It's The End Of The World As We Know It

And I feel fine. (thank you REM)

Let's get serious, now. As of today, we only have 57 days left before the Rapture.

So I thought one thing we could do is look at the bible and see what it says about the Rapture, Armageddon and the End of the World.

The End of the World

The SAB does a great job of summing up what the bible says about the end of the world.

The most important thing is that Jesus said in Matthew (twice), Mark and Luke (twice) that people of that generation would still be alive to see the fulfillment of the Son of Man coming, and the Kingdom of God.

Then it was changed from the end coming during the lifetime of Jesus' followers to within the lifetime of the new testament authors.

This is found in 1 Corinthians (twice), Hebrews (twice), 1 Peter (twice), 1 John and a few other vague references.

Then, more vague references to the end of the world, with no mention of exactly when (but the language repeatedly says it will be 'soon'):

Philippians 4:5 The Lord is at hand.
James 5:8 For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Hebrews 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.
Revelation 1:3 The time is at hand.
Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:12 Behold, I come quickly.
Revelation 22:20 Surely I come quickly.

The Rapture

The Rapture comes from the following verse by Paul:

The Resurrection Never Happened

Neece posted on the Codex Sinaiticus a few weeks ago. I've been digging around, reading it (a little) and about it, and was formulating a reply to add to her article. After a bit of writing, I decided I should just make it a separate article.

Let me start with a little background information. Many Christians mistakenly assume that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) are independent accounts of the life of Jesus. Thus they assume that four corroborated eyewitnesses prove his existence, and the validity of every story told of him. Several facts knock this premise on its ear; but somehow Christians hold fast to their belief still.

First, Luke starts his book by stating that he is drawing up accounts "as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (in case that is too cryptic, he is admitting these were the stories told to him; that he was not an eyewitness). Second, we have historical and archeological information that indicates the new testament books were written after 45 CE at the earliest; most were after 90 CE. Third, we have in depth analysis and research that has resulted in plenty of proof that three of the four copy from another. Yet still many Christians think them all perfect accounts of the life of Jesus. Even his existence cannot be proven absolutely.

Most scholars agree that Mark was written first, and the other three had a copy or version of Mark they built their work from. The most common hypothesis currently is that Matthew used Mark or a version of Mark (M) in conjunction with the Q document (an as-yet undiscovered document). Luke used Mark and the Q document; as well as at least one other source (L), possibly two (J). The gospel of John came last, in addition to being very obviously written by a Greek (when original versions are examined). "The Gospel [of John] certainly does not appear to have been written by an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, which is who John the disciple is portrayed as in Gospel stories." John appears to use Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but takes many liberties by using "eloquent Greek prose for the speeches of Jesus" instead of just translating. [SOURCE]

Most of you probably knew this, or knew of it in general, so I'll get on with the "new" information.