Evidence for God from Science

Peter could have told us many things that we were not to be ignorant of. But the one thing he claims is for us to understand a comparison. 2Pet 3:8 is a double metaphor. A metaphor is a comparison using the words like or as. The word "AS" is used twice in the verse in the English KJV. Other versions use the word like. Peter lets us know that piece of information for our ease of understanding. The Lord's day is the same length of time as a thousand of our years. A thousand of our years are the same length of time as the the Lord's day.

It does not say "the Lords day" or "the day of the Lord" in 2Pet 3:8, it simply says 'a day". Peter was simply saying the same thing seen in Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. YOU substituted "the Lords day" for "a day", if you want to change Gods word, go write your own bible.

Second Peter is not the same as Revelations. Peter is not the author of revelations. Why do you say that Peter is here talking about what is in Revelations, specifically Rev 1:10?

In 2 Pet 3:7, the verse before this is talking about "the day of judgement", burning the heavens and the earth with fire, along with the destruction of ungodly men. The specified burning of fire "day of the Lord" says that the heavens and the earth will be destroyed by that fire, will it be destroyed for 1000 years, where is this stated? Will the day of judgement for ungodly men also be 1000 years long? Which is it, 1000 years of judgement or a 1000 year millenial kindom? How are you going to have a millenial kingdom on an earth AND HEAVENS being burned WITH FIRE for 1000 years if 2Pet 3:7 is talking about "the day of the lord" being 1000 years? What on earth does that have to do with Satan being locked up in a comepletly different book by a different author, where it is stated that he will not decieve the nations, which means there are nations, which cannot exist if the earth AND heavens are being burned by fire, along with all those ungodly men, which means no men, and no nations? The next verse, 2Pet 3:9, shows what he is talking about. 2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. He is saying that God is patient, he can wait a thousand years if need be for everyone to come to repentance who he knows will, since he is outside of time, time means nothing to him from his eternal NOW, to him, one day feels like the same passage of time to him as 1000 years since he is outside of time anyway.

Many scholors have carefully studied the original language of the bible for centuries, to see what the original Greek words are saying when they say "the lords day" in Rev 1:10, and it is the same as "the Lords supper" as we now call it, which was on a sunday, because that was the day Christ raised. So it's either beleive centuries of carefull scholorship, or you, sorry, I'll take the scholors.

Once again, why do you insist that Revelation, written in figurative language, suddenly switches to literal 1000 years exactly (without bothering to tell us it switched), rather than using Hebrew firgurative 1000 years which actually means something figurative to Hebrews? Are you simply going to decide yourself what you want to call literal and what figurative, whenever the whim hits you, without any regard to the actual language or culture the actual book was written in? Did God consult you when he wrote it in that language and with those Hebrew figures of speach, so that he would know that that 1000 years should not mean what it meant in Hebrew figurative speech? Did you tell God, "no, I don't want you to write that one small phrase in Hebrew figurative language", and do you think God would obey you if you told him to do it?

Rev 1:10 says ON the Lords day, that means John saw it ON the Lords day. Did John see it over a thousand year period, so, he would finish seeing it about, what, the year 1000 and something? Was John simply describing an exactly 1000 year period, if what is meant by ON is that he was actually at that time, if that time means 1000 years? If John is describing an exactly 1000 year period, where does the time before that come in, isn't that also described? Isn't the time after this 1000 years also described? Yet if you say John was ON that 1000 year period, how could he also see things before and after that time you say he is ON? It makes perfect sence if John is simply saying that on a single normal earthly 24 hour day that he calls "the Lords day", probaly a sunday (occording to Strongs concordance etc), although it might also be a saturday (sabbath, although occording to scholors the word used here was not used that way), he had a vision. It makes NO sense if he saw it on a "day" that lasted 1000 years, in any way.

And yes, it is possible to be YEC and be a beleiver, what I am saying is that it, first, causes you to bring disrepute on the name of Christ, by making Christians look like a bunch of ignorant fools who beleive something so very VERY thoroughly disproven by science that it is laughable that anyone could beleive it. Also, to be able to beleive soething so thoroughly and easily disproven, you have to lie to yourself, you have to consleal from yourself any evidence that will contradict your position, you have to use faulty logic and faulty translations of the bible, you have to carefully stay away from real scholorship of the bible studied for centuries since that would destroy your idea, you must limite yourself only to those "scholors" who tell you what your itching ears want to hear, who are ignorant, unlearned, not dilligent, who only want the bible to mean what they desire, not what God wrote, and who especuially are so into lazy and dishonest scholorship and faulty logic that they are easy prey to Satans ideas. So yes, you may indeed go to heavern (or you may not Mat 7:22, who you think is true Christians may not be) even if you beleive in YEC, however, others around you may go to hell because of your belief, because you have supported Satans idea that Christianity is merely a myth with no connection to the real world. Jesus said to tell others about him, if you do not do this 2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. If you do not correctly handle the word of truth before you tell others about it, are you really doing what Jesus said to do? Do you care if by your actions and beliefs others around you go to hell? If you don't, is the love of God really in you? 1 Cor 13:2 1 Cor 13:3 frankly, if you beleive YEC, you SHOULD be ashamed! 2 Tim 2:15

It is the same for many other things as well, they also make Christ look foolish, Christianity look like only something ignorant fools believe, or force you to think in dishonest ways to continue to beleive your bizzare and unsupported by the actual words the bible was written in belief, thus leaving you open to further dishonesty by Satan, who you can bet will take advantage of any opeing he can get. I have seen entire churches that have gone so far down the road of these sort of beliefs that what they talk about and do bears little resemblence to Christianity anymore, they resemble cults more than they do Christianity, complete with cult like behavior (sometimes behavior that was specifically forbidden by the apostles, and beleifs specifically said to be false by those same apostles).

Legatus wrote:Why do you say that Peter is here talking about what is in Revelations, specifically Rev 1:10?

Because it's a rule of study I use. Use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

I initially answered the question of this post to reply to Mariole's question. She didn't respond back so she must have understood my answer of which you do not. I see no point in continuing this debate, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Legatus wrote:And yes, it is possible to be YEC and be a beleiver, what I am saying is that it, first, causes you to bring disrepute on the name of Christ, by making Christians look like a bunch of ignorant fools who beleive something so very VERY thoroughly disproven by science that it is laughable that anyone could beleive it.

And yes, it is also possible to be an evolutionist and a believer, what I am saying is that it, first, causes you to bring disrepute on the name of Christ, by making Christians look like a bunch of gullible fools who believe something never proven by science, just because "scientists" who push a godless agenda say so. With no hard evidence whatsoever.

Legatus wrote:Also, to be able to beleive soething so thoroughly and easily disproven, you have to lie to yourself, you have to consleal from yourself any evidence that will contradict your position, you have to use faulty logic and faulty translations of the bible, you have to carefully stay away from real scholorship of the bible studied for centuries since that would destroy your idea, you must limite yourself only to those "scholors" who tell you what your itching ears want to hear,

Also, to be able to believe something so thoroughly and easily disproven, you have to lie to yourself, you have to fake the evidence by drawing imaginary embryos that resemble each other, by drawing fancy, artistic pictures of the extinct species although we only have their bones at our disposal, by glueing skulls of "transitional forms" using bones of humans and apes together, by recreating a "human ancestor" according to a pig's tooth, you have to stay away from scientists who (still) disagree with the mainstream dogma, and hopefully censor them from peer-reviewed journals in a desperate attempt to keep their mouths shut.

Legatus wrote:who are ignorant, unlearned, not dilligent,

I suppose Galilei, Pascal, Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Leibnitz, Linnaeus, Herschel, Faraday, Virchow, Mendel, Pasteur, Fleming and others were also "ignorant, unlearned", and "not dilligent". Then over 700 scientists who signed the Dissent from Darwinism must also be "ignorant".

Legatus wrote:who only want the bible to mean what they desire, not what God wrote,

How come you are the only person so privileged to know exactly what God wrote? He told you personally?

Legatus wrote:So yes, you may indeed go to heavern even if you beleive in YEC, however, others around you may go to hell because of your belief, because you have supported Satans idea that Christianity is merely a myth with no connection to the real world.

So yes, you may indeed go to heaven even if you believe in evolution, however, others around you may go to hell because your belief shattered their faith, because they realized that it makes no sense to try and reconcile atheism and Christianity, because you therefore have supported Satan's idea that Christianity is merely an outdated belief with no connection to the real world.

Legatus wrote:Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. If you do not correctly handle the word of truth before you tell others about it, are you really doing what Jesus said to do? Do you care if by your actions and beliefs others around you go to hell? If you don't, is the love of God really in you?

Frankly, you're the one who should ask himself this very question. The fact that you oppose YEC so fiercely make me think that you may be promoting something other than Christ's teachings, it's just that you cover that up skilfully.

Katabole wrote:

Legatus wrote:Why do you say that Peter is here talking about what is in Revelations, specifically Rev 1:10?

Because it's a rule of study I use. Use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

I initially answered the question of this post to reply to Mariole's question. She didn't respond back so she must have understood my answer of which you do not. I see no point in continuing this debate, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I also use the bible to study the bible, but that does not mean I take one verse from over here and say it is saying something about another verse way over there in a completly different book that is using different words and talking about something different. That is known as "taking out of context". if we simply match any verse we want with any other verse to make it say what we want, what are we really doing, anyway?

I also do not disregard the work of many many scholors who went before me, who say that "the lords day" in Rev 1:10 is talking about "the Lords supper".

Leg, Have a look...

-------------
On Translating "Day of the Lord" in Revelation 1:10

The ISV translates Revelation 1:10 as "I came to be in the Spirit on the Day of the Lord, when I heard a loud voice behind me like a trumpet..."

Please can you explain why you have translated the phrase 'Day of the lord' like you have, rather than most translations, 'the Lord's day'.

Here is the Gk text of the passage:

ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ

The ISV renders the passage this way: "I came to be in the Spirit on the Day of the Lord..." To the extent that we felt we could do so, the ISV Committee on Translation sought not to bring any presuppositional frameworks to any passage being translated. This approach to the text also excluded bringing translational traditions made merely for the sake of tradition. (See how we handled John 3:16 for one our best examples of this policy, by the way.) In all of these things, we attempted to bring the natural sense of the Gk text. Now when it came to the phrase ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, it seemed to us that this phrase needs to be translated as "Day of the Lord," because the subject matter of the book is the Day of the Lord as understood in OT eschatology but completed with respect to the NT addition of "the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants" (Revelation 1:1).

The subject matter of the paragraph in Revelation 1:1 isn't the timing of his vision, that it happened one day on a Sunday morning! If the entire corpus of the NT was in place and finished before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, then the tradition of calling Sunday the "Lord's day" had not yet been solidified when John wrote down the Revelation. But even if the early Church was calling Sunday the "Lord's day," we think that the natural Gk for John to have used to express this term would be ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ κυριακῇ (literally, "the day that pertains to the Lord") rather than the phrase ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ ("the day of the Lord") that he used in Revelation 1:10. The word order of Revelation 1:10 requires, it seems to us, to translate the phrase "Day of the Lord" in reference to a technical term of eschatological art rather than "Sunday morning".

-----------------------
http://isv.org/catacombs/day_of_the_Lord.htm

Reactionary wrote:

Legatus wrote:And yes, it is possible to be YEC and be a beleiver, what I am saying is that it, first, causes you to bring disrepute on the name of Christ, by making Christians look like a bunch of ignorant fools who beleive something so very VERY thoroughly disproven by science that it is laughable that anyone could beleive it.

Reactionary wrote:[And yes, it is also possible to be an evolutionist and a believer, what I am saying is that it, first, causes you to bring disrepute on the name of Christ, by making Christians look like a bunch of gullible fools who believe something never proven by science, just because "scientists" who push a godless agenda say so. With no hard evidence whatsoever..

Of course evilution AS CURRENTLY ACCEPTED BY SCIENTISTS is unproven. Evolution BY RANDOM CHANCE is almost impossible (some mircro evolution may be possible). However, if it IS NOT random chance, but was planned (past tense, God did it and then rested), then it COULD happen. Nothing is impossible with God. In addition, there is some evidence, both of what happend, and some more limited evidence of how. That still doesn't make it possible by random chance though. No God, no evolution.
Plus, if the bible says it, it is true, right? The bible says "let the earth bring forth grass", which sounds like an earthly, natural process, should I beleive the bible? it then goes on to desribe a sequesntial creation, exactly what the fossil record shows, should I beleive that, or should I reject the bible? It DOES NOT state any miracolous method for anything for

Legatus wrote:Also, to be able to beleive soething so thoroughly and easily disproven, you have to lie to yourself, you have to consleal from yourself any evidence that will contradict your position, you have to use faulty logic and faulty translations of the bible, you have to carefully stay away from real scholorship of the bible studied for centuries since that would destroy your idea, you must limite yourself only to those "scholors" who tell you what your itching ears want to hear,

Reactionary wrote:Also, to be able to believe something so thoroughly and easily disproven, you have to lie to yourself, you have to fake the evidence by drawing imaginary embryos that resemble each other, by drawing fancy, artistic pictures of the extinct species although we only have their bones at our disposal, by glueing skulls of "transitional forms" using bones of humans and apes together, by recreating a "human ancestor" according to a pig's tooth, you have to stay away from scientists who (still) disagree with the mainstream dogma, and hopefully censor them from peer-reviewed journals in a desperate attempt to keep their mouths shut.,

Here you are talking about evolution of humans, the bible, and science, says no. All the above fakes really did happen, and are continuing to be accepted (well, some of them, by some people), however, when one looks closer, one finds evidence contrary to what is accepted when it comes to HUMAN evolution.

For other evolution, here is a question, why does it look like in the distant past there were different critters than today? The real question, why does the bible say the same thing, with different times listed, earlier to later, for different critters? And what do you do about this BIBLICAL evidence? http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local. Do you care what the bible says? Are you afraid to click the above link?

Legatus wrote:who are ignorant, unlearned, not dilligent,

Reactionary wrote:I suppose Galilei, Pascal, Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Leibnitz, Linnaeus, Herschel, Faraday, Virchow, Mendel, Pasteur, Fleming and others were also "ignorant, unlearned", and "not dilligent". Then over 700 scientists who signed the Dissent from Darwinism must also be "ignorant"..

What on eath do those names have to do with this topic? Be specific, what does each name have to say, or are you just throwing out random names in the hope of burying me in names? Are they supposed to be scientists who beleived in young earth creationism? You didn't say. Does it matter what scientists way back then, who did not have evidence form later reaserches, beleived? Does it matter what scientists "beleive", since when did science depend on "beleif", do you know what the scientific methodf is, is it about belief?
Of course 700 scientists will dissent with evolution, as it is beleived now it is impossible, since it cannot happen by random chance. But, who were these 700 people, were they the type of scientists who would know about the stuff they were dissenting on? They might all be nuclear physisists for all I know. What about the names, were they studying evolution or the age of the earth or something pertinent to this discusssion?

Legatus wrote:who only want the bible to mean what they desire, not what God wrote,

Reactionary wrote:How come you are the only person so privileged to know exactly what God wrote? He told you personally?.

Yes of course, by the plain text of scripture, in context, with help from many many MANY others who have gone before who have studfied the original language and how it was used. He also told YOU personally, you should check it out.

Legatus wrote:So yes, you may indeed go to heavern even if you beleive in YEC, however, others around you may go to hell because of your belief, because you have supported Satans idea that Christianity is merely a myth with no connection to the real world.

Reactionary wrote:So yes, you may indeed go to heaven even if you believe in evolution, however, others around you may go to hell because your belief shattered their faith, because they realized that it makes no sense to try and reconcile atheism and Christianity, because you therefore have supported Satan's idea that Christianity is merely an outdated belief with no connection to the real world..

Their belief will only be shattered if they only accept the now disproven idea currently widely accepted (but some dissent, see BioLogos) that evolution happened by random chance. Their beleif will only be shattered (and many are being shattered RIGHT NOW) if they accept the false idea that it is either young earth creationism or random chance only evolution, a false dilemma (that means there are more than just these two options). Many MANY have accepted without question young earth creationism and then gone to school ,where they saw the very MANY evidences that the earth is very old, and, since they had been told the false idea that the bible insists that the earth is young (whih it does not, check out the parent site), their faith was shattered. Are you going to accept without ever even questioning it an idea that has done that? Without ever even questioning it? I say again, without ever even questioning it?

Legatus wrote:Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. If you do not correctly handle the word of truth before you tell others about it, are you really doing what Jesus said to do? Do you care if by your actions and beliefs others around you go to hell? If you don't, is the love of God really in you?

Reactionary wrote:Frankly, you're the one who should ask himself this very question. The fact that you oppose YEC so fiercely make me think that you may be promoting something other than Christ's teachings, it's just that you cover that up skilfully.

How, exactly, by saying what the bible says, in the original language, am I apposing God or Christ, or covering up anything at all?? How, exactly, is it evil and wrong to appose something fiercly if people go to hell every day from that idea? Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? < Oh, look, fiercness, why? Should some things be apposed fiercly? You are apposing fiercly, does that make you evil and wrong? If it is not the feircness, well, than EXACTLY what should we appose and why? Why do you equate young earth creationism so strongly with Christianity, such that you think anyone who apposes it apposes God? Are you aware that many many throughout history did not agree with what you beleive about a young earth? "Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers." St. Augustine

Are you even aware at all of the vast amount of evidence from many branches of science that say that the earth is very old? Do you care? What do you do about that evidence, close your eyes? Have you ever checked it out? Will you ever check it out? Will you ever check out the evidence of the actual words of scripture in the original language that say that the earth is old? Or are you going to stick to YOUR idea and never even bother to see if those things are true? Acts 17:11 I have checked out the young earth AND the old earth evidence, have you? I used to belive that young earth stuff, till I realised that the evidences that were said to show a young earth were false, in some cases outright lies, at which point I also found that the bible does not demand a young earth, in fact, it talks of an old earth. When BOTH the bible and ALL the science say one thing, I change my mind, what do you do?

Referring to Revelation 1:10, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote:

And so here is the very KEYNOTE verse, sounding the THEME of the whole Revelation! And it is here that most people begin to stumble, and to misunderstand!

The theme is THE DAY OF THE LORD. Let us read it: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet" (verse 10).

As this is not understood, endless controversy and strife and confusion have come from arguing as to whether the day of the WEEK on which John WROTE this message was Saturday or Sunday. John was NOT referring to any day of the week.

The day of the week on which this happened to be written—IF it could have been all written within one day—is not important, and that is not what this verse means at all. It does NOT refer to any day of the week—but to that prophetic period referred to in more than 30 prophecies as "The great and terrible DAY OF THE LORD."

As Greek scholar Adolf Deissmann wrote, the grammar and connection both favor the view "according to which 'the day of the Lord' here stands for the day of Yahweh: the day of Judgment" (Encyclopedia Biblica, article "Lord's Day"). New Testament and textual scholar F.J.A. Hort agrees that this meaning fits "best with the context" and "gives the key to the book" (The Apocalypse, pp. 15-16).

In spirit—in VISION—John was carried forward some 1900 years—projected into the DAY OF THE LORD—during the time which is now just AHEAD OF US, to occur in this present generation!

The "Day of the Lord" is described by the Prophet Joel as a time when God will send DESTRUCTION upon the unrighteous and sinning nations of the world. It is described by Zephaniah as the day of GOD'S WRATH. It is described all through the Revelation as the time when God Almighty will soon, now, step in and supernaturally INTERVENE in this hellish strife and friction and destruction among men, and send PLAGUES upon the sinners of the earth! It is the time which FOLLOWS the Great Tribulation, and leads up to and CLIMAXES in the glorious SECOND COMING OF CHRIST!

The house of John is John's house. The Day of the Lord is the Lord's DAY. Listen to the translations of two Greek scholars and translators:

In the Rotherham translation: "I came to be, in Spirit, IN the Lord's Day." The Concordant version: "I came to be, in Spirit, IN the Lord's Day." (Armstrong HW. The Book of Revelation Unveiled at Last).”

Protestant scholar J.A. Seiess wrote:

Revelation 1:1-3
John...says he "was in Spirit in the Lord's day," in which he beheld what he afterward wrote. What is meant by this "Lord's day"? Some answer, Sunday, the first day of the week; but I am not satisfied with this explanation...the Scriptures nowhere call it "the Lord's day." None of the Christian writings for 100 years after Christ ever call it "the Lord's day." But there is a "Day of the Lord" largely treated of by prophets, apostles, and fathers, the meaning of which is abundantly clear and settled. It is that day in which, Isaiah says, people shall hide in the rocks for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty; the day which Joel describes as the day of destruction from the Almighty, when the Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake; the day to which the closing chapter of Malachi refers as the day that shall burn as an oven, and in which the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings; the day which Paul proclaimed from Mars' Hill as that in which God will judge the world, concerning which he so earnestly exhorted the Thessalonians, and which was not to come until after a great apostasy from the faith, and the ripening of the wicked for destruction; the day in the which, Peter says, the heavens shall be changed, the elements melt, the earth burn, and all present orders of things give way to new heavens and a new earth; even "the day for which all other days were made." And on that day I understand John to say, he in some sense was. In the mysteries of prophetic rapport, which the Scriptures describe as "in Spirit," and which Paul declared inexplicable, he was caught out of himself, and out of his proper place and time, and stationed amid the stupendous scenes of the great day of God, and made to see the actors in them, and to look upon them transpiring before his eyes, that he might write what he saw, and give it to the churches.

This is what I understand by his being "in Spirit in the Lord's day." (from The Apocalypse: Exposition of the Book of Revelation, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The late John Ogwyn wrote:

The Day of the Lord

Most commentators completely misunderstand Revelation 1:10. As a result, they do not understand the perspective from which the entire book was written. When John declared that he was in the Spirit in the Lord’s Day (Note that, elsewhere in the New Testament, the Greek word en is almost always translated "in," though many wrongly render it here as "on"), he was not talking about the day of the week on which he received the prophecy. Rather, he was describing the future prophetic time that he saw in vision—a time when God will intervene powerfully in end-time world affairs. John’s perspective in writing Revelation was this vision of the future (Ogywn J. Revelation The Mystery Unveiled!, 2006, p. 6).

Thus, it appears that many believe that the proper way to understand the expression ‘Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10, is that it is not referring to a day of the week, but is referring to the Day of the Lord.

Article-------

The Day of the Lord

The Day of the Lord is referred to in several places throughout the Bible. Since it seems that Revelation 1:10 was referring to the Day of the Lord, it is logical to see if the day of the Lord is otherwise referred to in Revelation.

Revelation 6:12-17 states,

I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"

And notice Joel 2:30-31,

And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

Joel thus shows that the time in Revelation is called, “the day of the LORD” in the Old Testament. It should perhaps be noted that when the New Testament quotes an Old Testament verse which uses the term LORD (Yahveh) it is most frequently quoted as Lord. And that is precisely how verse 31 is rendered in Acts 2:20, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come” (KJV).

Joel 1:15 states,

Alas for the day! For the day of the LORD is at hand; It shall come as destruction from the Almighty”.

Zephaniah shows us,
The great day of the LORD is near; It is near and hastens quickly. The noise of the day of the LORD is bitter; There the mighty men shall cry out. That day is a day of wrath, A day of trouble and distress, A day of devastation and desolation, A day of darkness and gloominess, A day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of trumpet and alarm Against the fortified cities And against the high towers. "I will bring distress upon men, And they shall walk like blind men, Because they have sinned against the LORD; Their blood shall be poured out like dust, And their flesh like refuse" (Zephaniah 1:14-17).

Isaiah talks about the same time,

Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. Therefore all hands will be limp, Every man's heart will melt, And they will be afraid. Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them; They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth; They will be amazed at one another;Their faces will be like flames. Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens,And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger” (Isaiah 13:6-13).

----------------

Although this article has discussed the context of Revelation 1:10, let's once again repeat it, but look for additional clues within the verse itself,

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet (KJV).

Notice that this day has something to do with a great voice, like a trumpet.

Look what Paul said about Jesus' return,

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God" (1 Thes 4:16).

Similarly, Jesus also taught,

And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Matthew 24:31).

Does someone wish to argue that Paul or Jesus are talking about Sunday?

There is nothing in the context to suggest that Revelation 1:10 is either.

-------------------

http://www.cogwriter.com/lordsday.htm

Why the Lord's day John mentioned is not Sunday

First, because John was "in the Spirit" on a specific day, not just any day. Sunday is not the day God set apart and blessed as a day to rest in recognition of His work. To choose any other day is a claim that we can decide to replace the specific time he asked us to meet Him. Wouldn't this be righteousness by works? � "teaching for commandments the doctrines of men"? (Mark 7:7)
You may be aware that early church fathers began to call Sunday, the Lord's Day. The first known reference clearly designating Sunday as the Lord's day is in what is known to Bible scholars as a pseudopigraphia � a counterfeit writing � titled The Gospel of Peter. It was written around A.D. 175, long after Peter would have been dead. Some translations of the letters of Ignatius mention the term, "Lord's Day," without clear reference to its being Sunday. They were written around 110. All of these sources appeared after John's time. According to Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, p.662, Allen C. Myers, Ed., 1987, "it was not until the fourth century that the Sabbath commandment was applied to Sunday by Christians." Even if this early literature had been available to John, he would have understood the Lord's Day as Seventh Day Sabbath. The Lord he personally knew had said which day was His. The apostle no doubt heard Him make the statement.
Could the readers to whom the book of Revelation was directly addressed have understood the term, Lord's day, to mean Sunday? Remember that John identified them as "the seven churches which are in Asia [Asia Minor]" (Rev. 1:4). In about A.D. 191, church leader Polycartes convened a council of the church leaders of Asia Minor to discuss a summons from Bishop Victor of Rome to adopt Easter Sunday. They unanimously refused the idea choosing to retain their observance of the Passover on the Jewish date of Nisan 14. We must conclude that John's first readers would likewise not have been recognizing "the Lord's day" as Sunday in honor of the resurrection.
----------------
http://www.bibleexplained.com/revelatio ... 's-day.htm

Hmm,Neo-x, YOU at least supplied some MEAT behind your idea here. THAT, at least, gives me something to think about. I am not sure that it really changes much though, because I can already see that revelation is centered around the last judgement and the end of the age leading up to it. I mean, if, on a sunday (or a saturday) John has a vision of the events that lead up to and include "the day of the lord" (judgement, fire, etc), either way, the book is centered around "the day of the lord". since it is clearly centered around that last judgement.

What I was objecting to was automatically equating "day" with some excactly 1000 year period, saying that when it says "day", it really ment some exactly 1000 year period, and that that is true from the unrelated verse in 2Pet3:8, which is talking about the verse after it 2Pet 3:9, and is just saying what is said in other places, that God is not slow to keep his promise, but will do it when it is the proper time , but ONLY after all who are to be saved are, and that God sees all time alike, being outside of time, so God never gets impatient since a day or a thousand years seem all the same to him. I think Peter is just saying that WE should not be impatiant, God has a reason for what we see as a delay.I see no reason to turn it into some sort of "secret code", where "day" means "1000 years". Once we start making the bible into "secret codes", we are going down a road to beleiving it says all kinds of bizzare things, and I have seen whole churches turn into cult like places after they went too far down that road.

It looks to me that the time period of Revelation is longish but unknown, since 'a thosuand years" in the Hebrew figurative language used throughout revelations just means the perfect lenth of time (perfect time of completion). I see absolutly NO reason to think that "the day of the lord" is anything other than one day (that the whole book is centered around, including other periods of time leading up to it)) when God will judge, since "the day of the lord" is associated with stuff like burning of the heavens and earth, which cannot happen during some 1000 year period when there is supposed to also be some 1000 year kingdom with people living (on that burning earth?). There does appear to be a what looks like lengthy periods of time before that day, but since 1000 years means the perfect length of time in Hebrew language, I see no reason to suddenly decide that that one phrase should now mean exactly 1000 years literaly. Plus, there are other lengths of time also stated, a 7 year period (the qualitivly perfect period of time, which may not be exactly literally 7 years), so even if you say "literally 1000 years, you are stuck with longer, including periods of time even before the "7 years".

In Rev 1:10, looking it up, the word day hēmera
1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night

a) in the daytime

b) metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness

2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)

a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.

3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom

4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.

Nothing there about any period of time longer than 24 hours. The times listed in revelation before this day, however, sound like years, possibly many many years (length unkown since the stated years are in Hebrew symbolic language which is not literal).

BTW, about "revelation not fortelling the future, well, an idea, what if some might believe that because, as the bible says, "there is nothing new under the sun", and what is described in Revelation is simply more of the same, but this time on a worldwide scale, which makes everything bigger, ending in a world war of the largest scale ever seen (like WWII with mutiple nukes and a lot more technology to make all that warring really devestating). Those things also happend during the Roman era, they just happen again on a much bigger scale at the end (with nukes ).


Rome had a rather common progression, a democracy or republic, the usual success (wealth, freedom, culture), the usual decedance when the spoiled children now demand what they have alwaays known, stuff for free (the state as mommy and daddy), the decent into the usual socialism which then collapses the economy (the Romans demanded cheap grain, the government ordered the farmers to supply it so cheap they went out of business, they called it "bread and circusses"), the big socialist government degenerates into corruption (no one can watch them all, and they are made up of those spoiled children), and the dictator comes to take over that now otherwise uncontrollable government (or at least promises to). In the last stages, there is often war (to, for instance, invade Egypt to make them slaves to grow the grain that used to be grown by all the Roman farmers who went out of business), and more war (keeps the people from noticing how the dictator isn't actually making their life better, blame "them"), and even more war (as rival dictators vie for power), plus lots of murdering of political apponents or even just people you think might become apponents later. The dictators often try to build a cult of persnality, even using religion, themselves as gods, to try and keep the people following them and their rivals put down. Finally, the dictators and war is so bad (all that power goes to their head, insanity), along with dictators actually supporting the corruption as long as the corrupt ones support the dicator against his rivals and give him his cut, that the people will no longer support the country, and it either collapses internally (civil wars, economic collapse, banditry and chaos), and/or is invaded from without (often both), leading to "the dark ages".


This happened in ancient Isreal, they went from in effect a constitutional republic (the bible as the constitution) to demanding a king (dictator), to wars and civil wars and collapes and invasion. It has happened pretty reularly in China, every couple of hundred years a new vigorous government takes over after the last one has slid down into complete chaos (the new govermnet is often foriegners), it happened in Greece, (even faster than usual due to having pure democracies), then Rome. It Now looks to be happening in all the "free world" (former republics now rapidly degenerating into socialsim and now seeing the economic strains becoming intolorable), and with our modern technology, the only place left to go is to "rescue" the world economy with yet another "great leader" (just another dictator, this time a world dictator). The likely result of that, corruption on a scale never seen before, murder and propaganda on an equel scale to try and stay in power, and finally war, wordwide, ending with a general nuclear exchange ended only by Jesus showing up in the nick of time before we are about to totaly whipe ourselves off the planet.


In short, my idea is that what is going to happen is just a bigger, badder, more deadly version of what hapened to Rome, so if some see revelation seeming to talk about something like Rome, that isn't really a suprise. Their mistake is to assume that it IS Rome, because they do not realise that this has happened so very many times before Rome and many times after it.


Note, I am not willing to try and see any details, to try and match the daily news with Revelations, since that has been tried and failed (people still go to prophecy conferences, forgetting that the ones they went to years ago turned up bogus). I see no reason to give up Christianity for rapture-anity, as many seem to be doing (they seem to talk about nothing but prophecy and rapture and dates and literal 7 and 1000 year periods and the like). And I DEFINATLY see no reason to start date setting, Jesus was very clear it woud be a suprise. In fact, we could even putter along for quite a while before we finally get around to it, staying as seperate nations, having seperate collapes and wars, and only getting to it later after we recover. Thus, while it seems a lot more likely today, well, thats what they said the last time (the fall of Rome, the Mongol invasions, the black death, many times). The main reason I see it as more likely now is globalization, modern communications and transportation, and of course nuclear bombs.


I also think God has been somewhat deliberatly obscure, to make sure we don''t go around date setting (we do anyway), and to conceal from us when it will happen so that we will always be on our toes, so that when Jesus comes he will find us Doing The Right Thing, since we do not know when it will be and we want to be ready (which is exactly what he said). However, I see a LOT of trying to get around this, date setting, turning Revelations written in Hebrew figuretive language into literal dates to help our date setting, inventing secret raptures and other such things (we don't want to go through bad things as so many others before us have, so we invent this), and going to tons of prophecy conferences and prophecy stuff to try and match the daily news with Revelation (when the last one turns out to have been wrong, we conveniently forget it). The messege of Revelations seems ot be that there WILL be a return of Jesus, a last judgement, and the like, because John actually saw it. God knows what will happen, it's all in the plan, we should just accept that God has it covered and get on with doing what God told us to do, and not spend so much time looking forward to some future we can't control that we never do what God said to do now.