Talk:Prewrath rapture

Credibility

This page has been targeted for deletion because of the last two lines of the article. I don't, specifically, mind deleting them. The reason I included them is to assure readers of my credibility in writing the article. There are lots of people out there claiming to know about this topic, but in fact, do not. By indicating that it was submitted by a publisher specializing in the topic, my goal was to give credibility to the content -- I do, in fact, have the credibility to make the distinctions that I'm making. If Wikipedia does not wish me to include the disclaimer, then I am happy to remove it. But I do want to indicate why I included it in the first place.

This issue also exists with pre-wrath, prewrath rapture, and pre-wrath rapture pages.

Thanks,

Strong Tower Publishing

---

this is my first parlay into a controversial article. It was written it was not very neutral so I tried to take out the most blatant offenses. I tried to tighten it up some and wikify it by adding appropriate links. It'll get there.

MDSNYDER 05:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-tribulation or Pre-wrath?

The article seems to switch between prewrath and post-tribulation, and should to stick with prewrath for the purpose of the article. One example of a text I deleted:

"A 30 day period and a 45 day period following the rapture (the function of each period being unclear - the judgment of believers at the judgement seat of Christ may be the former - the battle of Armageddon and the abomination that causes desolation being the latter)."

Since the 30-day period and the 45-day period follow the end of Daniel's 70th week, the above paragraph is essentially taking on a post-tribulation timeline. According to the prewrath timeline, the 30-day and 45-day periods follow the 1260 days of the Antichrist's reign (the second half of Daniel's 70th week---Daniel 12:11), not the rapture. The rapture occurs sometime within the 1260 days, and not at the end of the 1260 days. If it's at the end then that is post-tribulation eschatology. Either that, or you're saying God's wrath occurs after the 70th week, which seems inconsistent with scriptures.

Also, made minor changes to make the article sound more neutral--the merits of the content should be sufficient to argue the point.

Sugaki (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Hierarchy

I'd like to flesh out the sections more, but overall I find the structure of the article to be cumbersome to navigate through. I'd like to break out the "Proposed Confirmations" into specific sub-sections, as right now the large text makes it difficult to grasp the paragraph flows.

In addition, I'd want to remove the "Summary" section entirely, as the intro up top should be a summary of the prewrath view. Either way, it seems to repeat the information in the "Prewrath View" section.

Given the depth of the prewrath persective, I'd also like to flesh out the article overall; and if there are any differing viewpoints, the input would be much welcomed (I don't want to be the only one editing this article). A little diversity couldn't hurt.

Sugaki (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I ended up taking out the Summary section, and significantly altered the summary and timeline. The aim was to remove redundancies, as multiple sections were mentioning the same principles. I shortened the intro because it was too specific and detailed to be an overview. The paragraph about diversity in Prewrath beliefs as well as a bullet point from the Summary was merged into the Issues section.

The aim was not to remove information, but rather to make the information more concise, clean and easier to read. If you feel anything got left out, or if the format doesn't work then please let me know. Personally I feel like the page flows better now. Sugaki (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

External Justification versus Internal "Logic"

Please state what metrics or measurements are used to determine how the time-line of the "Rapture" is built. There are no sources for the determined analogies between "weeks/years" nor is there validation of the huge internal debates over ecclesiastic timelines.

To say:

 the scriptures fall into a clear time-line, 
 and a logical picture of the end-times events begins to emerge.

.... and then to say ...

 differences within the Prewrath perspective are usually 
 tolerated, and depending on the author the nuances of chronology can differ.

Marks a complete inconsistancy. If chronologies differ, then the time-lines are not clear. It also ignores the huge internal divisions of this subject. I neglects any discussion about how this debate is handled in context of Biblical literalism, Biblical inerrancy (i.e., if it says "weeks", does it not mean weeks?), nor does this take into account Preterism: if the 490 year framework of the "Prophecy of the Sevens" is valid at all, it was fulfilled by the coming of Christ. Thus its use for Rapture time-line fulfillment is invalidated.

I would suggest some more scholarship and neutrality to be used when editing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugaki (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The logic you're employing is fallacious. The first line "clear time-line" is the overall chronology, which is not disputed by prewrath proponents. The latter quote states that the "nuances of chronology" differ--those are not necessarily the same issue. The former talks about the macro-level timeline, the latter talks about specifics that aren't even covered in the article itself, such as the timing of the two witnesses in Revelations 11. Since the nuances aren't covered, what you call an inconsistency isn't necessarily an inconsistency--and is thus not a valid point.

Yes the scholarship behind the context of biblical literalism and inerrancy need to be expounded upon, but that does not mean the article isn't neutral.

Furthermore, your comment about Preterism is not made from neutrality; Prewrath is *not* Preterism, but Futurism, and what you're essentially stating is that Preterism invalidates Futurism, which is an overarching statement that is beyond the scope of this article. The difference between Preterism and Futurism in the interpretation of the 490 years is covered elsewhere, and is unnecessary here. The article does need work, but the issues of neutrality are far over-stated. The wording will be revised to be more neutral, however the absence of Preterism does not mean there is a balance issue. Dispensationalism for example has no section on Preterism, nor does it need to.

For reasons mentioned above, I will be taking out the flag.

Sugaki (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research (Post Tribulation Rapture Solidarity)

The info posted on post-tribulation Prewrath is interesting--but the section on Post Tribulation Rapture Solidarity has been removed for two reasons:

1) Original research. Since there is only one cited source, and that source purportedly comes from the author itself, that falls under Original research.

2) More importantly, the section is not consistent with the Prewrath perspective, and directly clashes with the summary description at the top of the page. One of the main points to Prewrath perspective is that it occurs during the tribulation. Since this perspective is post-tribulation, it is an entirely different viewpoint.

If anything, Post Tribulation rapture should be a separate article, as it significantly differs from the general timeline of the Prewrath perspective. It's a novel interpretation, but unless more sources can be corroborated, the perspective comes across as a "new idea" and cannot reside within the page. I hope you understand.

Sugaki (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources and external links

The first 3 sources are a pre-wrath religious website, a blog, and a self-published book. We certainly shouldn't be using the blog and self-published book. The Regular Baptist Press is a church publshing house, ok. Then another self-published book (that's what Lulu Press does), a Prewrath publishing house, three more books published by the same press but not referenced properly, one written by the owner of the publishing company. Are there no non-prewrath published books on this phenomena? As for the external links, Wikipedia isn't a link farm or a directory, and we shouldn't only have about 5 links. What do these add other than publicising the websites themselves? Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be AfD'ed. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about keeping links to a minimum, and not citing websites/blogs. Two additional citations have been added. Although some points do need more citation, in general there are enough books out there that at least mention prewrath to some capacity--and hence it should not be AfD'ed as it can't be construed as original research. Sugaki (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Diagram removed of synchronous seals/trumpets

The diagram itself is great and nicely illustrates a synchronous perspective--that said, I have removed the diagram due to it contradicting with points within the article itself. For example, in the "Proposed confirmations of its timing" section, a paragraph states, "Prewrath places [the day of the Lord] at an unspecified time after the midpoint of the 70th Week, but before the end." The problem with the diagram is that it does place the event at a specified time, exactly at the 1260 days. While the Prewrath perspective does leave room for interpretations of synchronous seals/trumpets, the diagram becomes problematic when the timing of the sixth seal becomes defined. Also, it essentially makes the perspective a sub-group of the post-tribulation perspective, which can be misleading (Prewrath in general isn't).

The timeline is a general one that intentionally doesn't cover specifics, because the specifics are contested (timing of seals, trumpets, two witnesses, timing of rapture, etc). It's meant to cover key principles of the Prewrath point of view. The chronology and evidence of synchronous seals/trumpets should be in a separate section. Sugaki (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RV not self published

replaced reference published Xulon Press, 2005

Xulon Press says "Xulon Press (pronounced "zoo-lon”) is a self-publishing company" and it's website says "Self-Publish Your Christian Book with Xulon Press".[1] However, the IP, who has tried to blackmail me into editing an article (yep) is now going through me edits revertng me just because he can. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've found a book on Prewrath by a Robert Parker

Here.[2]. It's clearly self-published and says "Robert Parker has a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and has retired from a career as a military simulation training engineer. He is active in a local church and has a heart for construction mission trips. You can follow Robert at www.RobertsTrumpet.com." Besides the self-promotion, as I've said before we don't use self-published books except in extraordinary circumstances. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename article

Should this article be renamed to Prewrath rapture or merged into Rapture? Editor2020 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Already moved. The move proposer moved the article unilaterally one week into the RM, which would normally not be permitted. But there was no opposition expressed anyway, so meh.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Prewrath → Prewrath rapture – Describes what the article is about Editor2020 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This article is so dominated by original research that it's hard to tell what its scope or title should be. A move will do neither harm nor good. Andrewa (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timing of the 1335 Days

The article explains the view in which the 1335 days of Daniel 12 start in the middle of the 70. week. However, many (most?), including myself, that hold a pre-wrath view believe the 1335 start with the 70. week and end at the rapture. A more known person that holds this view is Steven Anderson (pastor) . 178.197.238.148 (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)