Best arguments against the great trib being first century?

[Bill the Cat]

Paul wrote about the Rapture again in his second epistle to the Thessalonians and placed it prior to the Tribulation. The Greek noun, pronounced ap-os-tas-ee’-ah appears in that context. Understanding apostaseeah involves a related word, its cognate verb, pronounced aph-is’-tay-mee. In the New Testament, these two Greek words can translate into apostasy, as in forsake, fall away and departure. These related words both have two related meanings: departure, as in from a place, as in the angel departed; and apostasy, as in from a creed, as in they departed from Moses. Thus Paul could use apostaseeah, meaning departure (or Rapture) as a sign that will precede the Day of Christ [i.e., the Day of the Lord].

TereJay... harpazo refers to being snatched away by something while apostasia refers to voluntarily abandoning something. They are not the same thing.

[zwan]

TeeJay, you have given a long and irrelevant reply to me. I supported my claim that the argument against preterism would take out your own position if accepted. You had no real reply to that.

And yes, people can be neutral or relatively neutral when considering issues. This is a case where you have an obvious and strong bias in play.

You also ducked my reply on the church fathers.

[zwan]

QUOTE:

"In his book “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation” (p. 125) Walvoord writes:

“E. Schuyler English and others have suggested that the word [apostasia] means literally ‘departure’ and refers to the rapture itself. Gundry argues at length against this interpretation, which would explicitly place the rapture before the day of the Lord, and his evidence is quite convincing. English is joined by the Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest but their view has not met with general acceptance by either pretribulationists or posttribulationists. A number of pretribulationists have interpreted the apostasy in this way as the departure of the church, but the evidence against this translation is impressive. In that case Gundry, seconded by Ladd, IS PROBABLY RIGHT [emph. added]: the word refers to doctrinal defection of the special character that will be revealed in the day of the Lord [which “day” Walvoord views as “the great tribulation”].”

So even though Dr. Robert Gundry’s evidence “is quite convincing” and Ice’s “has NOT met with general acceptance” and evidence against Ice’s assertion “is impressive” and Gundry and Ladd are “probably right,” Thomas Ice keeps beating his desperate dispensational drum in the ears of the Walvoord who was the No. 1 pretrib authority for many decades!"

http://www.aggressivechristianity.ne...lts%20Ice!.htm