expected Christ to arrive after such a short time might well be deceived. Perhaps not you, since you understand a few things, but others might. But what if your details are wrong, and the first half of the 7 years is much worse than you thought, and while in it, you realized tribulation had begun, but you still thought "tribulation is only 3.5 years" to go until Christ comes, but that's really when the Antichrist comes?

So, even with Israel making the false peace at the start of Daniel's 70th week, (the 7 year tribulation) I see no reason to characterize the first half of 70th week of Daniel any differently than the previous curse of God (the 70 years of captivity), upon which it is based, and which preceded it as described in Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9. And since it is a curse, and evil, and trouble, then it is also tribulation and distress. All of it is a punishment decreed by God. Since when is a time of punishment sent by God not "distress" or "tribulation" in some way? Go and prove that a time period of punishment by God, yet to be fulfilled, is not a distress (same word for tribulation, distress) in any way, and you will have made your case, because that's what you are saying, and it is utter foolishness.

--------
Regarding 1 Thess 5:3, and people saying "peace and safety". Originally, you said that the world would be at peace all through the tribulation, because tribulation would only affect Israel. I challenged that assumption, by providing evidence from Revelation that 1/2 the world will be destroyed by war during the tribulation. Then, you changed your story, and said that people can SAY "peace and safety" at any time, whether at peace or war. I agree with you on that point, people can be optimistic and SAY peace whenever they want to; and even may cry out for it in the midst of war.

However, Paul wrote his words as if they provided a REASON and a TIME for what he was saying, and he wrote his words as if they would be understood by his audience AS A PROOF for what he was saying; which is WHEN and HOW the day of the Lord will come. Your interpretation, by contrast, makes Paul's words about peace and safety, MEANINGLESS as a cue to refer to time and when the day of the Lord will come, since, as you assert, these words, "peace and safety" could be uttered by anyone at anytime, peace or war. But it is not anytime, it is "WHEN they shall say, Peace and safety", and Paul spoke as if they would perfectly know this time of "WHEN".

I assert that Paul was referring to scripture when he wrote those words, scripture that would have been understood by the Thessalonian Jewish converts, and I assert that he referred to Ezekiel 38, for there is no other place in scripture that teaches that people are saying "peace and safety" at a certain time at a certain event and where it is followed by sudden destruction.

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

It is clear to me, from 1 Thess 5:2-3 alone, that the sudden destruction is the beginning of the Day of the Lord. Thus, the Day of the Lord begins with the fire of God falling, as described in Ezekiel 38. On this point, we agree, that the fire of God begins the Day of the Lord.

However, your explanation of Ezekiel 38 does not fit with the description in 1 Thess 5:3. Your explanation of Ezekiel 38 has a 3.5 year gap between the peace and safety of the first half of Daniel's 70th week, and when the fire of God, or "sudden destruction" comes at the end of Daniel's 70th week. But there CANNOT BE A GAP of 3.5 years, because the fire of God falls, and the Day of the Lord begins, and the sudden destruction comes WHEN they are saying peace and safety, just as in Ezekiel 38. And they CANNOT be saying "peace and safety" during the last half of the tribulation, because that would render the text of 1 Thess 5:3, "when they shall say, Peace and safety", utterly meaningless as THE time cue, THE time cue that the Thessalonians would know about, that Paul intended it to be.

Thus, your view, as it stands, is absolutely impossible to reconcile with the text of 1 Thess 5:2-3. And on the other hand, what I have presented regarding Ezekiel 38-39, fits the text of of 1 Thess 5:2-3 perfectly, with no problems or contradictions. Your only true complaint against my view is that I have not proved it with 100% certainty, and you have been unable to refute what I've been saying.

Randy's counterpoint:

Jason wrote: The depths to which you have attempted to rationalize, to ignore the obvious, is pitiful...

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I begin with this introduction, because one of your arguments has become absurd to the extreme. I believe most people would recognize that you are only deceiving yourself.

My reply: If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! 1 Corinthians 10:26

Most people can think for themselves, even when subjected to reading the baseless attacks of the self-righteous against others. Many of them also have the Spirit!

Jason wrote: I understand the rationalization you are attempting to make to avoid recognizing the truth of what it means with Adam living nearly 1000 years, after God said to him, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Clearly, since God cannot lie, and since Adam lived nearly 1000 years, the implication is that... since Adam did not die within 24 hours, but within 1000 years, then when God said "day", he was be referring to a 1000-year time period.

But no, you struggle so hard to avoid this CLEAR TRUTH (that a day with the Lord is as 1000 years) that is also presented in Psalms 90:4 and in 2 Peter 3:8-10.

My reply: I have never said a day to the LORD is not like a thousand years, once again you misquote me.

I did not have to struggle with this because the context speaks for itself. In fact it was far less struggle than what you must have exerted in ignoring the confirmation of my point by scripture in Romans 5:12-14:

What is so hard to understand here? Adam could have died the next day, but he didn't. His flesh began to die that day when sin entered through man and death through sin. So it took Adam 900 years to die. Your point does not even begin to address that God lives apart from time or the, often repeated by me, fact that the context tells exactly what Peter was saying in regards to a day in God's terms being like a thousand years. The verses in 2 Peter 3 do not present the 'day of the LORD' as synonymous 'with the LORD a day is like . . .' The 'day of the LORD' is supported by its context which clearly gives events in a single day time frame. Otherwise we would have to believe that it takes a thousand years to destroy the heavens by fire and melt the elements with heat! This is not scripturally supported. And 'with the LORD a day is like . . .' is also supported by its context in regards to God's patience in giving all a chance. Read out of context if you will, but you do so at your own peril!

Jason wrote: Here's what's obvious to me: Your definition for "die" in the Hebrew, does not match with any of the definitions in my concordance and dictionary, Strong's:

04191 muwth {mooth}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v
AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835
1) to die, kill, have one executed 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to die 1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death 1a3) to die, perish (of a nation) 1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct) 1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch 1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death 1d) (Hophal) 1d1) to be killed, be put to death 1d1a) to die prematurely

My reply: Have you tried the 'NIV Exhaustive Concordance?'

Is it ridiculous to say ". . . in that day you shall be doomed to death."?

Brush up on your concordance reading my friend, the word 'mut' is most definitely a Hebrew word and is not as rare as you speculate.

Jason wrote: But let's, by all means, explore this so-called "truth" you have "discovered", and assume your interpretation of Genesis 2:17 is correct for a moment, and imagine what the implications would be: Would it, in fact, refute the point that a day with the Lord is 1000 years?

Very interestingly, we still have the fact that the longest-lived man in the Bible, Methuselah, still lived less than 1000 years.

Gen 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

Therefore, the implication regarding a day as 1000 years REMAINS, despite your desperate wrangling with the text.

My reply: What's your point? I rebutted your claim that Genesis 2:17 supported the day of the LORD as being a thousand years long. That scripture simply shows the introduction of sin and death into the world. It is clear that Adam didn't die within 24 hours - I agree. But it doesn't support that every mention of day with God's name attached means a thousand years any more than that scripture did. Death came by sin and took a while to overcome its first victims, but they were as good as dead already with sin inhabiting their bodies. This scripture does not support in any way that the day of the LORD will last a thousand years - as you claim.

For God, what is a thousand years? He is not subject to time as a spirit. But to talk with mortals who know nothing of living outside of time He must use figures of speech that contain elements of time for our understanding.

Jason wrote: And, of course, we still have 2 Peter 3:8-10, and Psalm 90:4. Either of those two verses, alone, is sufficient enough to build a doctrine which says "If God says "day", we need to remember that has a strong possibility that that could mean "1000 years" to us, particularly if it is HIS day, such as "the Day of the Lord", and we always need to keep this in remembrance when thinking about the Day of the Lord, or teaching about the Day of the Lord, especially since Peter tells us to not be in ignorance regarding this topic."

My reply: If a "strong possibility" were to exist it would still not be sufficient to build a doctrine to teach others to have faith in!

Actually we still have 2 Peter 3:3-13 (can't forget that context). Psalm 90:1- 4 shows from the context of verses 1 & 2 that verse 4 speaks in regards to the lack of time limits on God while men are confined to time limits. Hence, '. . . from everlasting to everlasting you are God.' We need to do more than look up words in our concordances and put them forth as arguments, we need to read the context of which they were spoken and written in order to understand the meaning they hold. These verses still say nothing to support your theories no matter how hard that you try to postulate them.

Jason wrote: Let's look into another word on this topic. What might the word "day" mean?

03117 yowm {yome}
from an unused root meaning to be hot; TWOT - 852; n m
AV - day 2008, time 64, chronicles + 01697 37, daily 44, ever 18, year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8 always 4, whole 4, alway 4, misc 44; 2287
1) day, time, year 1a) day (as opposed to night) 1b) day (24 hour period) 1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 1b2) as a division of time 1b2a) a working day, a day's journey 1c) days, lifetime (pl.) 1d) time, period (general) 1e) year 1f) temporal references 1f1) today 1f2) yesterday 1f3) tomorrow

Oh, look there, "day", as used in Genesis 2:17, can just as easily mean a general time period. "1d) time, period (general)" It certainly does not have to mean a 24 hour time period.

By the way, same word for "day" in Isaiah 13, as used in "day of the Lord", "yowm".

My reply: I have not limited a day to specifics (like 24 hours), you did that by equating the meaning of a day to a thousand years (For the LORD yes, it is LIKE a thousand years, but not in reference to man unless specified as such by God. These are not my rules, they come by simply reading the Bible literally and taking God at his word.). I have no problem with a day spoken of in general terms, like sunrise to sunrise or sunset to sunset. Or a non-specified date in the future. Or a figure of speech to measure a thought by, such as in 2 Peter 3:8.

Jason wrote: Therefore, it is time for a rebuke for you.

1. You are teaching contrary to scripture if you say the Day of the Lord cannot be 1000 years long; and you teach it is something else, 24 hours only!

1Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

1Timothy 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

2Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

My reply: I do not recognize your rebuke for the following reasons:

1. You are teaching scripture out of context. You have shown a penchant for twisting the scriptures to fit your own peculiar theology. This should not be! Twist your theology to fit scripture or what you have built will not survive the flames (1 Corinthians 3)!

2. You have evilly surmised that I do not want to face the 'rapture'. To the contrary, all of my hope is in the promised resurrection of the dead in Christ! You point a finger and call me evil by your insinuations, do you need some help with that plank in your eye brother? You have not demonstrated even basic humility in your diatribes. You practice self-justification and perpetrate punishing insults upon someone you are purportedly teaching! It is preposterous to assume that because you say you are right that i should believe it. I will continue to practice the way of the Berean.

3. Your venomous attacks and hollow arguments are a poor substitute for proper division of the scriptures. Your dictionary does have a definition of 'context' within its covers. Without context a verse can be made to say whatever one chooses, which is evident in much of your attempt to support your theories. And yes they are theories until they are properly supported in context as fact!

If you do not want to quarrel about words then stop yourself from doing so. I have answered your comments, one and all! If a word needs to be examined then for the benefit of discovering the truth lets do so, for this I make no apology!

In consideration of your rebuke and the desire to demolish strongholds, within as well as without, I will keep your rebuke in mind. I know that it is with at least some conviction that you do so for me and I thank you. As for you, you would be wise to heed your own points of rebuke and in light of this may your rebuke come back to you in the force of conviction in which it was delivered!

Jason wrote: Now, I will comment in general before I begin to address the issues around the timing of Ezekiel 38-39. I have to admire several things about how you are handling yourself in this debate. First, as I said before, you certainly do address many of my comments, which is extremely gracious of you. Second, you certainly do know plenty of scripture, and you gave me much to look up, which I did.

You also engage in a lot of speculation yourself, because scripture does not come out and say directly what you are preaching in every case.

My reply: I answer all of your comments under the auspices of doing unto others as I would have them do unto me. I do this not because I am gracious, but because I am enabled to do it under grace.

In regards to a few troubling things: Ditto, my friend. You have presented my thoughts as well. I will endeavor, by the will of the LORD, to do better on my end of this discussion.

Jason wrote: So, to try and clear up some confusion, I will point out a few things on which we agree. We agree on a time period of 7 years in the future, Daniel's 70th week, the first 3.5 years of which will see the antichrist rise to power through peace, and making peace with Israel. Then, the antichrist breaks the covenant in Dan 9:27 to make war on Israel for the next 3.5 years. And finally, after that, Christ will return with fire and sword to vanquish his enemies and set up his kingdom of peace on earth. Believe it or not, this represents a tremendous area of agreement on prophecy with regard to specifics, and some people would say even those things are mere "speculation"... but we know better, and fortunately, don't need to wrestle each other to the ground to get the other to admit those things. 8-)

My reply: Again, we have found some common ground and I share with you the need to put forth the basic points of agreement, I was planning on doing like wise.

I agree to these basic points and I appreciate the kindness of words in which they were presented. ;-)

Jason wrote: Now, to comment in general on the timing of Ezekiel 38-39. Here are the various interpretations I've seen with regard to saying when this happens within the framework that we both agree is coming:

1. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of god falling on the enemies, takes place BEFORE the 7 years. (a pre trib rapture position)
2. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place AT THE START of the 7 years, and this is my position. (a pre trib rapture position)
3. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place IN THE FIRST HALF of the 7 years. (a pre trib rapture position)
4. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place AT THE MIDDLE of the tribulation. (a mid trib rapture position)
5. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place IN THE SECOND HALF of the 7 years. (a pre wrath rapture position)
6. Some say the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion against Israel, and fire of God falling on the enemies, takes place AT THE VERY END of the 7 years. (a post trib rapture position)

My reply: Apology accepted, my presentation may need some help. I might add for clarification that I believe the day of God pouring fire upon the earth is the day of the LORD. This day also sees the severest of earthquakes sword and plague, this is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Jason wrote: As I see it, regarding the proofs of my position that I presented, you attacked what I said and wanted "more proof" to really prove my view, such as how can I know with certainty that the 7 years of burning weapons are specific to the 7 years of time we are talking about.

My reply: You have not succeeded in proving your 'view is far better than all the others,' only that it is your view.

I refuted your view about the seven years of fuel marking the tribulation. You did not answer it - twice! Yes, you did answer questions with questions. And now you basically say you don't have to, what's up with that?

The context shows no need to cut or gather wood for fuel because of the seven year supply of weapons. There isn't even a hint that people need to survive off of the weapons as a fuel source of desperation, they just use it rather than wood until it is used up after seven years, that's not me that's the context.

Jason wrote: Now, let's talk about the fire of God falling; you asserted it would happen only twice; once at the end of the tribulation, and after the millennium. You listed a fantastic bunch of scriptures about the fire of God, and about the earth melting, but not a single one of those verses said what you said about this "only happening twice", or "only happening once".

My reply: Forgive me for what may appear to be splitting a hair, but it actually is meant to get clarification: Do you mean fire from heaven or God pouring out fire from heaven. There are various events that indeed depict fire coming down through agents of God, but God personally pouring out fire is limited to the scriptures I gave of the last day (in regards to end-times prophecy).

Jason wrote: Now, I do not need to prove that there will be "three" occurrences of fire of God falling in order to prove Ezekiel 38 happens prior to the end of the tribulation. For all I know, the fire of God might fall another 20 times; it matters not to me. All I need to do, to refute your view, is present evidence that the fire of God will fall prior to the end of the tribulation, and your opinion will be refuted. Here are a few evidences of that:

1. The two witnesses, in the tribulation, call down fire of God upon their enemies.

Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

2. ALL GRASS ON EARTH burns up when the fire of God falls during the tribulation; before the end.

3. I actually believe the following verse applies to the middle of the 7 year tribulation (or beginning of the final 3.5 year trib as you might say):

Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

My reply:

1. This fire is not even coming down from heaven and does not fit the criteria of God pouring out fire upon the earth.

2. This is better, at least it is coming from heaven, but it still isn't God pouring out a consuming fire on the earth. Yes, one third of the earth is burned, but this isn't the same as when Jesus comes riding the clouds on the last day and pours out consuming fire and plague in person.

3. Whatever the theories are out there as to who the harlot is it is clear that this is a city that is consumed in plague and fire. But this fire has not been specifically identified with God pouring consuming fire on the earth. Only this city is consumed and it doesn't picture the all consuming fire poured out by God personally on the earth.

Jason wrote: The reasons are lengthy, and perhaps beyond what is necessary to the topic at hand, but instructive, so I will briefly mention them. I believe the Harlot woman, who rides the beast, is best represented by the wealthy Jews who rule the kings of the earth through wealth; so that the Harlot woman of Rev 17-18 is "Jerusalem" in scripture. Perhaps God will give it to you to see this is the correct interpretation, since you already agree that the antichrist turns on Israel in the middle of the 7 years (as the beast turns on the woman). Here's two key proofs of this:

Compare Rev 17 to

That's the biggest proof, and here's the second: Jerusalem, like the whore, kills the prophets.

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

My reply: Your right, for the moment this would be another can of worms, but I might say that I would enjoy hearing more about this from you in the future, interesting. I have also been giving this more careful study. It would be interesting to compare notes.

Jason wrote: If you study the issue of Rev 17-18, you will find that typically the only ones who connect the harlot to Jerusalem are the preterists or historicists, who say it all happened in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and that Revelation was already fulfilled. That view is nonsense. Unfortunately, the futurists typically say the Harlot is either Rome, the USA, or the Catholic Church, if they venture any guess at all.

My reply: Again, interesting and introduces some basis of agreement on that issue.

Jason wrote: Regarding whether there will be peace for Israel prior to the false peace of the first half of the coming 7 years. Read Ezekiel 36, just prior to our key passage. It relates about the people of Israel coming back to the land, and growing wealthy through agriculture, as we see today. It almost describes conditions today. You quoted Jeremiah 29:18-19 as saying that Israel won't see peace, but those verses describe the same reproach that Israel faces when scattered among the nations, as described in Ezekiel 36. Jeremiah 29:18-19 has no application to describe Israel when Israel begins to return to the land of Israel.

My reply: This may be another can of worms about to be opened. Yes, chapter 36 is descriptive of the re-establishment of Israel, but its main emphasis is the thousand year reign of Christ. The people have all been gathered as opposed to the gathering in chapter 38:8 where the people who are there had been gathered from other nations, but it doesn't specify all of Israel is gathered. Chapter 36 is a beautiful picture of Israel finally at peace. We know that this is referring to after the second coming because verse 12 shows the land will never again deprive Israel of her children, a clear indicator of the presence of the kingdom of God. Verses 13-15 show that never again will Israel experience the scorn and taunts of nations, nor will the nation fall again. This can only be when the kingdom of God is established on earth. Verse 23 depicts God showing himself holy through Israel, He will do this when he pours out his Spirit on them. Verses 24-27 show God gathering Israel from all the countries and putting His Spirit in them. Verse 35 shows Israel like the garden of Eden. Israel has relatively robust agriculture now but it is no Eden. When the Kingdom comes the fields will resemble forests (Isaiah 29:17 & 32:15) and the reaper will overtake the plowman and Israel will never be uprooted again (Amos 9:13-15). Verse 36 shows that not all of the nations remain after that time.

Jeremiah 29:13-14 shows God gathering Israel from her exile just like in Ezekiel chapters 36 & 39. Jeremiah 29:18-19 shows life for Israel prior to the final gathering of her people by God to the kingdom of the second coming.

Jason wrote: Regarding whether the peace upon which the Antichrist brings is preceded by war: You wrote, "if you mean war with Israel to be followed by peace then I disagree. I will need to see the evidence as your suggestion, by itself, is not supported." I think you have begun to see the rationale for the antichrist's peace coming after war when, later you wrote,

My reply: I can understand the concept of a false Armageddon being used by the antichrist and I believe it to be biblical and it is what I teach, but I don't see the false Armageddon in Ezekiel or elsewhere as being preceded by God's personal delivery of wrath upon the earth. God's (personal) wrath of the last day follows Israel's desolation. I think we are close to saying the same thing here. I know that the false prophet will call down fire from heaven (Revelation 13:13), but this is not the same as the wrath of God upon the earth on the last day. I see the sudden invasion mid-way into the seven years as the false Armageddon (like I believe you do) and thus establishing the antichrist as the false messiah (abomination) and the beginning of the time of the gentiles for 42 months (Revelation 11:2). At the end of the time of the gentiles the armies of the nations will gather in Israel to attack Jerusalem and it is at that time that Michael rises to protect Israel and Jesus resurrects the faithful and then he delivers the wrath of God (Daniel 11:44-12:2). The description of this day of wrath in Ezekiel 38:19-22 matches other prophecies about God personally delivering wrath upon the earth rather than through agents of wrath. And example is in Revelation 16:16-21 which matches Ezekiel 38:19-22 and shows the finality of God's wrath.

Jason wrote: But believing that my view is the correct one would certainly NOT be the CAUSE of the deception that the world will face. In fact, recognizing the truth of what will come beforehand IS HOW TO AVOID BEING DECEIVED when the deception comes. There is no great mass of people who believe Ezekiel 38 will be fulfilled exactly at the start of the coming 7 years. In fact, perhaps only half of those who believe the pretrib rapture are aware enough of the specifics of Ezekiel 38 to even have an opinion, and perhaps only half of those believe it will happen right at the start of the 7 years. As noted above, even within the pretrib viewpoint, there are several possibilities. But there IS a mass of people who believe in a coming "Armageddon" and "christ returning with peace afterwards"--practically the entire world of professing Christians believes in that basic scenario, and even the unbelieving world knows enough of Christian prophecy to know these things, who will easily be deceived.

My reply: Well said, we see this truth together! We both understand the stumbling blocks of apostasy and the mechanisms that will launch it. Our disagreement is almost made moot by the thought you expressed about how little most other Christians understand of the signs. I stand with you in this and the fundamental brevity it carries.

Jason wrote: Regarding whether the tribulation is 7 years or 3.5:

My reply: Your point here was well made and I accept it as truth. My focus in teaching of that time is that people do not understand the false peace will initiate the seven year period. Although Israel will live securely (without war or threat of war) for that time, she will still feel the sting of the Deuteronomy 28 curses. Israel's real trial, as you concurred, is in the second 3.5 years and along with her the faithful believers. Hence for the sake of teaching I usually forgo using the term 'tribulation' and specify the 3.5 years by the term 'desolation' which does not cover the first 3.5 years.

You pose an excellent question here. Again it may be answered with your earlier statement in regards to the lack of understanding among Christians. They would obviously need to have in mind that first an impostor will sit enthroned in the temple. He will not come on the clouds to rescue Israel but instead with powerful armies. My concern for many of the pre-trib believers is that they think Christ will come silently the first time. He will only come once and that will be powerfully and no one will mistake His coming on the clouds. Most pre-trib believers do not believe as you do, as you stated. They are in danger because they believe that they won't be here when the antichrist is here and not knowing the scriptures, they will not understand who it is on the throne and working counterfeit miracles. You have demonstrated enough understanding of the signs of Jesus' coming that you fall into that tiny little group of pre-trib believers that I think will make it through.

If my details were to be wrong about the first 3.5 years it would not impede the other clear signs of Israel's invasion, the time of the gentiles, etc etc. The countdown starts with the abomination that cause desolation while the only real relevance of the first 3.5 years will be the fake peace covenant setting the stage for invasion and the subsequent abomination. No matter how bad the first 3.5 years could be they will be like a sea of tranquility as compared to the desolation Israel will suffer for the 3.5 years after the the abomination. The abomination is the pivot point and a great warning sign given to us, first through Daniel (9:27), and then by Jesus (Matthew 24:15). To not understand it is serious delusion indeed.

Jason wrote: So, even with Israel making the false peace at the start of Daniel's 70th week, (the 7 year tribulation) I see no reason to characterize the first half of 70th week of Daniel any differently than the previous curse of God (the 70 years of captivity), upon which it is based, and which preceded it as described in Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9. And since it is a curse, and evil, and trouble, then it is also tribulation and distress. All of it is a punishment decreed by God. Since when is a time of punishment sent by God not "distress" or "tribulation" in some way? Go and prove that a time period of punishment by God, yet to be fulfilled, is not a distress (same word for tribulation, distress) in any way, and you will have made your case, because that's what you are saying, and it is utter foolishness.

My reply: If I were saying what you attribute to me then I would agree that it would be foolishness, that is if I had said it, which I did not. Inherent in the term we both have used, `'false peace,' is the concept that by not suffering immediate invasion they feel safe in their unwalled villages. That is why I differentiate between the 'peace of Jerusalem' that comes with Jesus' second coming and the false peace that comes with the covenant with death. By entering it they condemn themselves to the curses. We are agreed in this, but we must differentiate between the first 3.5 years and the second 3.5 years. The contrasts between these two periods separated by the abomination is very stark. I make this point, as all my points, not for your benefit alone but for the readers we are teaching. I say this with the understanding that you already know this and would agree that it is important for others to understand it.

Jason wrote: Regarding 1 Thess 5:3, and people saying "peace and safety". Originally, you said that the world would be at peace all through the tribulation, because tribulation would only affect Israel. I challenged that assumption, by providing evidence from Revelation that 1/2 the world will be destroyed by war during the tribulation. Then, you changed your story, and said that people can SAY "peace and safety" at any time, whether at peace or war. I agree with you on that point, people can be optimistic and SAY peace whenever they want to; and even may cry out for it in the midst of war.

My reply: I NEVER said that the world would be at peace throughout the tribulation, nor did I ever change my position that they would claim peace and safety, whether or not there was any is a moot point. You challenged me based upon your own misunderstanding of what I wrote. You have repeatedly misquoted me, quoted me out of context or attributed concepts to me that did not originate with me. You do not harm me by doing this. You only harm your own credibility and ultimately our ability to teach those who are following this debate! I ask you to cease and desist this less than Jesus like vindictiveness.

As I have stated before in regards to this 'saying' of 'peace and safety,' the people will rally around the one who gives them hope. For us, I would hope that would be Jesus Christ, but for most it will be an impostor, the antichrist that gives them a false sense of hope. This will be the darkest chapter in human history, but people will rally under the beast. Yes, I believe Paul was being time specific, I have not denied this and in fact it agrees with exactly what I am saying. The antichrist will have achieved what neither his fathers or forefathers had achieved (Daniel 11:24). He had conquered all who opposed him and now the world sends its armies to put down what appears to be the last flicker of the freedom of the faithful. They send their armies, under the delusion that a golden new age will start with their messiah ruling the world from Jerusalem. Of course they will be saying 'peace and safety,' who is left to oppose them? Who is left to war against? In their eyes 'peace and safety' is on their horizon. Then all eyes will see Jesus coming in great power and glory!

Jason wrote: I assert that Paul was referring to scripture when he wrote those words, scripture that would have been understood by the Thessalonian Jewish converts, and I assert that he referred to Ezekiel 38, for there is no other place in scripture that teaches that people are saying "peace and safety" at a certain time at a certain event and where it is followed by sudden destruction.

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

My reply: Nope. They are not 'saying' 'peace and safety' in Ezekiel 38. The verse says, 'In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war . . . and now all of them live in safety. (Ezekiel 38:8)' 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 is not referring to Israel but to the world who has at that time conquered her under the antichrist. The invasion in Ezekiel 38 happens on an Israel who is actually living in safety. They have entered their covenant with death and then unexpectedly run over by the scourge.

Jason wrote: However, your explanation of Ezekiel 38 does not fit with the description in 1 Thess 5:3. Your explanation of Ezekiel 38 has a 3.5 year gap between the peace and safety of the first half of Daniel's 70th week, and when the fire of God, or "sudden destruction" comes at the end of Daniel's 70th week. But there CANNOT BE A GAP of 3.5 years, because the fire of God falls, and the Day of the Lord begins, and the sudden destruction comes WHEN they are saying peace and safety, just as in Ezekiel 38. And they CANNOT be saying "peace and safety" during the last half of the tribulation, because that would render the text of 1 Thess 5:3, "when they shall say, Peace and safety", utterly meaningless as THE time cue, THE time cue that the Thessalonians would know about, that Paul intended it to be.

My reply: So YOU say! There are no gaps in my 'view.' We have people actually living in safety (Ezekiel 38:8, 11-12 & 14), not just saying it, followed by invasion (verses 9-11) which is then followed by plundering (verses 12-13). After the plundering we see that in the days after that Gog is brought against Israel so that God may show himself to the world as holy through Gog (verse 16). When this happens God himself attacks the invader (verses 19-22) and ushers in the kingdom age of peace (verses 39:9-29). This is in perfect agreement with Daniel 11 in which we see invasion (11:29-35), plundering (36-39), invasion again (41-45) and God's victory and kingdom come (11:45-12:3 & 13).

Click Here to go to page 3