Note - this post is more or less a reformatting of 10 Common Reasons and Questions about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, see here. Ever since I can remember, any Baptist sermon that involved, or even mentioned end times, included one or more of the following:
- Christians will not go through "THE tribulation" as we are not appointed unto wrath, referring to I Thessalonians 5:9
- The rapture was not taught before Paul, since he refers to it as a "mystery" in 1 Corinthians 15:51
- "THE Tribulation" refers to the entire 7 year period
- Since Matthew 24:36 says no man knows the day or the hour, Jesus could return at any moment
The above seems to be "cherry picking"...
Ok, if you've accepted the views above, then stop for a few minutes and consider the following:
- If the entire 7 year period is known as "THE Tribulation" and is also God's wrath why is it that God's wrath doesn't start until AFTER the sun & moon are darkened in Revelation 6 (see here)? In other words, if God's wrath doesn't start until other things have occurred, then are those other things also God's wrath, or something else? Either way, the 7 year period has already begun by the time the wrath begins. Could it be, that tribulation is something being done by the devil, but when the wrath begins, it is those things that God Himself is bringing about?
- If we let the Bible define itself, where else (do a search here) is the word "mystery" used and does it imply something wasn't known before? See Mark 4:11
- Paul tell us that the antichrist has to be revealed before the day of Christ in II Thessalonians 2:1-4. Since the antichrist is revealed DURING the 7 year period, how can the rapture occur before this period even begins?
The English language we speak today is the result of changes over time going back hundreds of years. There was a point at which if one wanted to hear or read the Scriptures, it was in something other than English. The mere act of trying to produce a Bible in English was risking ones own life. The KJV translators mention this trouble in their message to the readers.
The documentary below is primarily concerned with a history of the English language, but in this episode it picks up with the story of translating the Holy Scriptures into English, leading to what we know today as the King James Version.
The Adventure of English, episode 3
I have heard some suggest that since the more modern KJV Bibles differ in the English being used from the original 1611 version, this is evidence that the "Bible has been changed". The language may have changed, but God's Word has been preserved. This cannot be said for others such as the NIV, ESV etc with verses missing and rearranged to suggest a different meaning.
The KJV came about at a time when several confluent efforts were underway, one of which was a standardization of the English language itself. One interesting point mentioned in the documentary that there was a point at which English differed depending on what part of the country you were in. It was only under the consolidating efforts of the King when he made it known that official documents would only be in English, rather a myriad of other languages, namely French. This helped consolidate the variances in the English language itself so that when the efforts began to translate the Scriptures into English, there was a consistent language to use. The result speaks for itself.
The accepted view today of how the world was created and the story of a great flood, is that of mainstream science and academia. That story involves billions of years and a series of floods that didn't cover the entire earth. However, it wasn't too long ago that many held as truth, the Bible's account of how the earth was formed and what occurred during Noah's flood.
A while back I watched a documentary with the same title "Is Genesis History". The first 20 minutes or so I began to realize that which I had not yet been aware of. That being the numerous scientists and geologists that actually do support the Biblical account of the flood.
Here is the documentary.
One of the more notable subjects discussed involves the Grand Canyon. A number of geologists, whom mainstream academia have largely sidelined, actually support the Biblical account of a global flood. This is covered in the first 20 min or so of the documentary. The walls of the canyon give us a glimpse into the earth. Considering that there seems to be no evidence of erosion between the layers of strata in the canyon, brings into question the billions of years narrative. In short, there is far more evidence for a large amount of water over a short time period - as opposed to a small amount of water over a really long time. What other account can you think of that involves a large amount of water and a short amount of time? It's recorded in the Bible, starting in Genesis chapter 6.
I think you will enjoy the documentary, I know I did.
Go just about anywhere in Britain, scratch the dirt and you are likely to find anything from medieval period metal to Roman or even pre-Roman pottery. This little island nation is rich in history, as are the surrounding areas of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It is also very complex, involving multiple kingdoms and nations.
Why bother with all this you say? As I heard a pastor once say, history is what you know, heritage is what you keep. The King James Bible is one of the best history books you can read. Paul had told the church at Corinth earlier, in I Corinthians 10:11 not to forget the past, especially what had happened to their fathers that were with Moses. In Ezekiel 26 we read about the destruction of Tyrus (Tyre) and how it happened, yet not who specifically conquered it. The Bible does name others who were to come against Tyre, but not the people that eventually conquer it. We can however, from historical records say that it was Alexander the Great and the methods he used, namely building the causeway out to the island for his forces to cross, is exactly as the Bible describes.
A little background is due here. At the time of Paul's journey to Rome, the Roman empire had already invaded Britain over 100 years earlier under Julius Caesar and then again (with a larger force) later in 47 AD under Emperor Claudius (see wiki here). So in the time period of II Timothy, Rome had already had connections with Britain. It is also worth noting that according to some historians, there had been trade routes between the Mediterranean and Britain going back hundreds or even thousands of years, see this: wiki. It's interesting to consider that at the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Romans had been in Britain (then called Britania) and in about 61 AD, although being outnumbered 20 to 1, the Romans still defeated Boudica at the Battle of Watling street link here ==> wiki (although the exact location is still debated).
Wales
I suppose I should note that it was the subject of Wales that started much of my research. While watching various history content, there was a trend I was noticing. That being the idea that the western and northern sections of Britain were never fully conquered or subdued by either the Romans or the Anglo-Saxons that came later. That is important when it comes to the notion of how Christianity came to this area. The Catholics and the Church of England, claim Britain had been under papal authority since earliest times. We know there were English language Bibles before the King James Bible of 1611. We know of the numerous persecutions of the Romans against Christians and later by the Catholic church in the 1400 and 1500's. That leaves a big window of time that little seems to be known about just what was going on in Britain. Also, how did the Gospel come to Britain in the first place? The conclusion of my readings is that there seems to have been holdouts from the earliest times in the west of Britain, having been pushed that direction first by the Romans, then by the Anglo-Saxons. More importantly, while the towns and settlements accepted the demands of the Catholics, there seems to have been a remnant in their mountain holdouts, which resisted the demands of Catholics, namely infant baptism and the authority of the Pope. This seems familiar with the case with the Waldensens of Italy (see this post).
In his book "History of the Welsh Baptists", published 1835, there is an interesting account of a Catholic monk,being sent by pope Gregory, referred to as Austin the monk - who, in about the year 600, confronted some folks that were already Christians in the area of Wales. Demanding that they submit to the pope and sprinkle their chidren. They seemed to have (more or less) told the monk to go pound sand. Apparently, Roman Catholicsm had just now reached these people, who promptly rejected it. They, as did the Waldenses, suffered greatly for their faith.
Joseph of Arimathea in Britain?
First off, the Bible makes no mention of this and none of this really matters in regards to Scripture, but as a "shade-tree" historian, I was interested. Additionally, the further back you go, most historical sources you will find regarding Christianity are from Catholic sources. The claim is that Joseph of Arimathea, mentioned in the Gospels (eg. Matthew 27) was Mary's (mother of Jesus) uncle and was a wealthy man who was involved in the tin trade. Britain was a well-known source of tin on already established trading routes with the Mediterranean. Listen to these documentaries below for background info on this subject.
II Timothy chapter 4
In the last chapter of II Timothy, we see mention of 2 people named Claudia and Pudens and nowhere else. All we can really say is that they were with Paul for some amount of time. What if there were historical evidence that this same Claudia was a Welsh princess, or rather the daughter of a Welsh tribal chieftain? Wales is in the UK - a long ways from Rome. To me, if true, would be a fascinating connection for the people and history of Britain and the Bible. I can't recall where I first read someone mention this (possible) connection, but I am pretty sure it was while reading a bit on Baptist history. Please note, I am not advocating this to be historical fact, yet it is something that seems to have some merit and something I will be looking into further. So, as someone who is more inclined to watch a history documentary than a football game, the notion of a woman named Claudia being connected with Britain caught my attention and I will be reading more on this subject.
As one starts to read about the Waldenses, you will sooner or later come across mention of this book. The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, by Samuel Morland 1658. The writing is in the older Elizabethean style, the same as the original 1611 King James Bible.
I will be adding to this post later, with notable mentions, but it is full of accounts of who the Waldenses were and what they believed. In short - salvation by faith alone, and no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus ( I Tim 2:5 ) - long before the reformation ever started. However, I am NOT claiming all their doctrines line up with what I believe or that they are "ancient Baptists", but merely that they advocated that scripture should be our authority and not the pope, as well as a few other things that invoked the wrath of Rome. See pages 30-34.
I found a used hardcover version on ebay and bought it for reference. It's a 1982 reprint of the original 1658 edition. If you have read "The Trail of Blood", this is something I would recommend as well. I doubt if I read the entire thing from front to back, but sections at a time.
Fold-out map of the valleys of the Piemont that was in the front of the book I found. This area is in northern Italy. History is what you know, heritage is what you keep...and we are loosing ours fast.
Short answer: Look at Cambridge Bibles. You can get them at one of several places:
(1) evangelicalbible.com (I have bought several here) (2) thekjvstore.com (3) amazon.com (can find used if patient) (4) ebay
Background: So you want a new KJV Bible with a leather cover that's easy to read and carry? There are tons of options, but for myself I seem to like Cambridge, especially their Concord. I Have or had one of the following: Allan, Cambridge and Church Bible Publishers (CBP). Another option Ive considered is TBS (Trinitarian Bible Society). However, it's not the cover that matters, but what's written on the pages inside! Still, when one goes looking for Bible that will last, it's things like the printers, the binding and paper used that one starts to consider.
With Cambridge, I like the fact that they include the Translators to the Reader, which few publishers do nowdays. However, it's the text layout itself that is much easier to read. The Allan uses the Oxford text which is an older style font and layout. Both Allan and Cambridge use Royal Jongbloed printers in the Netherlands, which are reknown for their quality.
My current KJV Bible collection includes several Cambridge and one Allan which I'm not sure I will keep. My collection, which includes more than those in the photos below, fill one row of a bookshelf.
From top to bottom: Allan Ruby 103 reference edition Cambridge Concord personal edition Cambridge Concord w/calfskin full yapp cover
Here is the Allan Ruby and Concord viewed from the top
Concord - Personal sized and full compared
My 1st Concord from a few years ago, which has a goatskin cover but not the yapp. The cover is very "floppy", which can be kinda like carrying a wet noodle 😀
Yes, that makes 4 Cambridge Concords. I think Im done for now. If I had to only have one, it would probalby be the Personal sized Concord. A leather cover is nice to hold on to, but a very readable text that I have no reason to question, is easily carried and pages turn easy are the things that matter to me the most. The Personal sized Concord can be found < $50 on Amazon, which is probably why I have 2...
Recently, I watched the documentary "Patterns of Evidence, the Moses Controversy", directed by Tim Mahoney. I was fascinated by things he mentioned, enough so to go and watch the previous documentary he did on the Exodus, namely "Patterns of Evidence: Exodus". Tim Mahoney's own testimony is interesting as well.
Here is the trailer
It seems the accepted view among "credible" scholars and archaeologists, is that the Biblical account of the Exodus is a work of fiction. This view somehow gained acceptance in the academic community when a female archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon did work at the site of Jericho in the 1950's and determined there was no evidence of destruction matching the Biblical account. She was looking in an area that represents the late bronze age, but it's just not there. However, like many ancient sites, cities, castles, forts etc. are often built on top of previous sites.
In short, this whole controversy in the archeological debate mostly seems to be centered around the timeline or chronology of events. The timeframe of the Exodus, which scholars doubt happened at all, is said to have occurred during the reign of Ramses, which is much later during Egypt's new kingdom. Since no evidence exists in that time period, well it was settled among academics that the Biblical account must be little more than fairy tale.
The different stages of the Exodus, once put in the timeframe known as the middle kingdom, rather than the period known as the new kingdom, evidence starts to line up with the Biblical account. Yet, this evidence has yet to gain acceptance in academic circles for various reasons. These stages, the documentary categorizes like this: - Arrival - Multiplication - Slavery - Judgement of Egypt (the plagues) - Exodus - Conquest of Canaan
The question then becomes - surely there is evidence of these things in the historical and archeological record? What is not well published, is there IS evidence, just not during the time period that is accepted by the dominant scholars of our era.
What follows are a brief list of some of the evidence discussed in the film that I had never heard of, except one - the Merneptah Stele. Some of the most compelling evidence is covered by someone who is a self-avowed agnostic, David Rohl, which you would think would remove any claim of bias that a Bible-believing Christian might be accused of.
- Joseph's arrival in Egypt and rise to a position, 2nd only to the pharaoh. - The city of Ramses, where there is little evidence for the Hebrews ever existing, lies on top of an older settlement known as Avaris where there is evidence of Semitic peoples. This evidence also includes signs that they were initially doing very well, but then seemed to have much shorter lifespans, consistent with being put into slavery. - A canal which diverts water from the Nile river, which to this day is called Bahr Yussef or "waterway of Joseph" - About the time the Biblical story of the 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine are to occur, there is evidence of a decline of power of the various regions of Egypt, being concentrated in one area and in the hands of pharaoh alone. This was during the time of Sunusret and Amenemhat III (not Ramses). - An Egyptian papyrus document known as the Brooklyn Papyrus, lists names of slaves and a large number of these names are Semitic. Note that it's sometimes confusing when Canaanite or Semitic people have historically been referred to as Asian. You can see this in the writings of several early British scholars. - An Egyptian document that recounts events remarkably similar to those of the plagues mentioned in the Bible. This papyrus known as the Ipuwer Papyrus, or "Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage", is in a Dutch museum. - The Merneptah Stele, a large stone that records a number of military conquests and at the very bottom, a section that refers to Israel as a people. King Merneptah was just prior to His immediate successor, Ramses III. Yet his immediate predecessor was known as Ramses the Great, and its this Ramses that scholars still associate as the pharaoh of the Exodus. More evidence that the Exodus wouldn't have happened then as Israel is already referred to as a nation on the Stele.
There is lots more, but I highly encourage you to find and watch this documentary. If for no other reason, than to see and hear evidence that is largely obscured by modern scholars that, when taken together, seems to vindicate the Biblical account of the Exodus.
