| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Take the Matthew 24 Grammar Challenge. |
The strict Constructionis |
Many Pre-Tribbers on this board insist that Jesus' reference to his coming being "as it was in the days of Noah" could only be in reference to a "Pre-Trib" rapture, since it involves an appearance that seems to catch people off guard.
I can prove, through simple grammar, that the reference to Christ's coming being "as it was in the days of Noah" can only be understood in the context of a "post-trib rapture.
I respectfully challenge anyone to refute this. But here are the rules. You MUST refute my argument on its substance. In other words, you must prove that my grammatical interpretation in flawed, and you must also use grammatical rules to prove that these verses are speaking of a pre-trib rapture. Fair enough?
Here is the argument....
| Quote: | 29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. |
We all agree that this is referring to the physical second coming when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign.
Let's continue in the chapter....
| Quote: | | 36But of THAT day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. |
All we have to have is a basic understanding of English grammar to understand this verse.
What part of speech is the THIRD word of verse 36 (the word, "that")? It is a pronoun. And what is a pronoun? It is a word that takes the place of another noun. Now let's consider what an antecedent is. The first four letter of "antecedent" are "ante" which simply means "before".
An antecedent is the noun that comes before a pronoun, to tell us what the pronoun is or is taking the place of (or pointing back to).
If I say, "John has a dog. IT is ugly", the word "IT" is the pronoun than points back to the noun, the antecedent (John's dog) which is the subject of the discourse.
If I say "but of THAT day" (verse 36), what would be the natural question we'd all ask? We'd ask,"WHAT day?" Well, we'd have to go back a couple of verses and read a little bit to determine what "THAT day" is. Let's do that...
| Quote: |
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that IT is near, even at the doors.
34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36But of THAT day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. |
Again, in verse 36, we see the pronoun "THAT day" and in verse 33 we see the pronoun "IT".
And what is the antecedent of these pronouns? The day of his coming in verse 30. Simple grammar.
Then Christ continues.....
| Quote: |
37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (already mentioned in verse 30)
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. |
Christ did not interrupt his train of thought. He continues talking about "THAT day", the day of his return in verse 30, and he compares it to the "days of Noah".
Even though Noah had preached and built and ark as a testimony of judgment to come, the spiritually blinded people "knew not" and were "taken away" by the flood. Jesus is saying the same thing will happen on the day he returns (verse 30). In spite of centuries of warnings, in spite of dramatic fulfillment of prophecy happening before their very eyes, that generation will "know not" and will be "taken" away by the wrath of Christ when he returns. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 5:44 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
bonnie knox |
I say "that," in the usage above, is a demonstrative adjective, not a pronoun.  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/16/11 5:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
War Eagle |
I wouldn't necessarily agree that He is speaking of coming to set up His kingdom for the 1000 year reign. If He is, then your argument would certainly be valid.
If a person interprets His words as being the rapture, then it's very easily pre-trib. You focus on "the tribulation days passed." Others would focus on, "the trumpet will sound and the angels will gather His elect from the four winds." |
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
6/16/11 6:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
The strict Constructionis |
| War Eagle wrote: | I wouldn't necessarily agree that He is speaking of coming to set up His kingdom for the 1000 year reign. If He is, then your argument would certainly be valid.
If a person interprets His words as being the rapture, then it's very easily pre-trib. You focus on "the tribulation days passed." Others would focus on, "the trumpet will sound and the angels will gather His elect from the four winds." |
No disrespect intended, but this is why I asked that we only discuss this in the light of grammatical rules. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 6:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
The strict Constructionis |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | I say "that," in the usage above, is a demonstrative adjective, not a pronoun. |
Even if that were true, you still have the problem of defining what THAT day is. Jesus has one train of thought here that is uninterrupted, speaking of the day he physically returns. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 6:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Just spoke to an unbiased English teacher |
The strict Constructionis |
She confirms that the words "that" and "it" are pointing back to the second coming in verse 30.
She also confirms that there is nothing in the text of verses 37-44 that would indicate a shift in the discussion to an event that will have occurred seven years previously. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 7:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
War Eagle |
| The strict Constructionis wrote: | | War Eagle wrote: | I wouldn't necessarily agree that He is speaking of coming to set up His kingdom for the 1000 year reign. If He is, then your argument would certainly be valid.
If a person interprets His words as being the rapture, then it's very easily pre-trib. You focus on "the tribulation days passed." Others would focus on, "the trumpet will sound and the angels will gather His elect from the four winds." |
No disrespect intended, but this is why I asked that we only discuss this in the light of grammatical rules. |
And I did that. I said if you interpret the verse to mean Jesus is talking about coming back for the millennial reign then your grammatical assumption is correct.
If you're going to be that rigid when it comes to people responding to your thread then it's obvious you're not looking for a discussion. You're just trying to prove a point and tell everyone you're smart and they're not. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
6/16/11 7:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
The strict Constructionis |
| War Eagle wrote: | | The strict Constructionis wrote: | | War Eagle wrote: | I wouldn't necessarily agree that He is speaking of coming to set up His kingdom for the 1000 year reign. If He is, then your argument would certainly be valid.
If a person interprets His words as being the rapture, then it's very easily pre-trib. You focus on "the tribulation days passed." Others would focus on, "the trumpet will sound and the angels will gather His elect from the four winds." |
No disrespect intended, but this is why I asked that we only discuss this in the light of grammatical rules. |
And I did that. I said if you interpret the verse to mean Jesus is talking about coming back for the millennial reign then your grammatical assumption is correct.
If you're going to be that rigid when it comes to people responding to your thread then it's obvious you're not looking for a discussion. You're just trying to prove a point and tell everyone you're smart and they're not. |
It's like your admitting that if we just follow basic grammatical rules, then I'm proven right. Therefore, you want to take some other path. Please tell me, why don't we just start doing that with the entire Bible? We can make any verse mean something other than what is plainly written! Neat !  |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 7:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| The strict Constructionis wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | I say "that," in the usage above, is a demonstrative adjective, not a pronoun. |
Even if that were true... |
It is true. Do you not like admitting you're wrong? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/16/11 7:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| @Bonnie |
The strict Constructionis |
| The English teacher I spoke to says you're partially right. But that when you combine the word "that" with the next word "day", that both rules apply (demonstrative adjective and pronoun). But either way, she says they are referring to the second coming of verse 30 (the antecedent). |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 7:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
War Eagle |
Are you reading the same thread I am?
The verse doesn't clearly mean Jesus' return for the millennial reign. Plenty of theologians would argue that with you. I'm not saying we can take liberty with the whole Bible. I'm only pointing out a pretty well know fact.
You wanted a discussion about your grammatical genius and I gave you one. Based on your interpretation of this verse, (which I don't share but I digress), you are grammatically correct in your understanding that the THEN means Jesus will return. So there you have it. You are correct. Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy?
I don't see the big deal. I agreed with your premise but simply interjected that your interpretation doesn't settle the debate once and for all because that verse is debatable in itself based on the timing. No need to get all worked up. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
6/16/11 7:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| The English teacher you spoke with is partially right. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/16/11 7:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
The strict Constructionis |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | The English teacher you spoke with is partially right. |
So you deny that it is pointing back to and referring to the event of verse 30?
If you feel that (and I mean this respectfully), please tell us what event that it is pointing back to in the prophecy of Matthew 24. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 7:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
The strict Constructionis |
| War Eagle wrote: | Are you reading the same thread I am?
The verse doesn't clearly mean Jesus' return for the millennial reign. Plenty of theologians would argue that with you. I'm not saying we can take liberty with the whole Bible. I'm only pointing out a pretty well know fact.
You wanted a discussion about your grammatical genius and I gave you one. Based on your interpretation of this verse, (which I don't share but I digress), you are grammatically correct in your understanding that the THEN means Jesus will return. So there you have it. You are correct. Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy?
I don't see the big deal. I agreed with your premise but simply interjected that your interpretation doesn't settle the debate once and for all because that verse is debatable in itself based on the timing. No need to get all worked up. |
I've never claimed to be some genius. Sounds like you've gotten worked up. to me
Do you want to know the truth? Here it is. I got this whole argument from a PRE TRIP prophecy teacher who was intellectually honest enough to admit that the "days of Noah" comparison is talking about the second coming and not the "secret rapture" that supposedly has already happened seven years previously. He was telling people that it violates every grammatical rule in the book to try to make these verses teach a pre-trib rapture. He feels there are plenty of other proof texts for the pre-trib rapture without having to take these verses out of context. I applauded him for his honesty. Too bad some of you can't follow his example.
Last edited by The strict Constructionis on 6/16/11 8:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 8:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
War Eagle |
I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just matching wit with wit.
My apologies.
I'm merely trying to say if someone believes Jesus is speaking about his second coming for the millennial reign, then yes you are correct in your assumption of post-trib based on this scripture. If someone, say like me, interprets the verse as Jesus talking about the rapture, then you would be incorrect in trying to use your grammatical premise to prove post-trib.
Last edited by War Eagle on 6/16/11 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
6/16/11 8:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
The strict Constructionis |
| War Eagle wrote: | I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just matching wit with wit.
My apologies. |
I apologize as well. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 8:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: You violated your own rule of debate... |
The strict Constructionis |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | ...when you assumed everyone would concede your opening premise.
| The Strict Constructionist wrote: | | We all agree that this is referring to the physical second coming when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign. |
What I think Wareagle is saying is that everyone does not "agree" with your opening premise. For the sake of debate - to define the limits of discussion to grammatical concerns pursuant to your opening premise will not work if everyone does not concede that premise...and it seems clear they do not. |
I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that verse 30 is describing the literal, physical second coming of Christ that occurs after the Tribulation. Do you feel that is what is being described in verse 30?
| Quote: | 29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. |
Last edited by The strict Constructionis on 6/16/11 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 8:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| What else could Matt 24:29-31 possibly be referring to, if not the second coming of Christ to earth? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
6/16/11 8:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: You violated your own rule of debate... |
War Eagle |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | ...when you assumed everyone would concede your opening premise.
| The Strict Constructionist wrote: | | We all agree that this is referring to the physical second coming when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign. |
What I think Wareagle is saying is that everyone does not "agree" with your opening premise. For the sake of debate - to define the limits of discussion to grammatical concerns pursuant to your opening premise will not work if everyone does not concede that premise...and it seems clear they do not. |
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Thanks Tom. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
6/16/11 8:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: You violated your own rule of debate... |
The strict Constructionis |
| War Eagle wrote: | | Tom Sterbens wrote: | ...when you assumed everyone would concede your opening premise.
| The Strict Constructionist wrote: | | We all agree that this is referring to the physical second coming when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign. |
What I think Wareagle is saying is that everyone does not "agree" with your opening premise. For the sake of debate - to define the limits of discussion to grammatical concerns pursuant to your opening premise will not work if everyone does not concede that premise...and it seems clear they do not. |
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Thanks Tom. |
| Quote: | 29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. |
WHAT else could it mean? |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 8:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
