Ichthys Acronym Image
Ichthys home navigation button

Eschatology Issues LXXIII

Word RTF

Question #1:

Hi Bob and family,

I was wondering about the time of the flood in Noahs day – more specifically, how many years were there between creation and Noah’s flood? I have read things that are supposedly by scholars of Biblical studies with varying times as to how many years there were between creation and Noah and they conflict anywhere between 1100 years to 1656 years. So it would seem they can’t all be right with such a large difference so again I’m turning to you for an accurate answer. My reason for asking is because on re-reading my article on The Chronological Timeline of the Events in Tribulation in which I made reference to that time to be a time of 1100 years and I am now wondering if that information is correct.

I’m sure that you would have done a detailed study on this at some time and don’t want to be guilty of writing wrong information. Hoping you can put my mind at rest.

I remain as always dear Bob, your friend,

Response #1:

On "how many years were there between creation and Noah’s flood?", that is unknowable because original creation in Genesis 1:1 occurred untold eons before the judgment on the universe occasioned by Satan's revolt and necessitating the seven day partial restoration of the universe (we also don't know how long the Lord left everything blacked out before the seven days of re-creation).

In perusing SR 5, you'll see that the date I arrived at for the flood is 2456 B.C. This is explained and worked out at the link: "The specific chronology of the seven days".

Hope you're doing well, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for sending the link, so much information in that, which, upon reading I had never thought that far into what has been revealed to you. I was particularly interested in understanding how Jesus could never have been born in the manner He was because of the Nephilim at that time brought about by Satan through fallen angels, would have eventually made the entire human race impure. Which in turn makes you think more deeply on the reason why God had to wipe out all mankind save eight in that flood.

And then further from that I never knew that Noah had chosen wives for his sons virtually at the last minute to re-populate the earth! A beautiful history lesson right there.

Oh if only more would find ichthys and the wealth it contains.

You mention 2456 B.C. for the time of the flood – thinking about the 7000 year / 7 day prophecy, and with my appalling maths ability, if I subtract 2456 from 4000, (being the end of day 2 in the timeline of creation to Jesus) I get 1544 (very roughly) to be the amount of years between creation and the beginning of the flood – or am I way off?

And if I am way off, because I had written in that article that the time of Noah’s flood was around 1100 years after the first flood – should I delete it not wanting to further a lie?

Just turned 77 on the 4th of this month and I’m reasonably OK, all things considered and thank you for asking – I can be thankful, I’m still on this side of the grass! May I reciprocate the same thoughts to you.

As always my dear friend,

Response #2:

Is this a math question? You know how I feel about those.

So I have 4112 as the date of creation; subtracting 2456, I get 1656; were I to subtract from 4000, I would get your number.

But as to "4000", the other things to factor in are 1) plus 70 years of captivity (which are not counted against the total); 2) minus seven for the Tribulation (Daniel's 70th week, the Tribulation, which is still future), 3) the date of the birth of Christ in 2 B.C., and 4) the time Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall.

So 4112, minus 63 (70 - 7), minus 2, leaves 47 as Adam's putative age at the fall.

The calculation always comes out the same whenever I do this – and it always gives me a headache.

Good to hear that you are still in the pink, my friend! That is a true blessing. So many of those in my cohort, a decade earlier than yours, cannot claim the same.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Hi Bob,

Just a quick question-

Noah was described as righteous and Job was considered as blameless in the eyes of God and yet neither were sinless. Is this because they both had faith in God (both loved and feared Him) approached God through bloody sacrifice (sin offering) and in doing so looked forward to our beloved Saviour?

In Jesus,

Response #3:

Noah and Job, though gentiles, were amazing believers (cf. Ezek.14:14-18). And that does in fact mean that, along with Abraham, their faith in God – faith in the Messiah to come – was credited to them as righteousness (Gen.3:16). So, indeed, along with us all who believe, they were "righteous by faith".

In addition to being righteous (Gen.7:1), Noah is also described as "perfect in his generations" (Gen.6:9), and that, in addition to referencing his integrity, also alludes to the fact that he was genetically pure, that his line had not corrupted itself like most of the rest of the world had been (by fallen angels and the Nephilim). Job is described by the writer of the book (probably Solomon) and by the Lord likewise as "blameless and upright" (Job 1:1; 1:8), and the first of these two words is the same as for Noah (singular here because there is no allusion to genetics, only moral integrity), while the second word is a synonym for "righteous" (more like "just" = the result of acting in righteousness).

The combination of the two words in either case represents not that they were perfect (no one is perfect and both of these men did stumble, although both under unique circumstances), but that they were believers AND that they lived in a way that was pleasing to God. Because while everyone is imperfect, there is a big distinction between those who stumble a little and those who stumble a lot, and also between those who are persevering in what the Lord wants us to be doing in this life and those who are not:

"Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse me from secret faults.
Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins;
Let them not have dominion over me.
Then I shall be blameless,
And I shall be innocent of great transgression."
Psalm 19:12-13 NIV

He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.
Daniel 10:11 NIV

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #4:

Dear Teacher

Thank you so much, Sir, for your email. It is deeply encouraging.

I have got to a point in my writing on Ecclesiastes where I wish to make a point about Noah's faith that led him to building the Ark. I think that I read somewhere in the series on Ichthys that there was likely no rain before the Flood. I have also read that in the past before coming to Ichthys, but I'm not sure how I can say that authoritatively.

My thinking is that the conditions that obtained in Genesis 2:5-6 remained until the Flood one and a half thousand years later, since we are not given any reason to think that anything changed. I suppose that it could be argued that after the Lord drove man from the Garden, He would have implemented the curse of working the field for food. Given then that the language of Genesis 2:5-6 appears to suggest that rain was necessary for the existence of the plants of the field, it seems a reasonable inference to make that rain became part of man's experience after then. But is that a necessary inference to make?

Of course, I don't think that the incidence or lack thereof of rain really does anything to Noah's faith, since he was not instructed to build the Ark just for protection from mere rain. But I wondered what we can say authoritatively about that time with respect to the physical conditions that obtained then. If indeed it had never rained, then it would be that much more of an issue that he was building an Ark to protect anyone willing to escape from the Flood that the Lord had decreed.

I have also considered that the physical conditions of the Earth would most certainly have been changed by such a massive event and also that Noah got drunk on the fruit of the vineyard that he planted, something that wouldn't seem to be in keeping with a man of his faith, unless he did not expect to get drunk. But I'm not sure what we can say about fermentation in this respect. Did it never occur before the Flood, or was it just not as pronounced as after? Also, even giving the monumental changes that resulted from the global flood, can we say that it could not have rained at all before the Flood?

I would appreciate your help working through this so that I can present things as clearly and Scripturally as they really are, Sir.

Your student in Jesus Christ

Response #4:

1) There was no rain initially following re-creation (Gen.2:5-6).

2) Rain at that time was unnecessary because "a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground" Gen.2:6).

3) That phraseology indicates the entire earth not just Eden.

4) God cursed the ground as a result of the fall (Gen.3:17-19), but scripture says nothing about any change in meteorology at that point, not the sun or the moon, nor the stars, nor the sky, nor anything about the mist that at that time was watering the earth.

5) The first mention of rain (other than the statement in Gen.2:5 that God had not yet caused rain) is the warning from the Lord to Noah that He will send rain in Genesis 7:4. God had told Noah in the previous chapter when instructing him to build the ark that He would bring "the flood" but had not said anything about rain – and only part of the waters of the flood came from rain; they also came from the "fountains of the deep", and in fact, rain gets second billing:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Genesis 7:11 NKJV

So this first mention to man of rain in the Bible is significant too. Noah didn't have to know about rain; he had been told that there would be a flood.

6) After the flood it does rain – and now there are seasons for the first time, and fermentation mentioned for the first time, and all manner of differences from the time before the flood (such as the vast reduction in human life-spans)– which is why I teach that the flood caused massive changes, one of these being the coming of rain.

I hope this answers your questions.  There are a number of places at Ichthys where all this is discussed (see the link for one), and do feel free to write me back.

Hope you are doing well, my friend – and that you are making progress in your plans and clarity thereof.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #5:

Dear Teacher

It answers them very well. I was wondering if I would be making an assumption or extrapolating from Scripture if I made a positive statement that there was no rain at the time, but I can see from what you said that I wouldn't be.

There is one thing that I would like to make sure of if possible, however. In Genesis 2:5-6, it is said that there was no plant of the field because there was no rain, since man had not been cursed to till the ground. In the curse in Genesis 3:18, the curse is that man would now eat the plants of the field.

I am thinking that it is not necessary to take the Genesis 3 passage to mean that Adam must of necessity have had to eat of those plants. In my thinking, this was something that would eventually come to be the lot of mankind, but it didn't have to have already started to be the case at the time any more than Adam and Eve were supposed to have died instantly after eating the fruit.

Cain's working of the soil (Genesis 4:2) does not also need to mean that at that point they were dealing with wild plants and shrubbery, in my thinking. It is possible that it got harder to obtain sustenance from the vegetation that existed then without there being any wild plants and shrubbery. So, when Noah's father named him (Genesis 5:29), he didn't need to have been referring to the difficulty of dealing with that kind of vegetation, only to how much harder it had become to get anything out of the vegetation that existed prior to the Flood.

So, the "plants of the field" common to Genesis 3:18 and Genesis 2:5 could simply have followed the Flood when things got remarkably changed for mankind in the physical structure and mechanics of the earth.

What do you think of that reasoning, Sir?

Your student in Jesus Christ

Response #5:

On this question, I'm not sure I follow the distinction. The only things we can eat are plants or animals and animals were not being eaten until after the flood. Plants weren't cursed, only the ground (all of the ground). So there were plants as the story of Cain – and the existence of the human race without eating animals – makes clear I would think. Part of the problem may be the translation of Genesis 2:5-6 because it doesn't really say or mean what many of the translations imply. It doesn't say that there were no plants or grasses; it says that "ALL [varieties] of such "had not yet appeared / sprouted" in the WAY in which they would once the Lord began to send rain.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #6:

About the question, the issue then is not that plants of the field did not exist prior to the Flood, rather it is that they did not sprout in the way that they later came to do after the Lord began to send rain? My difficulty here was how Adam would eat the plants of the field if they didn't exist yet, given that the Lord had not yet caused it to rain on the earth. If, however, it is simply how these plants would come to sprout under conditions of rain, then the question is not one of their existence.

I was also thinking that "plants of the field" referred to wild plants that could perhaps be domesticated for food somehow, perhaps like potatoes were several centuries ago, if the history I read is correct. I assume that this is not a necessary assumption to make, Sir?

Your student in Jesus Christ

Response #6:

Adam and Eve were evicted from Eden, the garden. They would have had to be eating something thereafter. Not only that, but this was part of the original plan (absent the curse producing hard work).

“Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.
Genesis 1:30 NKJV

Based on Genesis chapter one, therefore, I don't think we should assume that there wasn't flora and fauna outside of the garden from the beginning.

I think you are on to something with "of the field" being "wild" and/or "requiring domestication". Part of the curse at Genesis 3:18 is that it is these grasses / grains "of the field" of which man will henceforth eat. Since "beasts of the field" are part of original re-creation, I think you are also correct about spread being the issue: before the curse there was abundant easy-to-harvest vegetation with little of the wild "brambles"; after the flood these would spread with rain. More I wouldn't want to say.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #7:

Hi Dr. Luginbill,

It’s been a bit since we last spoke, I hope you are doing well. I’m glad to say that my unrest in regards to water baptism is fully gone and I am confident in the truth of the one baptism of the Spirit for the church. It took a long time to iron out the details, and I appreciate all your patience in answering my questions.

As I’m sure you know, there are some who are convinced that the great flood in the days of Noah was merely a localized event and did not impact the entire globe. I have many problems with this position and think it does not honor the narrative of Genesis or the Bible as a whole. However, I do have a question for you regarding the words used to describe the extent of the flood.

Some argue that since the word for “earth” used to describe the geological impact of the flood is often used to refer to “land” or “country”, it’s not referring to the globe as a whole but merely a localized region. How are we to respond to this objection from “local flood” proponents? It does seem strange that a more “all encompassing” word was not employed, so I’m a bit of a loss as to how to handle this. I’d appreciate any insight you may have.

Thank you,

Response #7:

Good to hear from you, my friend – and glad to hear that you've been able to lay that issue to rest.

As to your present question, first, I think it is fair to say that anyone reading those chapters in Genesis even casually would have the strong impression that a worldwide flood is meant (even if they didn't believe what they were reading). I think it's also fair to say that trying to limit the flood to a single land or country seems on its face to be more of a dodge than a believable interpretation.

A few things to note:

1) If it means "country" or "land" – what country or land are we talking about? At that early time, there was as yet no "land" of Israel – which is usually what is meant when "THE land" is meant by the Hebrew phrase ha-aretz – or any other "nation". Mankind was as yet a unity speaking the same language and living in the same general area.

“(3b) . . . to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. (4) For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”
Genesis 7:4 NKJV

It's hard to see what might have been said more emphatically than "the face of ALL the earth" if the idea was to convey "the entire earth" (which is exactly what it says) and not just one country (when there were no countries yet and when "lands" had not been designated yet in the Bible). And it's hard to see how we would be supposed to understand that only local humans and animal life would be in peril when we read "all living things that I have made".

2) This verse is impossible to reconcile with the jejune theory mentioned:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.
Genesis 7:19 NKJV

"Under the whole heaven", however translated, refers to everything on planet earth. "High hills" is better translated "high mountains" (as the Hebrew har is the word for mountain, not hill). If the flood covered all the mountains "everywhere under heaven", it would obviously have to be universal.

3) And the language is very specific too:

The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.
Genesis 7:20 NKJV

That is twenty feet (approx.) above all the high mountains, covering them, and that is much more water than any other flood has ever produced since that time, even in local flooding. This description is not accidental. One can doubt the veracity of it (I do not – it's the Bible), but the meaning is clear: an overwhelmingly great flood meant to exceed even the highest points on earth.

4) More definitive language:

And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.
Genesis 7:21-23 NKJV

"All flesh died that moved on the earth" and "every creeping thing" and "all in whose" there was the life breath are very hard to argue against being total. And "So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground" is difficult for those types: here we have a different Hebrew word, 'adhamah, "ground" (from which word comes the name "Adam"). It would seem to have to mean the earth as a whole without a qualifier such as "in that area".

5) Consider: "Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive": how would that be possible if the flood were only local? This statement is affirmed in 1st Peter 3:20 as well. And remember what the Lord had said before the flood:

“I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
Genesis 6:7 NKJV

Since God made all human beings, how could the above be reduced to a local phenomenon, again, absent any such indication in the text: a worldwide judgment is clearly indicated.

6) If the flood were only local, this would also be impossible:

And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 7:24 NKJV

How could there be a semi-permanent lake covering an entire "nation" twenty feet deep at its SHALLOWEST point enduring for five months if this were a local event? Nothing in human experience comes close.

So one has either to accept the biblical narrative or reject it – but it is most definitely NOT speaking of some local inundation only.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #8:

Hi Dr. Luginbill,

Thank you so much for your detailed response. You make some excellent points. I’ll definitely be saving these and adding them to my notes. Whenever I encounter a question regarding a particular biblical issue, I like to take lots of notes and then save it for the future should it arise again. As a friend of mine put it, it’s like having a keychain of tools you might need again later.

It does seem like an obvious dodge around the meaning of the Genesis narrative to assume the local flood position. Like you pointed out, the most direct interpretation would indicate a global event. Since the flood was the purge of the entirety of the creation of Gen. 1-3, it makes perfect sense that it would be global in nature. In fact, it logically would have to be.

Interestingly enough the people that hold to a “local flood” seem to have a low view of Scripture in the first place. Not that it proves the position to be incorrect, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

Thanks again,

Response #8:

I absolutely agree with you. I think there are a lot of immature Christians who care a good deal more about what the world thinks than about what the Bible says – the Bible being what the Lord thinks, after all (1Cor.2:16; Rev.19:13). As if science could be reconciled with the supernatural power of the truth.

There was a day when a person could be a scientist and an avid believer. I would think that would only be possible today by staying way under the radar. After all, contemporary science prides itself on dismissing anything but materialistic explanations – just like Marxism.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #9:

Hi Robert,

I think what I would be very interested in is your opinion on evolution.

As we know, science has accepted it - there is really no resistance anymore to the theory (within science). And being a believer, I have never felt that science "threatens" my belief and faith in God. Despite giving it thought, so far I can't really see a problem with evolution and our Christian faith. Having said that, I don't believe the current creation arrived by evolution since I think the current age was created about 6,000 years ago as described in Genesis. (My present opinion is that the pre-Adamic creation was wiped out by a flood.)

I guess another thing I wonder about is the original creation eons ago ("In the beginning"). No doubt it was spectacular and beautiful as created by God. But then how did the earth/universe transition from the original creation to the start of evolution? Of course, scientists would not accept the original creation but I don't presently have a theory as to how that transition happened. Perhaps after Lucifer fell there was some sort of destruction/degeneration in the universe and then evolution started? That doesn't sound very convincing.

Switching subjects, I was also going to raise the issue of the evolution of hominids and how a Christian may interpret millions of evolution of "man". But then by coincidence I was watching videos of "Koko" the gorilla and he is just fascinating as all the apes are and I guess I'm not as challenged by the thought (and meaning and purpose) of prehistoric man since I can think of them as just another form of apes.

Certainly let me know if you have already written about this and please direct me accordingly.

And I'd like to say that I really appreciate your writing and ministry - I have learned so much.

Best regards and God bless,

Response #9:

As to evolution, it is a theory lacking any direct evidence whatsoever – and it is an "evolving" theory at that (somewhat ironically). When I studied it in college, the idea that behavior could affect the process was ridiculed as ignorant; now it's a core part of the theory: today anything that seems to contradict evolution (such as people being sacrificial of their lives in some cases; human consciousness; belief in God) is considered "evolutionally advantageous" and of course rather than reducing evolution to nonsense (which it is) merely "confirms the theory" – sort of like how whether the weather is hot or cold or mild, it's all a function of "climate change".

One thing to keep in mind is that if evolution were true, it would run absolutely counter to the fundamental physical principle of the universe, namely, that entropy is ever increasing – somehow evolution has managed to swim upstream against that otherwise irresistible torrent . . . at a trillion miles an hour.

The devil and his followers interfered with the original creation for unknown eons after their rebellion and before God judged the universe and plunged it into darkness. But what they did was not "evolution"; rather it was "manipulation".

Here are some Ichthys links:

Science and the Bible III

Science and the Bible II

Science and the Bible

More science and the Bible

The problem of science and the Bible

Charles Hodge and Charles Darwin

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #10:

Dear Sir;

One look at a T-rex bone structure and one should immediately wonder why would a loving God create such a vicious creature. However, you indicated in one of your answers concerning the Nephilim phenomenon that genetic engineering not only affected the human race, but also the animals. in other words those giant carnivorous lizards were a product of fallen angels (Genesis 6). As such the “violence” that filled the land in Noah’s day involved these giant creatures.

Please elaborate, if possible.

Response #10:

Good to make your acquaintance.

I do think it's likely that in terms of dinosaurs, that these were indeed products of the devil and his angels manipulating the earth (see the link), after their revolt and following the self-sequestration of the Father in the third heaven (the original earth was previously His H.Q.; e.g., Is.14:13). However, this all took place in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, NOT after the earth was restored and mankind created. Satanic interference in that regard thereafter had to do not with animals but with the siring the Nephilim by means of direct interaction of fallen angels with human women to produce.

Demons do apparently crave physical bodies (e.g., Matt.12:43-45; Mk.5:12), but much prefer human beings to animals. Best place to look for details on most of this is The Satanic Rebellion series (you can also check the Subject Index).

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #11:


Thanks for your quick response.

Not intending to debate the issue, but I have a few questions.

Your supposition of a physical creation that contained animals in the “Gap” and its subsequent corruption that produced dinosaurs seems a lot less plausible than dinosaurs being produced along with the Nephilim in Genesis 6.

Your theory would indicate that God created extreme carnivorous creatures, which would also indicate that death existed before Adam’s Fall.

My questions are: Do you support the theory that death existed before Adam fell? And if there were animals in the Gap, were there also a pre-Adamite race of humans in the Gap?

Thank you for your explanations

Response #11:

It's definitely NOT my position that God created dinosaurs. On the original earth – the one before the revolt of Satan occasioned the destruction of the world that then required the seven day re-construction – there was flora and fauna. This the devil and his followers apparently manipulated (as mentioned, this is all explained the SR series).

As to "seems a lot less plausible", I'm not sure on what biblical basis you say that. I think you'll find that the reconstruction of events as taught in the SR series is a case of "the whole being greater than the parts", because it all fits. So it would be better to read that than try to adjudicate individual pieces on the basis of incomplete information.

As to death, that is a phenomenon which has to do with human beings and only has meaning as far as we are concerned. Angels do not die. Animals do not have death-consciousness (not like we do, in any case). And of course physical death is merely a change of status for human beings. Once God creates a spirit, it never goes out of existence. So I don't understand this "death" argument which I have heard of before. There were no human beings before or during the Genesis gap; only after the world was re-constructed. Whatever animals may have existed previously and whatever they may seem to have looked like from observing their fossils, they were not human beings as of course Adam and Eve were the first of our kind.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #12:


Please bear with me.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that animals were created before the “seven day re-construction” in Genesis 1. However, these “Gap” animals were genetically altered to become dinosaurs that were subsequently destroyed in a pre-Adamite judgment. Right?

Response #12:

The earth was the original paradise, the place of God, before the devil's revolt (see the link: in SR 1: "The Seven Edens"). It is thus reasonable to conjecture that there were flora and fauna on the pre-destruction earth, similar to what is the case today: a) the earth was restored; and b) this would explain the fossil evidence (e.g., oil and natural gas, for example). When Satan revolted, God removed Himself from the world (the kosmos) to the third heaven, and allowed the devil and his followers to rule for some indeterminate period of time. Given the fascination of demons with physical bodies, and given that the devil needed some incentive to corrupt a third of angelic kind, it is reasonable to suppose that this explains a number of subsequent developments, including the dinosaurs (compare the Nephilim, which episode clearly demonstrates the ability of demons, when allowed to do so, to engage in genetic manipulation).

God eventually judged that original creation contrary to the expectations of Satan and his followers, plunging the universe/kosmos into darkness and filling it with the universal deep/tehom. The seven days of re-creation and the creation of mankind as a replacement for the devil and his angels likewise came as a completely unexpected development for the evil one and his followers. But in this way God not only refutes all satanic lies (used to suborn his followers); He also thus is in the process of replacing them, angels who would not obey His Will with human beings who are willing to do so – impossible (so the devil had reasoned), and truly so . . . without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The above is a very short précis of the entire Satanic Rebellion series (five parts, many hundreds of pages); please have a look there for citations, explanations, exegesis and additional points.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #13:


Thank you for your insightful views and your biblical knowledge. It’s not too often that i get to discuss Bible with someone as knowledgeable.

However, there is one question you have not answered. In a previous email I asked, "were there also a pre-Adamite race of humans in the Gap?”

Since our present world mirrored the previous Creation, then quite obviously it would of necessity require a race of human beings. Neanderthals quite possibly?

Response #13:

You're most welcome.

Apologies, but I thought I had made this clear. If there were ape-like creatures during that time, whether or not they were created by God (doubtful) or by the fallen angels (assuming there is anything to this particular batch of fossil evidence of which I am highly skeptical), they were no more human beings than gorillas or orangutans are today.

Satan and company had no clue that they could be replaced – and that helps to explain their willingness to rebel against God, because they thought just that, namely, that they were irreplaceable (so that God would have to put up with them, rebellious or not). Much more about this in the SR series.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #14:


I have no problem with your theory about oil, coal and gas as well as the earth being older than 6,000 years, but your idea that “fallen angels” had the ability to create “ape-like creatures” is totally bazaar. In my opinion no one can create something out of nothing but God. It is obvious that “fallen angels” can mutate a creature that already exists, such as the Nephilim. But nothing else.

Please explain.

Response #14:

With all due respect, I think you've completely misunderstood me.

I never mentioned the idea of a "pre-Adamic race". You brought that up. I don't believe there was one. What I did say is that since God created chimpanzees in the re-creation, He certainly could have created similar creatures in the original creation. If there is anything to fossil remains of "humanoid appearing creatures" (and I personally am highly skeptical for all manner of reasons; see the link: "The problem of science and the Bible"), I would attribute them to original apes, not to any "pre-Adamic race". But as I say, I'm not even willing to go that far. I do think it's likely that the fallen angels manipulated the creatures God did create. They certainly did it with the most complicated creature God created – mankind – prior to the flood. But they didn't have human beings to "work with" before the Genesis gap judgment. So seeing dinosaurs as the monstrous results of their efforts makes a good deal of sense to me.

N.b.: this is my fifth email to you, but it seems you still have not availed yourself of the Satanic Rebellion series (link); that would have made these things clear and filled in all the gaps. No offense, but this is a Bible teaching ministry. I try to answer the questions of readers who are trying to grow closer to Jesus Christ through diligent study of the Word of God. I'm not able to teach the whole realm of Bible doctrine one email at a time. So if you want to grow, you'll have to help me out and do a little of the legwork yourself. Please see:

FAQ #7.  Recommended Use:  How can I best benefit from these studies?

FAQ #8.  Recommended Sequence:  Which of these studies should I read first?

In Jesus Christ our Lord,

Bob L.

Question #15:

I have one last important question. I hear lots of people claiming the Covid V is the Mark of the Beast. They claim it changes your DNA to make you no longer human, that it puts some quantum dot tattoo in your body that marks you, or all of them! Is there any truth to this?

Response #15:

Pluses and minuses vis-à-vis the v's aside, this is NOT the "mark of the beast": 1) no marking until the middle of the Tribulation (which hasn't even started yet); 2) the mark is clearly described in Revelation as a visible tattoo on the head or right hand; 3) no one will be deceived into taking the mark – it will be made clear that doing so is basically "pledging allegiance" to antichrist (cf. Rev.14:9-11). Here are the best links to where the mark is discussed at Ichthys:

Falsehoods about the Mark

Numbers, Letters and the Mark of the Beast

The Mark of the Beast (in CT 4)

Also, starting with "Eschatology Issues XXXVI" and going forward to the most recently published in this series, "Eschatology Issues LXXII" (and the 35 other "Eschatology Issues" in between), v's are a major topic, and this false issue you mention is often discussed.  So I invite you to take a look. 

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #16:


My friend passed away on Saturday evening we just found out today. We are all in shock here, it all has happened so suddenly.

I tried to share the Gospel with him as much as I could. The last time I texted him, I told him that as a "truth seeker" that the only truth he needed was Jesus Christ and that He IS the truth.

He was convinced that the v was going to kill him and that is why he didn't want it. It so sad that Covid did what he was scared the v was going to do.

I can't talk to him anymore or message him and it feels so shocking to know that. It was so sudden. I wonder why God chose to take him like that. I'm hoping that he believed and that God took him straight away at that point. That is what I am hoping for.

I feel heartbroken and sort of emotionally exhausted. Highs and then lows and then highs again.

Response #16:

I'm terribly sorry to hear about your friend.

You can take comfort in the fact that you DID make the gospel very clear to him, and at the critical time. I know from experience that there are some people who just will not respond . . . until they are staring death right in the face. I fully expect that in heaven we will find out that there were many more "death bed conversions" than we had any idea. Because, after all, saving faith is a decision made in the quiet of one's heart.

Keeping you and your family in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #17:


I'm struggling again. Since I came back from my holidays, I have flopped with exhaustion and because looking after my family all the time while away was a non-stop job, I have neglected my bible study and I feel out of communion with God now.

Due to all this and the shock of my friend's passing I have got depressed again. I'm sad to say that I have been looking into conspiracies again about the virus, v  etc to get a handle on it but it has made me feel worse rather than better. I don't want the v  but I don't want the virus either. I have felt a bit of panic over this. I am literally the only person I know who has refused the v . My family think I am nuts so now I am wondering if this is a good witness to them if they think I'm crazy?

My friend was the only unv ed person I know and now he has died so I suddenly feel very cornered and alone. Covid is raging in the area I live right now and even healthy thirty year olds are being hospitalised (an in law of the family).

I feel surrounded by the plague and I do feel fear. God has asked me to wait. I am starting to panic and lose some of my faith. How do I get that strong faith back and that fellowship with God? I love Him but He suddenly seems distant from me. What should I do to get back to where I was? Will God turn His face back to me again? I have nothing without Him. I feel so weak at the moment and so afraid.

In Him,

Response #17:

Be strong and courageous, my friend! I have affirmed many times that the decision to get v ed or not is NOT a spiritual one – unless a person fails to do so if they believe they should or vice-versa. If you are convinced in your heart that the Lord wants you to wait, then you know what you ought to do. And if we are doing what God wants us to do, then we have nothing whatsoever to fear. Those who oppose Him, stray from Him, fail to do His will – these are the ones who need to fear.

"But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."
Luke 12:5 NIV

But for us who are of faith in Jesus Christ . . .

God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging
Psalm 46:1b-3 NIV

I do know what you mean about being around people and situations where it is not convenient to pray or read the Bible – or to do Bible study with this ministry. It's always the best idea to try and build some time for that into vacations and/or other situations where we know ahead of time that we will not be all on our own and then to defend that time as best we can. But it's not always possible. After the fact, whether we've done a good or a poor job of walking with the Lord in times of stress and testing such as this, there will be a need to "detox". But the BEST way to do that is NOT to go back to old ways which got us into spiritual trouble in the first place. Rather we ought to make up our minds to be absolutely determined to recover our spiritual growth momentum no matter the cost.

To draw an analogy to exercise, if we let ourselves get out of shape, the way to recover is not to say "it's pointless!"; rather, the way to get back is stern self-discipline and re-adopting good habits of diet and exercise, even though this may be VERY painful and hard to do at first. And it is ALWAYS more difficult to recover than to continue with good momentum. But the only two choices when we've dug a hole are to keep digging . . . or to stop and begin to crawl out.

I have every confidence in you that you are already beginning to crawl out, my friend – and that you will make it ALL the way back out. I know for a fact that daily reading of the materials at Ichthys are conducive to spiritual recovery and growth, so I commend these to you once again.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #18:

Thanks Bob,

I realised that it is not a spiritual decision but I guess I felt a loss of faith around my decision. I was failing to trust in our Lord and His provision and instead seeking to "take control" of the situation myself. I know this is wrong and so I couldn't do this so instead I was left with my fear.

I realise that this is a test for me from God. He is asking me to wait and like a typical human in the flesh, I was getting a little impatient and worried about the delay but I realise that God's timing is perfect and I want to trust in Him even though my eyes are telling me to fear. One of my favourite verses in the NT is when Peter could walk on water as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus but floundered when his eyes fell on the water in fear.

I must keep my eyes on Jesus too and not be fearful of the "water" lapping up around me. It hasn't been easy with the pressure of my family to take the v . At times they have made me feel as though I have chosen a suicidal mission and at times, doubt crept in as it does when you are surrounded by people who trust either themselves or scientists only.

I realise that it is only spiritual if not done in a spirit of fear or disobedience. So if one person has been told by God to get the v  and one not to, then we must follow His direction. The difficult part is to continue to trust Him even when we worry about the direction we have been given. I guess a person who was directed to be v ed may fear if they read about the possible side effects. I personally have felt fear as my direction doesn't have that "safety in numbers" around it as the vast majority around me have been v ed and I am like the "sore thumb". It was easier when I had the solidarity of my friend on this but now he has passed on from Covid and everyone says the v  would have saved his life so that has been a huge stumbling block for me as I suddenly questioned being unv ed as my eyes were telling me to start panicking. I could see only the waves in the water, not Jesus in front of me.

I've said before that I feel as though Pharaoh and his army are gaining on me (Covid) and that the only seeming direction of escape is to throw myself into the Red Sea (V ). Moses trusted God to deliver them right on time and indeed He did in spectacular fashion. So God will deliver me too and I need to wait on Him although all my eyes can see is the horses pounding at speed towards me and an non-traversable wall of sea beyond me.

I was going to look for [meds] online but I realised I was doing this in a spirit of fear and mistrust and not waiting on the Lord. It was like my version of Operation Hagar. As long as I was trying to provide for myself and not trusting God's provision, timing and deliverance then I realise that I would be sinning.

You said before that it is easy to judge people in the bible from the comfort of an armchair. Indeed it is! It's only now whilst staring disease and death in the face that I understand what true faith really means. It definitely isn't "book learning"! It would be so easy right now to give in to the flesh and be like everyone else and get the v  but I know this is not what God wants for me so I must wait.

I realise that the tests we get from God get more and more difficult as we progress in our faith. I don't want to fail this test as my main purpose now is for spiritual maturity, to produce fruit and have ministry. I know that I will not succeed in these endeavours with a spirit of fear and without trust in the Lord.

I will pray for strength and for our Lord's deliverance through this trial. I will pray for patient endurance. I know that if I pass this test that my faith will be so much stronger. That I will prove my faith to God just as He will show His faithfulness to me. That is what I want, to pass this test. It is a very difficult one for me and I am struggling with it. Please pray for me to be strengthened in my faith so that I will wait for our Lord's deliverance.

In Jesus,

Response #18:

You're most welcome, my friend!

The Peter analogy is excellent! Yes it is so true we have NOTHING to fear whatsoever. After all, the "security" people think they have here in this temporary world is an absolute illusion. Without the support of the elect angels and God's ever present protection, we would all be wiped out in an New York minute. And everything that "is" will soon be completely destroyed at the end of the Millennium (which will be the blink of an eye for us believers who will be experiencing resurrection at the point). In a mere twelve and half years the Lord will return, if calculations are correct, and the seven before that will make the "troubles" we're experiencing now seem as nothing by comparison. But God has all this in hand. It's our job to trust Him and to walk in peace and faith and hope and joy (when possible) with our dear Lord Jesus Christ one day at a time until we reach our final goal.

If you say, “The LORD is my refuge,” and you make the Most High your dwelling, no harm will overtake you, no disaster will come near your tent. For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. You will tread on the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent. “Because he loves me,” says the LORD, “I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name. He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him. With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation.”
Psalm 91:9-16 NIV

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?”
Hebrews 13:5-6 NIV

I am praying for you, my friend.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #19:

Hi Dr Luginbill,

How are you doing? I am doing great!

Anyway, in the new books I am reading I can't get over how common it is for them to take the Lord's name in vain ALL THE TIME. I mean, I guess in an extreme event I can see a nonbeliever doing it. But in so many modern books, it is so often (and as literature lover and someone who does much reading-more than the average person anyway, I just wonder how the writers don't know of any other way to convey panic or shock and whatnot). And it is frustrating for me because it takes me out of the story. I don't think that means I should just stop reading (like I would have when younger); our society seems to enjoy misusing His Name and I'd have to leave the world to get away. But I will avoid the especially egregious. In my daily life I use "goodness" or "goodness gracious". I have no idea where I got that from; my older grandparents (long gone now)?

And I mean we already know that sometimes when you have head trauma (such as through a blow to the head or drugs), it can change a person's personality, ruin their memory, etc. This type of thing in the books is the same end via a different medium, and more direct. Just saying it isn't so impossible in my opinion.

We can always trust God though. We have always been surrounded by demonic enemies with powers I think are on another level, and He takes care of us. So even if that kind of thing developed, we have nothing to fear.

In Greek I am still on Anabasis. This story I think I really like and will try more military history after. I got to the point where the army splits into three because the commander and Xenophon don't want to attack a friendly city who gave them Xenia gifts. Also Xenophon is very skilled in war and speech isn't he? Even if when he wrote this he changed or added things, then the portion of the speech he wrote is still his. I don't know how he compares to Socrates. Part of me wants to go back and read and compare.

Response #19:

I'm thrilled to hear that you are doing well, my friend! Congrats on making progress in all areas, Greek included.

As to fiction of any kind, if Christians are going to read it, watch it, listen to it, etc., it really is important to keep it at arm's length. Obvious things such as what you mention are only disturbing if we pay attention – just as in the case of the lives we're living. Some things are less obvious too, so we need to approach these things with eyes wide open – as we should do whenever interacting with the world or the people of the world in any venue.

I'm most happy to hear that you are pushing forward in spiritual growth. There's nothing more important than that.

"We can always trust God though. We have always been surrounded by demonic enemies with powers I think are on another level, and He takes care of us. So even if that kind of thing developed, we have nothing to fear." Amen!

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #20:

Yes I have seen a story or two about some horrible side effect someone got, from the v , and I am thankful to the Lord my reaction was minor in comparison. It may only be a small percent, but for that percent, that they are the small percent, it might as well have been 100%.

Anyway, I know you have talked against using things like reading books to learn about things (social situations, etc). I don't know if you know, but a number of types of things my grandmother, for example, from the WW2 gen (or maybe the gen before) would have considered childish and a waste of time actually are used now as teaching tools. I read of surgeons using video games for training, and soldiers (oh I am sorry I suppose they prefer the term simulation lol) and also help with the elderly on a number of things. And when I play it my mind I can see that. I read a while back someone making mention of how older people who think of video games as arcade games is like the ancient silent films to some of today's. The idea of brain games and word games has been a while now to help with one's mind.

Though you and I don't need the modern stuff, right, we can just look at how games have been played by the elder and family members throughout history, Anyway, I do think the reading has helped me a lot. I can fully explain how messed up my idea of life and relationships was. It is a wonder I didn't simply go off the deep end. I can see the before and after difference.

Please take care.

Response #20:

I don't have anything against reading – I read lots!

I also don't have anything against games (I've played enough of them in my life).

A lot depends on what we are reading (personally I prefer non-fiction) and what we are playing (mostly I like crossword puzzles, word games, and the occasional war game).

If any recreational activity is a detriment to our spiritual growth or progress (not to mention also the godly conduct of our lives generally), then that is a problem – but more for the obsessiveness that people often manifest towards all manner of things which have nothing to do with a godly life. A person can get obsessive over model railroading and waste all their time and energy on it to the point of hurting their family relations and spiritual growth. Fill in the blank with most anything else. Moderation in such things is essential.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #21:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

In the following email to another believer you state the following:

On the other hand, those who teach that "it doesn't make any difference to your eternal status whether or not you sin, no matter to what degree" are also not paying attention to what the Bible has to say. Sin is disobedience to God, and repeated, unrepentant, self-willed disobedience to God hardens the heart and rots the faith. "Sin's pay is death" (Rom.6:23) means that if we whole-heartedly enlist in service of sin (instead of, as Paul advises us, in the service of the Lord: Rom.6:13), we are going to reap the consequences.

In your teaching on Repentance, confession, and forgiveness, you make the following statement:

The need for repentance: Sin separates us from God (Is.59:1-2). He is perfect in His holiness and so can have no contact with sin whatsoever.

1. How does your statement here fit in with the following remarks in your teaching, the sin unto death as addressed in this statement:

1) the Word of God remaining in us, pointing out to our consciences the right path:

1John 3:9.
9”Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

The primary distinction between the two is that while the former[apostasy] involves a total loss of faith (and therefore of salvation), the latter[sin unto death] does not (i.e., the person is removed from this life before the seed of faith expires completely).


One reason that John discourages us here from praying for individuals subject to the sin unto death is that the sin unto death, despite its horrific nature, constitutes a merciful deliverance on God's part of wayward believers perilously close to apostasy because of gross sinfulness.

1st Corinthians 5:4-5
[“For I have already decided], in the name of our Lord Jesus, when all of you are gathered together with my spirit by the power of our Lord Jesus, to hand such a one over to Satan for the destruction of his body so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

The sin unto death is, therefore, a means of saving a person's eternal life by ending their physical life (and in this respect, it is the antithesis[direct opposite] of God's merciful deliverance by the death of the godly believer, and:

the latter person wants to have it both ways, being unwilling to relinquish his or her relationship with the Lord but also unwilling to give up the outrageously sinful behavior for which God is calling him or her to account.

My Comments and questions:

1. These statements in the different teachings seem to contradict the last one teaching on the sin unto death?

2. How can a person be a believer and at the same time practice a sinful lifestyle?

3. According to scripture, no one who lives a lifestyle of sin (and does not repent) thus turning away from their sin, will enter the Kingdom of God.

4. How can take a person who practices sin with no repentance, for in this teaching no mention of repentance is made, and how can a person say that he/she loves God and live a lifestyle of sin? It makes no sense.

5. Is God overriding the person's will when He takes their physical life and saves them from losing their eternal life?

6. How can God possibly take a sinful unrepented sin, and again there is no mention of repentance in the teaching of this individual, but perhaps I have missed it?

7. I know that God's Grace and Mercy are far beyond our human understanding, but, taken together these cited teachings, do seem to contradict each other unless I am totally missing something here in what I have failed to notice?

I am a bit confused, especially on the teaching of "The Sin unto Death", it just doesn't rhyme together, so I ask for your great help to resolve these issues and questions?

By no means am I being critical, I am only looking to get a better understanding.

I really do appreciate all that you do for me especially.

Blessings to you always,

Your friend,

Response #21:

I'm a little unclear as to what you are attributing to me in a couple of these quotes (or are they your commentary?).  Be that as it may, plenty of people have to read this particular set of teachings over a number of times before they are comfortable with them, but I assure you that I stand by them (best link for this: Apostasy and the Sin unto Death in BB 3B). As to your questions:

1) I don't see any contradiction. Could you be more specific?

2) We know that believers do "practice sinful lifestyles" . . . all the time. We know that from observation; we also know it from scripture (king Saul, for example; also, the young man in 1Cor.5 whom Paul handed over to the devil for the sin unto death in order to get him to repent and change his ways, for example). Now it IS true that this is dangerous. That is the whole point behind these teachings; not to justify sinful behavior but to lead believers out of that trap (or to avoid it in the first place). But pretending that since "so and so does XYZ so he/she CANNOT be a believer" is sticking one's head in the sand. All sin (Rom.3:23); all need to confess; getting into a PATTERN of sin will bring on divine discipline (Heb.12); at that point a believer either repents . . . or heads down one of the two dark paths, apostasy or the sin unto death.

3) Agreed. The mechanism God uses for bringing about this lack of entry into the kingdom on the part of those who refuse to repent of outrageous conduct is increasing discipline to which a believer will react in one of two ways: apostasy or the sin unto death.

4) I mention repentance all the time. For the rest, see above.

5) People often have a problem with this in terms of "free will", but in fact God is honoring free will by a) allowing believers to go this dangerous route of backsliding, and b) also honoring their decision to hold onto faith or abandon it; the former results in the sin unto death absent REPENTANCE; the latter leads to apostasy – which is where the person ceases to believe in Christ.

6) Respectfully, I don't understand this sentence (please rephrase).

7) I believe all this has been addressed above.

As to "rhyming", to me it "rhymes" perfectly, answering many questions about sin in regard to believers that a whole host of denominations and systems of teaching have gotten completely wrong. For example, "once saved always saved" seeks to answer this "problem" (which is no problem at all) by saying that salvation can never be negatively affected . . . and then by proclaiming believers who are acting poorly "not saved". That is dead wrong on both counts and a dangerous tandem teaching. Rightly understood, believers have to persevere in faith all the way until the end. Sin is an issue because it undermines faith and alienates the believer from the Lord, especially if persistent and unrepented of. But the issue is always faith, not sin. There is an evangelical tendency to focus on sin to the detriment of what the Bible actually teaches, and it leads to all manner of confusion, in the main, believers thinking they can do whatever they want and still be saved (not true because straying far from the Lord will eventually result in apostasy or the sin unto death); or else they imagine when they sin awfully and over time that they have "committed the unpardonable sin" and are lost irretrievably. Also not true, and a terribly dangerous teaching because it promotes self-righteousness on the part of those who haven't followed suit and hopelessness on the part of those who have gone astray – and both of these horrible attitudes endanger salvation in fact.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #22:

Will we really have to give account for every sin we committed since being born again at the Judgement? I'm scared of this

I hear people claim this was only addressing unbelievers

Response #22:

I'm not sure which passage you're referring to. Revelation 20:11-15 is speaking of unbelievers. They are judged "according to their works" – which means everything they've thought, said and done. The judgment seat of Christ is where we believers will be evaluated for what we've done in this life for Christ. Main passages for that:

But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Romans 14:10 NKJV

For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
1st Corinthians 3:11-15 NKJV

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
2nd Corinthians 5:10 NKJV

In this last passage in the next verse, Paul does say, "knowing therefore the fear of the Lord" – meaning that of course we have apprehension about being judged by our Lord and Master . . . because none of us is perfect. But as to whatever we've done that is worthless, it will be burned up and never mentioned again (as the middle passage above states).

One important thing to remember is that Christ has already died for the sins of the world, even those of all unbelievers. That is why their judgment is not based upon sins but upon their worthless deeds – to show that nothing they did or ever could do could ever merit salvation. Believers lives are also judged according to the same pattern in order to demonstrate what was truly done in the Spirit "for Christ". For all such things we are rewarded (even a cup of water offered in the Lord's Name receives a reward: Mk.9:41); for all other things done not in the Spirit and from false motives, these will be burned up and receive no reward. But all believers have a place in New Jerusalem, a resurrection body, access to the tree of life and the river of life, and a full share in Jesus Christ as part of His Bride forever.

So the correct conclusion to draw from all this is that our lives down here are only really significant to the extent that we are utilizing the opportunities the Lord has given us to grow spiritually, advance in our walk with Him, and produce a good crop worthy of reward. Everything else is superficial and insignificant in comparison (as we will realize on the other side).

You can read the details about all this at the following link in CT 6: "The Judgment and Reward of the Church" (at the link).

In Jesus Christ who is our all,

Bob L.

Question #23:

Hi Dr. Luginbill,

I want to ask you about rapture. Does rapture really happen? I often hear this teaching and the supporting verse is 1 Thessalonians 4:17. But when I read the Revelation, I seem to read that there are still saints when the tribulation happens and that their faith will be tested (Revelation 13:10). So, is rapture real? Or not?

Response #23:

I commend you for allowing scripture to guide you (as opposed to popular interpretations).

The false doctrine of the PRE-TRIBULATION "rapture" is very dangerous because it breeds complacency. We are very close to the Tribulation, and many evangelical believers are basking in their Laodicean lukewarmness, content and feeling secure that they won't have to go through it. But that is false.

There is of course a resurrection, the one mentioned in 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18, but that takes place when Jesus Christ returns at the END of the Tribulation (nothing in that passage suggests otherwise). Jesus comes back only ONCE. There aren't three advents, only two. He will return as Revelation makes clear to destroy the forces of antichrist at the battle of Armageddon, and it is at His glorious return that we, His Church, will rise to meet Him "in the air".

The above is a very brief synopsis of a subject that has been written about profusely at Ichthys. Here are some of the major links (which will lead to others):

The 'Rapture' and other Eschatological Issues

Eschatology Issues XXIV: the 'Rapture' et al.

The pre-Trib 'Rapture': so called 'imminence' and other false proofs refuted

Dangers of the Pre-Trib Rapture False Teaching

When is the Rapture?


The Origin and the Danger of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture Theory

No Rapture

Three False Doctrines that Threaten Faith

Misplaced Faith in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

The Resurrection of the Lamb's Bride (in CT 5)

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #24:

Dear Dr. Luginbill, I am writing to you again as some questions have occurred to me lately about the Tribulation.

First, in Revelation 8:1 “When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.” And in verse 5: Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.” As I understand it, the thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and earthquake will be seen and felt all over the world. I had thought that these things will happen right after the seventh seal is opened so that some people (not all of course) would realize what is happening and would have time to repent. However, after reading it again it appears that the thunder etc. will happen after the period of silence. Can you clarify this? What is the purpose of the period of silence?

Second, with the opening of the first six seals in Revelation 6 some pretty drastic things start happening on earth. Will these things occur before or during the Tribulation?

Third, what is the scriptural basis for the overlap of the Church Age and the Jewish Age.

Blessings to you in our Lord Jesus Christ

Response #24:

Good to hear from you. As to your questions:

1) I interpret the half hour of silence as a six month grace period before the Tribulation is unleashed. This is actually necessary because while our Lord was crucified and rose from the dead in the spring (Passover representing His sacrifice), the set of festivals which represent the Tribulation, Second Advent and Millennium all take place six months later in the fall.

As to the phenomena mentioned being worldwide or not, that is clearly what Revelation 8:1ff. says. Here is parallel passage to Revelation 8:1ff. (where Jeremiah is employing the "day of the Lord paradigm"; link), which also makes clear that when the Tribulation commences, we will know it:

“Therefore prophesy against them all these words, and say to them:
‘The LORD will roar from on high,
And utter His voice from His holy habitation;
He will roar mightily against His fold.
He will give a shout, as those who tread the grapes,
Against all the inhabitants of the earth.
A noise will come to the ends of the earth—
For the LORD has a controversy with the nations;
He will plead His case with all flesh.
He will give those who are wicked to the sword,’ says the LORD.”
Thus says the LORD of hosts:
“Behold, disaster shall go forth
From nation to nation,
And a great whirlwind shall be raised up
From the farthest parts of the earth.
And at that day the slain of the LORD shall be from one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth. They shall not be lamented, or gathered, or buried; they shall become refuse on the ground.”
Jeremiah 25:30-33 NKJV

2) The seventh seal removes the Holy Spirit's restraining ministry and opens the way for the commencement of the Tribulation. The other six seals are analogous to cover art and book blurbs today – which give us some idea of what is inside. Seals 1-4 give trends which will begin during the first half of the Tribulation, whereas seals 5-6 give the two major events of the second half, the Great Tribulation (namely, the Great Persecution and the Second Advent with its concomitant judgments). See the link: "The Seven Seals"

3) The overlap is covered at the link given here (in SR 5). In a nutshell, on the one hand, the Age of Israel still has seven years to run (Daniel's seventieth week); on the other hand, Church Age believers are still present all the way to the second advent. The alternative interpretation would have to append the seven years to the Church Age – but then, if the Church Age is to have its full 2K years, the return of Christ would be more than 2K years out from His victory at the cross. We, Church Age believers, are told to be looking for Christ's return (1Cor.1:7; Phil.3:20; 1Thes.1:10; Tit.2:13; 2Pet.3:12); but how is that language used by the apostles appropriate if our Age ends seven years before that return? There are other reasons for preferring the interpretation of overlap and rejecting that of appending the seven years given at the link above.

It is good to consider these things, however. As I often say, 2026 is an interpretation based upon the biblical information available and applied to history as we have it. If the Tribulation is appended and not an overlap, then it would be 12 plus years away, not five. Because of this, and for other reasons too (remember, 2026 is an INTERPRETATION, not a direct biblical teaching), I always advise believers to live their lives one day at a time. Whether "today" is our last, or whether we have decades of peace and prosperity ahead should in either case make no difference to the decisions we make – since 1) we don't know for certain either way, and 2) our aim is to please the Lord today and for however many tomorrows He may give us.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.

Question #25:

Brother Bob,

How are you? Haven’t reached out to you in a while. Everything is going well. Better than I deserve!

I just have to share this with you. The other night I wasn’t sleeping well and had a lot on my mind with family issues and such. I decided to reach for my I-phone which I keep close on the night stand next to our bed and find something to read (why not since I can’t sleep?)

After entering my six digit access code, immediately your “Part 6A: Peripateology: The Christian Walk, Section 8: Recovering from Defeat” popped up!

I read your articles often, but Bob, I hadn’t been on your website for a couple of days! I started reading that section and even though I had not really had any defeats lately it was exactly what I needed! I felt like the Lord was telling me this is where He wanted me to park spiritually for a while and read the whole thing. I have been studying it for the last few days. It has been the booster shot I needed!

This had to be a “God thing”!

Your time and efforts are not in vain. Thanks so much. Keep up the good work!

God Bless.

Response #25:

Thanks for this!

I'm happy to hear that things are going well with you, my friend. Can't complain here either – plenty of challenges, but the Lord gives us the strength and the help to meet them and surmount them (Ps.18:29; 144:1).

It's also great to hear that you're benefitting from these writings! I certainly hope that is indeed a "God thing" – in every way. These are the kinds of "booster shots" of which we need have no trepidation.

Thanks for your encouragement, my friend. Keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.



Ichthys Home