God has revealed some things to you, and I praise God for that.  And so I pray that the grace of God and the peace of God will continue to be with you as you read this.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

You may well be a babe in Christ, a child in understanding of things, but God certainly has revealed some important things about prophecy to you; things which can very well save your soul and keep you from being deceived.  Detailed knowledge about the coming antichrist, alone, may well keep you saved and away from the coming deception during the tribulation if you miss the pretrib rapture.  Many Christians, sadly, foolishly think that they are immune to deception, but that is not so, for if it were so, Christ would not have had to warn repeatedly about not being deceived.

As much as I would like to move on to other scriptures in the Bible that prove that the rapture is before the tribulation, the way you have been arguing forces me to address some simpler issues first; like what it means to prove and refute things, and how we are to do so.

I will begin to address the problems by way of an analogy.  In this debate with you, I feel as if I'm playing a chess game with a five-year-old child, who does not understand the rules of how the pieces move.   But that's ok, you are trying, and we all have to start somewhere, and you certainly are eager to play; both having initiated the debate, and writing long letters which show that you are thinking about these things, but also they reflect that you don't think as a mature Christian needs to.

Continuing with the game analogy:  I feel like I'll move a piece, and say "checkmate", and you don't understand the implications that are made, and you just go on to move your king out of the way by making illegal moves.  In addition, it seems as if you are scared to lose any of your pieces, like a pawn, even if it means you might actually gain a superior game position out of the loss, or could take a more important piece in return.  I feel as if I'm explaining to a child that the rook only moves in straight lines, never diagonal, and you agree with the rule, but then you simply go ahead and moving your rook diagonal anyway!  Obviously, I'm not going to surrender the loss of the game (meaning that I'll agree my doctrine is wrong) if you are not playing by the rules, and you are not going to agree that you lost the game if you don't understand what the rules even are.  Yes, I am frustrated, but so far, I still have patience, and I think there is hope we can come to an understanding of some very important things, because I know some progress is being made.

So far, I have been exceedingly patient, arguing mostly by trying to teach something about scripture and doctrine, and defending the legitimacy of the things I'm teaching.  Even with my rebuke in my last letter so far, I have not cried "foul" nearly so much as perhaps I should have.  On your side, you have mostly been attempting (not succeeding) to show why my arguments are "not proven?", and not focusing so much on teaching what you believe or why.  And yes, I have misunderstood some of the fine details of what you are saying, and for this I apologize.

My patience is reflected in the fact that I ask myself:  What will happen if I spend the time showing you why your moves are "illegal", and I take the time to expose as much hypocrisy as possible?  How can you respond to something like that if it's not accompanied by actual instruction on how to play the game rationally?  Will you give up in frustration?  That's my fear, and I hope you don't.  I say all this to prepare you for the rebuke that's coming, because it will be stronger than the last one I gave.

Just as with a child, who refuses and ignores correction, one needs to increase the severity or type of the punishment until notice is taken.  God works the same way, I believe, in bringing the tribulation to mankind who refuses to repent.  The plages become more and more terrible before destruction finally comes.

The rebukes I give are not "baseless", nor out of "venom", or "vindictiveness", or hatred in any way whatsoever.  In fact, those who love you, will spend the time to rebuke you; that's how both God, and parents act.

God:  Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Parents:  Proverbs 13:24  He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

I think you already know that most people will just ignore you.  A pointedly harsh rebuke comes from someone who is certainly not ignoring what you have to say, but is examining it with the utmost scrutiny, and judging and discerning whether it is of God, or of the Devil, as we are commanded to do:

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1 Timothy 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.

Hebrews 5:14  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Most members of the Church ARE children, who are unable to judge doctrine, and who also refuse to even judge doctrine to determine whether it be of God or of devils.  This is what you need to do in order to rebuke and correct errors; show which view is of God, and which is not.  In this debate, in your attempt to refute my doctrine, you have not done this.

re·fute 1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous.

You are disagreeing, denying, doubting, and contradicting what I've presented, but you are NOT refuting my arguments (showing that they are false).

Although you have attempted to deny of the implications of what is being said in the arguments I have made, you have NOT shown that my doctrine contradicts scripture elsewhere, and you have NOT shown that my doctrine is "of the devil" in any way.

Showing that an alternate interpretation exists (as you do) does not refute the correct interpretation; it does not show that the correct interpretation is wrong.  All it does is show that some people are able to deny the truth.  Of course there will be different interpretations, because of course some people deny the truth.  The important thing is to prove, of the many interpretations, which is wrong, and which is right, and why, not just declare one or the other is right "just because you say so".

These are some of the key "rules" of the debate which you don't seem to realize actually exist.  This is why, in the beginning, when your rules said "no name calling", I found that unacceptable.  It was unacceptable, because in the debate, you need to show which doctrine is of God, and which is of the devil.

Just as Jesus called Peter "Satan" (Mark 8:33) when Peter's understanding and admonitions were not in support of what God wanted, we need to be free to describe error as it is (Satanic); which is the opposite of truth, (Satan meaning opposer or adversary).  But neither you, nor I, can simply call each other names like "you devil-worshipper, you" in every other paragraph (and I've had to deal with people like that, too), we need to describe things truthfully, and show EXACTLY WHY certain doctrines oppose God or scripture.

2 Timothy 4:2  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

REPROVE 1651 elegcho {el-eng'-kho}
 of uncertain affinity; TDNT - 2:473,221; v
 AV - reprove 6, rebuke 5, convince 4, tell (one's) fault 1, convict 1; 17
 1) to convict, refute, confute 1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted 1b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose 2) to find fault with, correct 2a) by word 2a1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove 2a2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation 2b) by deed 2b1) to chasten, to punish

REBUKE
 2008 epitimao {ep-ee-tee-mah'-o}
 from 1909 and 5091; TDNT - 2:623,249; v
 AV - rebuke 24, charge 4, straightly charge 1; 29
 1) to show honour to, to honour 2) to raise the price of 3) to adjudge, award, in the sense of merited penalty 4) to tax with fault, rate, chide, rebuke, reprove, censure severely 4a) to admonish or charge sharply

Titus 1:13  This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

So, I have rebuked you twice now on this theme; you accepted it the first time when you agreed to change the rules of the debate.  I believe you forgot about this, when, after being rebuked by me in my last letter, you attempted to belittle it by judging my heart condition, assuming that I was rebuking you out of venom, or vindictiveness, or self-righteousness.  No, I rebuke you out of obedience to the Lord, and because the overwhelming feeling in my heart for you is love.  Your judgment about my heart for you is in error, which is why I quoted the verses about how loving people do indeed rebuke others, and rebukes come from those who love you.

You know, I have to admit something.  I was thinking about your comments that I was vengeful or venemous, and that that was a wrong judgment you made.  Initially, I was even thinking it was wrong for you to judge my heart, that you should only judge doctrine.  You see, I LOVE the attention you are giving to my doctrine, because when you are unable to refute it, it gives me faith that it is right.  But I don't like to be called bad things personally, if you are judging my heart.  But no, I was wrong on that myself, it is not wrong for you or me to try and judge other's hearts.  So, I'm learning too.  The word of God itself, as this debate continues, will judge both the intent of your heart and mine.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Stephen judged the hearts of the Pharisees as hard in Acts 7, and Peter judged the heart of Simon as wicked in Acts 8.  But their judgements were correct, and based on the clearly evil actions of their opponants that were first described.  Your judgment of my heart is inaccurate, and is not accompanied by showing where my doctrine contains anything evil whatsoever.

In your main attempt to rebuke me, as if I am in "violation of the rules," you wrote as if you were shocked by my behavior: "You practice self-justification and perpetrate punishing insults upon someone you are purportedly teaching!"

Yes, of course I "practice self-justification".  What's wrong with that?  We are SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, that is REQUIRED to show which interpretation is the right and just one.

And yes, of course, I also "perpetrate punishing insults upon someone [I am] purportedly teaching."  Where in scripture does it say that you should NEVER insult (rebuke) the one to whom you preach?  We are COMMANDED TO REBUKE in 2 Tim 4:2, and Titus 1:13, quoted above.  So you are in grievous error on this matter, and it is clouding your thinking.

In fact, the Bible tells us that the world WILL BE OFFENDED at our doctrine. Matthew 15:12, Matthew 24:10, Matthew 26:33, and so many more verses I could list.

I believe nearly all of the books of the New Testament (after the gospels) contain rebukes to the Christians to whom the letters were written.  Can you think of a single letter which contains only praise and nothing to clarify because the recipients are perfect in all faith and understanding?  I can't.  Perhaps only Philemon, which is simply a request for a few favors.  Here are some of the things said by Christians to Christians in the New Testament:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Was Paul not inspired by the Holy Spirit because he (GASP! OH MY!), insulted the Galatians by calling them foolish?  How foolish you are for thinking such foolish things about me, that if I insult you, it is a negative commentary on me instead of yourself!

You are like a child of understanding, needing to be instructed in the elementary things before we continue on to harder topics.  Hebrews 5:12 says something nearly identical, read it closely.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

I feel Hebrews 5:12 is particularly important for you to understand right now, and appropriate for describing how this debate is going.  For you, you hold yourself up to be a teacher... but you foolishly rebuke me for obeying the Lord in rebuking you, and of course being a hypocrite as you do so which is to insinuate that it is somehow OK for you to rebuke me, but not me to rebuke you.  Guess what, it's ok for each of us to rebuke the other.  I highly admire when someone takes the time to rebuke me when I'm wrong, because normally you have to pay a high price for such good and personal instruction.  I hope you will continue to rebuke my errors, but it needs to be done correctly, and you don't rebuke someone for obeying the Lord, as you did with me.  So here I am, having to instruct you in very simple and elementary things about how to debate, how to rebuke, what it means to rebuke, that we are commanded to rebuke, and yes, even insult if need be, and so on.

Yes, Hebrews 5:12 is saying the recipients of the letter of Hebrews "need milk", it's saying they are like children in their understanding, as I have said to you so far in this letter.  It's not wrong to point out how the other is like a child in understanding.

How a rebuke is received REVEALS a lot about the one receiving it.  Acts 2, after a rebuke, the audience repented and received the Holy Spirit.  In Acts 7, after a rebuke, anger was stirred up in the Pharisees.  If you are prideful, you get angry at a rebuke.  But God hates pride.

Your understanding, then, of this "rule of debate" regarding name calling and insults is STILL in error.  You need to learn that the purpose of the debate is to expose which doctrine is of by Satan, and which is of God.  (In other words, a rule of the game is that if we jump over other pieces with the knights, that's not only ok, but how you must move the piece.  But we can't just jump with any piece whenever we want, there's a time and a place (only with the knights).)  Sometimes we can, and need to, say for certain that another doctrine is "contrary to scripture" and thus is Satanic.  But we don't just indiscriminately call the opponent "Satanic" if they oppose what we are saying.

This false rule of "no name calling" is a rule of the world; a popular one designed because the world hates the light, and loves the darkness, and cannot stand to be exposed as shamefully naked when examined.  The point is we have to show which doctrine is lies, and prove it, and in the process, it's nearly the same thing as calling the other a liar, such a terrible name...

Now, moving on to the next rule that you SAID you agree with, but certainly don't play by.

In the terms of this debate, you wrote, "Last, but most important: Speculation is not allowed." Your latest words which echo this sentiment: "It is preposterous to assume that because you say you are right that i should believe it."

Oh, how I wish you understood what that means.  As I see it, that means we don't say things that scripture does not say.  We don't say things we cannot prove with scripture.  We don't say things that don't have scriptural backing.  We don't add to scripture, nor do we take away from what the scriptures say.  We cannot add words to a passage, nor can we ignore the implications of what a passage is saying.  We cannot deny a scripture, nor invent doctrine.  All of this, because Christ is the head of the Church, the Word of God is our authority, and the Bible declares that all scripture is inspired by God, and remember Revelation 22:18-19

There are so many examples where you make assertions about doctrine, but you don't back it up with anything, so how does that teach anything or anyone?

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8-10, I agree with your basic description of the context,

"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."

But here's where you turn into a child, and start making your illegal move, when you argue, to somehow "explain away" the significance of the statement about a day to the Lord as 1000 years: "God, being eternal spirit, is not subject ["to" (SIC)] time" and "God doesn't live by the clock as humanity does".

As I have said above, an alternate explanation does NOT REFUTE the correct explanation, or application.

But, regarding your view, where, oh where, IN SCRIPTURE does it SAY that "God is not subject to time?"  Where does this doctrine come from?  And what does this even mean?  Have you imagined that God is a time traveler?  Are you inventing this?

I know that God has other limitations that he is subject to; for example, "God cannot lie" (Titus 1:2).  Why wouldn't God be subject to time?  God made the sun move backwards, but there is no teaching anywhere that I know of that says "God is not subject to time".  What other scripture shows this to help explain your "private interpretation" of 2 Peter 3:8-10?

The point is that your alternative explanation is total speculation, and not allowed under your own rules, nor the Bible's.  Another point is that if we are comparing interpretations of 2 Peter 3:8-10 to see which is best, yours goes way beyond what the text actually says, using entirely different words and different meanings and concepts.  How can you sit there, in good conscience, and state such wildly speculative things (God is not subject to time) as if they were absolute facts upon which I can rely upon with such conviction that I'm expected to CHANGE MY FAITH, and then demand out of the other side of your mouth that I have not proved that the Day of the Lord is 1000 years long, as if my view is totally out of line with (in opposition to) the passage?  YOU ARE APPEALING TO THE WRONG SOURCE, YOU ARE APPEALING TO YOUR OWN SPECULATIONS, NOT TO SCRIPTURE.  I honestly don't understand how you think you are being remotely consistent; the only way I can explain it is that I feel like I'm arguing with a petulant child who says they can move the pieces any creative way they want to, and I cannot even move a pawn two spaces forward on the first move (which is a valid move).

It is simply not a valid method of debate, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN RULES, to say "here's my unsupported alternative possible view", and use such wild speculations and private interpretations to conclude that any other view is wrong.

2Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

You need to support your view with other scriptures, and then, also, show why the other view is demonic (opposing God and the scriptures) and must be wrong.  I did that, and you didn't even come close.

When Peter wrote 2 Peter 3, I'm not assuming he's making up new things, or making a "private interpretation".  But you are.  When you read Acts, we see that those men were human, too, and had to argue quite a bit to convince others of even extremely basic things that could evidently be seen, that God poured out his Holy Spirit on non-Jews, Acts 15.  If Peter is teaching a "new thing", like "God is not subject to time", how incredibly difficult would it be for him to convince people who were dedicated to defending and supporting truths of the Hebrew scriptures?

I, on the other hand, am assuming that Peter is teaching his doctrine based on Psalms 90:4, and Genesis 2:17, as I went over.  What scriptures do you think Peter had in mind when you write, as an alternative interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-10, "God is not subject to time"?  I'm assuming that since Peter admonished his audience not to be ignorant of WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID, "be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," that he expected them to already know it, and as if they would be able know it from previously written scriptures.

Again, I agree with your basic description of the context, "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."

This context SUPPORTS my view, and refutes yours.  For if "God is not subject to time" is the point they needed to know, then for all we know about what Peter was teaching them, the Lord will not return for the next million or billion years.  Your view makes a mockery of both the scriptures and the context.  But since the context is "the allowing of everyone to have the opportunity to come to repentance", then a day of the Lord that is 1000 years long (my view) certainly will give people that exact opportunity.  And what do we read about in Rev 20?  We read that Christ rules for 1000 years, and that repentance remains an open invitation and opportunity even until the end of 1000 years, when the few people rebel at the end.

And here's another child like way you argue.  You admit the truth of the fact, "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," but you then deny the application of this fact to anything other than the reason YOU SUPPOSE it was uttered, as you "appeal to context".  This is an absurd use of the "appeal to context".  A fact is a truth that can be applied to many things.  I might give you a truth for a certain reason, but that does not mean that truth is not also applicable to many other things and situations.  How narrow minded and foolish of you to think so.  You have to use your brain a little bit, and realize that the nature of truths is that they have application to many things, that's just the way truths are, it's a truth so self evident I can't even believe I have to sit here and explain it to you.

Besides, the fact of the matter is that the context of 2 Peter 3 is all about the Day of the Lord, from beginning to end, there are at least 6 clear references to it, verses 4,7,10,12,13,14.  And you should also include verses 15 and 16, because Paul also wrote a lot about the "Day of the Lord", from which 2 Peter 3:10 quotes, and you should also include verse 17 because Peter continues, saying again "these things".  And if you include the one verse you dispute, verse 8, then 10 verses, out of the chapter of 18 verses, are speaking on the Day of the Lord.  THE ENTIRE DISCOURSE is the subject of the Day of the Lord, you'd have to be totally blind to not see that.  And you think your appeal to context makes your case?  The larger context overwhelmingly refutes your opinion (completely falsifies your view) that verse 8 has nothing to do with the length of the Day of the Lord.

So, I ask you, how is the interpretation, that the Day of the Lord is 1000 years, CONTRARY to scripture?  What other scripture would be invalidated, or would be contradicted, which would necessarily be the case if my view is "Satanic" and opposing to the Word of God?  If there are no scriptures that contradict the view that "the Day of the Lord is 1000 years", then my view is not Satanic.  On the other hand, if it is YOUR DOCTRINE that is contradicted by this view, or (your "private interpretation" of a few verses), that DOES NOT MEAN MY VIEW IS WRONG, and does not refute my view in the slightest.

Further regarding this argument:

I last concluded:  "Therefore, the implication regarding a day as 1000 years REMAINS, despite your desperate wrangling with the text."  This means that EVEN IF YOUR REWORDING was correct, the scripture STILL SUPPORTS the truth in 2 Peter 3:8, because of the long life of the men who lived from Adam to Noah.

Randy replied: What's your point? I rebutted your claim that Genesis 2:17 supported the day of the LORD as being a thousand years long.

You "rebutted"?  No, you did no such thing.  You NEVER falsified what I was saying, you only showed you doubted it, that's a HUGE difference.  The point is that even if you were right, the truth remains, and you even admit the main truth of 2 Peter 3:8 anyway, so really, there's NO POINT for you to even attempt to deny or doubt the implications of Genesis 2:17 and it's application to 2 Peter 3:8 whatsoever, unless you are filled with an argumentative spirit who likes to try to dispute things for no reason.

Yes, I agree with your straw man denial, "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."

But THAT is NOT my claim.  My claim is that SCRIPTURE SUPPORTS my theology that the day of the Lord is 1000 years long, and it does in all three places we've gone over, and there are more.  My claim is that my view is CLEARLY CONSISTENT WITH SCRIPTURAL TEACHING on the subject.

That you doubt my theology on this point, or lack faith, DOES NOT MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST, and is only a commentary on your spiritual condition (which is perfectly fine, since we are not all born with perfect knowledge and faith, and part of the reason Christians need each other is to instruct and build faith in such things).  Your doubts are not a refutation of the doctrine.

Next, I have to comment on this you wrote:

"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."

Apparently, you believe that figures of speech are used to help us understand?  The Bible says the opposite, that Jesus spoke in parables to hide meaning, to prevent people from understanding.  I believe that if God wanted to say "a day with the Lord is as a really long time because God lives outside of time", that he had the words available to communicate such a specific idea.  You see, I get my doctrine from scripture, I believe God is specific, and specific for a reason, and this is because I respect scripture as it is written, that every jot and tittle is important, teaching us things we need to note and think about.  Why is it that you ignore the principle of a day as 1000 years, especially when we are told not to be ignorant of it?

Finally, your view TAKES AWAY MEANING from the verse, because your view implies that the length of time, 1000 years, has no real importance whatsoever.  Your interpretation does not need a specific length of time; it could be any long length of time.  Your view suggests the mention of 1000 years is arbitrary or random.  My view is that the length of time it is specific, and important, and has application to the very topic in discussion in the verse, the Day of the Lord.  But we are not to "TAKE AWAY" from scripture in the way that your view does.

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Your view, that the day of the Lord is a literal 24 hour day, is SATANIC, as I have proven, because it is opposing, and contrary to the teaching in 2 Peter 3:8-10 of a basic truth that you even agree with (but somehow claim has no specific application to the Day of the Lord).

---------------
Next, regarding my argument that the Gog & Magog war of Ezekiel 38 was not Armageddon, my second reason (of four) for this was the limited number of nations (all named), or "many nations" in the Magog conflict is different than "the whole world" at Armageddon.  I noted this was a difference, MANY vs. ALL.  You tried to deny the significance of this, but certainly did not REFUTE my view in the slightest.

Now, after I have learned of your view, that you believe the Magog invasion begins at the middle of the tribulation, I don't really understand WHY you even attempted to deny what I'm saying.  After all, don't you see Armageddon as the final end time battle at the very end of the tribulation just as Jesus returns after the tribulation?  That's what virtually everyone else believes, so forgive me if I assume you agree with this.  So, don't you see these two battles as being different battles, as I do?  Therefore, why did you even try to deny what I'm saying?  The noticeable difference, EVEN SUPPORTS YOUR OWN THEOLOGY (if I am correctly understanding it), but you don't seem to even realize it, as you attempt to deny the point so foolishly by saying there is not a difference, when clearly there is a difference.

Perhaps this is just one of the many cases where you are going to accuse me of "slandering" your position, but please believe me, I have never intentionally done so.  All my misunderstandings of what you believe are the result of my attempt to "fill the gaps" between the details that you have given me regarding what you believe.

Again, further on this point, you wrote:

"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."

At first, I thought your point was interesting enough I could say nothing about it.  Then I looked it up in your NIV, and thought your view was ridiculous, because YOUR OWN NIV translates lions as VILLAGES, so your point might become invalid!  So, I wondered if this was a "novel interpretation" of yours, but I found that John Wesley shares your view.

From: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=eze&chapter=038

Wesley's notes:

Sheba - This Sheba was southward, and contains all of that coast which assisted Gog. Dedan - By these are noted, the eastern nations that assisted. Tarshish - The inhabitants of the sea - coast westward, and Magog north. The young lions - Young men thirsty of blood, but more of spoil, resolve to join, if they may rob and spoil for themselves. Art thou come - This repeated enquiry seems to be an agreement to come to his assistance, on condition they might have, possess, and carry away what they seize.

Now, this is not the only view, of course.  Some interpret Ezekiel 38:13 as if these nations protest the war.  Some relate Ezekiel 38:13 as if they are bystanders to the conflict, as I said before.  Now, I don't know enough about Ezekiel 38:13 to be able to refute one view or another.  Perhaps you are right on this verse, and I was wrong that these nations are bystanders.  If so, I will accept your rebuke, and thank you.  As it is, I certainly cannot use Ezekiel 38:13 to prove my point, not unless I can refute the other view, and I can't right now.

Here's what else I discovered that is interesting:  Sheba and Dedan are both cities or areas of Southern Arabia.  Is Sheba the same as the Queen of Sheba that visited King Solomon?  Would knowing that help in any way?  Who is "merchants of Tarshish?"  Some suggested Japan and Asia (the little tiger?).  Others have suggested the United States.

Finally, I note that the events of Ezekiel 38 might find further clarification from elsewhere in the Bible that was written previously, due to verse 17.

But NONE of the views REFUTES my main point that the MANY nations of Ezekiel 38 is NOT the same as ALL nations of Armageddon.

Perhaps Ezekiel 38:13 does not support my point that there are "nations not involved" in the Ezekiel 38 war.  But neither does any other interpretation of Ezekiel 38:13 support the other view (not sure if it is your view or not) that the war in Ezekiel 38 INVOLVES THE WHOLE EARTH, as if it were Armageddon.  And neither does any interpretation of Ezekiel 38:13 disprove my view and make my main point wrong.

Therefore, my original point stands UNREFUTED, unless you can convince me that the words used for "many" nations in Ezekiel 38 means the same as "the whole world" of Rev 16:14.

Do you understand what it means to refute a view yet, as opposed to simply doubting another's view?  To really refute something takes a lot, you have to show why that view is 100% DEAD WRONG, and MUST BE WRONG, like a checkmate, where there is NO WAY OUT.  You have not done this with any of the major concepts I've taught here.

If the pretribulation rapture were truly false prophecy, there would be an EASY way to disprove it with 100% certainty, probably many easy ways.  But I have NEVER encountered anything that refutes the pretrib rapture, after reading hundreds of commentaries, and I have found the doctrine to be fully in harmony with every scripture that I have ever examined in detail.  And, on the other hand, I have been able to REFUTE most of the "no pretrib" arguments that I've ever encountered.
---------------

Now, I will go over again why your interpretation of Ezekiel 38 is DEAD WRONG, and why it is 100% incompatible with 1 Thess 5:2-3:

You wrote, to attempt to refute my point that 1 Thess 5:2-3 applied to Ezekiel 38, you wrote, "They are not 'saying' 'peace and safety' in Ezekiel 38."

WRONG.  Eze 38:11 says "thou shalt SAY..." and they SAY both "REST", and "DWELL SAFELY."

Eze 38:11 "And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,"

Who says "peace and safety"?  The invaders who are suddenly destroyed by God.

Is this "rest, that dwell safely" the same as the "peace and safety" of 1 Thess 5:2-3? Strong's says:

Rest (Eze 38:11)
 08252 shaqat {shaw-kat'}
 a primitive root; TWOT - 2453; v
 AV - rest 16, quiet 16, quietness 4, still 2, appeaseth 1, idleness 1, settled 1; 41
 1) to be quiet, be tranquil, be at peace, be quiet, rest, lie still, be undisturbed 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to be quiet, be undisturbed 1a1a) to be at peace (of land) 1a2) to be quiet, be inactive 1b) (Hiphil) 1b1) to show quietness 1b1a) quietness, display of quietness (subst) 1b2) to quiet, be quiet 1b3) to cause quietness, pacify, allay

Safely (Eze 38:11)
 0983 betach {beh'takh}
 from 0982; TWOT - 233a; n m
 AV - safely 17, safety 9, carelessly 3, careless 2, safe 2, securely 2, assurance 1, boldly 1, care 1, confidence 1, hope 1, secure 1, surely 1; 42
 1) security, safety adv 2) securely

And here are Paul's Greek words in 1 Thess 5:2 for "peace and safety", to compare and see if we are being Biased by English or not.

Peace:  1515 eirene {i-ray'-nay}
 probably from a primary verb eiro (to join); TDNT - 2:400,207; n f
 AV - peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1; 92
 1) a state of national tranquillity 1a) exemption from the rage and havoc of war 2) peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord 3) security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous) 4) of the Messiah's peace 4a) the way that leads to peace (salvation) 5) of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is 6) the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Safety:   803 asphaleia {as-fal'-i-ah}
 from 804; TDNT - 1:506,87; n f
 AV - safety 2, certainty 1; 3
 1) firmness, stability 2) certainty, undoubted truth 3) security from enemies and dangers, safety

Now, it looks to me that Paul's words are closer to the Hebrew words than the English equivalents, since "peace/rest also both mean "quiteness", and the words for "safety" also both share the meaning "security".

The CONTEXT of Ezekiel 38 indicates not only are they saying "peace and safety", but that these ARE THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS.  Therefore, if Paul, in 1 Thess 5:2-3, is referring to Ezekiel 38, then 1 Thess 5:2-3 CANNOT refer to people merely saying or asking for peace and safety in the latter part of the tribulation.  It must refer to either a time BEFORE the tribulation, as I assert, or, as you have asserted, the first half of the seven years (which you believe is "not really tribultion").

In other words, who says "peace and safety"?  Gog, the invador, is saying it.  When does he say it?  Before he invades Israel, Eze 38:11.  What does Paul say?  1 Thess 5:3 "For WHEN they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them...".  Look up the words for WHEN and THEN.  It means  "For WHEN (while) they shall say, Peace and safety; then (at that time) sudden destruction cometh upon them...".  THESE ARE SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS!!! Not a 3.5 year gap between them.  What is the sudden destruction?  The fire of God in Ezekiel 38-39 that destroys them in the coming of the Day of the Lord.  If the destruction came 3.5 years after they have invaded, then the peace and safety that exists that Gog is talking about would be LONG GONE, and not be "at that time".  Your view has a 3.5 year gap between the time when they SAY peace and safety before the invasion and until the destruction of the fire of God, which would mean that sudden destruction would NOT come WHEN they are saying peace and safety, but 3.5 years later.  Paul's words are absolutely incompatible with such a time gap.  Thus, your view of Ezekiel 38 is CONTRADICTED AND REFUTED by the word of God as written by Paul.  This is a checkmate for you, no way out, proving your view of Ezekiel 38 is wrong, meaning it is contrary to scripture, in opposition to God, and thus, SATANIC.

Now, you made an interesting side argument, claiming that the "saying" of peace and safety is late in the tribulation, just before Jesus returns.  I quote you:  "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!"

It appears as if you are thinking of Revelation 13:4 "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"

Now, agreed, the people are certainly in love with the possibility of peace and security that the beast seems to be offering.  And certainly, a false messiah, who comes to power through peace, must be offering a "millennial kingdom" just as Hitler promised, and Jesus Christ promises.

But there are three problems with your view as an interpretation and explanation of 1 Thess 5:3.  First, the Revelation was not yet given!  The book of First Thessalonians was the first book written in the New Testament, and Revelation was the last.  So Paul could not have been referring to Revelation, and neither could the Thessalonians "know perfectly" about it, as Paul wrote in 1 Thess 5:2.  In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Paul, or any other writer, was referring to anything written in the book of Revelation as if the writer expected the audience to know the contents of that book.

Second, the wording is not even remotely similar, as is Ezekiel 38.

Third, like Hitler, the beast is making war during his short time in power, so the conditions are NOT peace and safety, as in Ezekiel 38.

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

All three points refute your view, and make it false.  So here is the other problem you have:  If Paul, in 1 Thess 5:2-3 was not referring to Ezekiel 38, then what other scripture about "peace and safety" and "sudden destruction" was Paul referring to, that the Thessalonians would "KNOW PERFECTLY" about?  And if you ever find it, then please show both how such a view is BETTER FITTING than mine, and WHY MY VIEW CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE.

Let me be absolutely clear.  I'm not saying you are Satanic, nor do I believe you are a child of Satan or anything like that.  This is simply a judgement on your doctrine, which you need to change if you have an obedient and repentant heart toward God.  Just like the many Christian recipients of the many letters in the New Testament were admonished about things, so does this letter admonish you.  And this letter is also accompanied by much instruction and correct doctrine on many issues.

I look forward to hearing more from you.

8-27-2002

Randy Replied:

I choose to no longer honor your self-justifications with replies that deserve more than your stamp of disapproval.

I appreciate your time and willingness to participate. You have proved to be a wiley foe, although I would have preferred an opponent who was more humble and focused on truth. I have spent many hours on this debate at the expense of my family. They were very understanding and supportive, but now you have given me reason (not that I needed any) to give this time back to my family as opposed to wasting it helping you chase your tail. I officially decline to participate further in debate with you.

I pray that I have served the LORD, those who have followed this debate and you well.