When do the last days end?

DavidPT said:

That seems to imply a gap then.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I understand that perspective. Let me offer 2 suggestions. First. The number 40 is biblically significant it represents the span of one biblical generation as defined in the Old Testament. And there were 40 years from the crucifixion to the judgment on the city.

Moreover, the Jewish Talmud speaks at length about the significance of the 40 years before the destruction of Herod's temple.

One prominent rabbi. Rabbi Zadok fasted for 40 years. To stave off the destruction of the city.

So I offered at the 40 year Gap was a generational grace period to give that generation spoken of in Matthew 24 verse 34. All the time God could allow them to repent before calling judgment on their generation.

I also want to toss out there, the suggestion that perhaps the final 7 was 7 decades. That also makes a lot of sense to me. The 7 decades from 30 to 180, did in fact, "seal up vision and prophecy." I understand Christians recognize no divine profits or prophecies since 100AD since the last epistle was written by the last Apostle Saint John in about 100.

Viewed that way the Jewish war and the destruction of the physical temple also occured in the middle of the 7.

Erik Nelson said:

Well, yes, I understand that perspective. Let me offer 2 suggestions. First. The number 40 is biblically significant it represents the span of one biblical generation as defined in the Old Testament. And there were 40 years from the crucifixion to the judgment on the city.

Moreover, the Jewish Talmud speaks at length about the significance of the 40 years before the destruction of Herod's temple.

One prominent rabbi. Rabbi Zadok fasted for 40 years. To stave off the destruction of the city.

So I offered at the 40 year Gap was a generational grace period to give that generation spoken of in Matthew 24 verse 34. All the time God could allow them to repent before calling judgment on their generation.

I also want to toss out there, the suggestion that perhaps the final 7 was 7 decades. That also makes a lot of sense to me. The 7 decades from 30 to 180, did in fact, "seal up vision and prophecy." I understand Christians recognize no divine profits or prophecies since 100AD since the last epistle was written by the last Apostle Saint John in about 100.

Viewed that way the Jewish war and the destruction of the physical temple also occured in the middle of the 7.

Click to expand...

Like I pointed out in the past, even if some of you might be correct about some of these things, you are way over my head here, thus I will likely never see it those ways. It's not that I can't comprehend what some of you are saying, it's that I can't comprehend any of these passages meaning what some of you are taking them to mean. These passages read one way to some of you, they read an entirely different way to me.

ewq1938 said:

Not all the wicked are destroyed by God's wrath. Some are left to be ruled over. Many scriptures show this to be true.

Click to expand...

Hello, consider what Jesus said in Matthew 24:37-39, Luke17:26-30 comparing His coming to the days of Noah..
Luke 17:26-27 Jesus said "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying....up to the day Noah entered the arch. Then the flood came and DESTROY THEM ALL...this is the wicked..not some of the wicked but All...1Pet3:20 says speaking of the same event only 8 people were saved. Did not mentioned unsaved remain instead were ALL DESTROY...

What scriptures so I can have a read maybe I'm in error, we're discussing Bible truths so it's good as Proverbs 27:17 says - As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another...

pasifika said:

Hello, consider what Jesus said in Matthew 24:37-39, Luke17:26-30 comparing His coming to the days of Noah..
Luke 17:26-27 Jesus said "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying....up to the day Noah entered the arch. Then the flood came and DESTROY THEM ALL...this is the wicked..not some of the wicked but All...1Pet3:20 says speaking of the same event only 8 people were saved. Did not mentioned unsaved remain instead were ALL DESTROY...

What scriptures so I can have a read maybe I'm in error, we're discussing Bible truths so it's good as Proverbs 27:17 says - As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another...

Click to expand...

Here's a question or two for you. Per the flood not only did every human not aboard the ark die, so did every animal not aboard the ark die. This assuming the flood was global. Assuming it was, well there was an ark for animals to board at the time. There won't be an ark for animals to board prior to the 2nd coming though. So assuming the 2nd coming is like the flood in Noah's time where everyone not on the ark were destroyed, this would indicate the same fate happens to all of the animals on the earth when Christ returns. They too are destroyed with the wicked.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Assuming one agrees this is meaning post the 2nd coming, and that one agrees literal animals in view here. My question then is. If all of the animals were destroyed with all of the wicked at the 2nd coming, the same way they were all destroyed during Noah's day, how then do animals reappear in Isaiah 65? Does God resurrect some of them? Does God create brand new ones? If either of these, where are there any Scriptures supporting this idea? But if these are not reasonable possibilties, wouldn't the only possibility left be that animals survived the 2nd coming? But how, if the entire planet is supposed to be engulfed in flames according to some interpretations of 2 Peter 3? And finally, if animals can survive, thus not be destroyed at the 2nd coming, why can't the same be true of some of the unsaved?

DavidPT said:

Here's a question or two for you. Per the flood not only did every human not aboard the ark die, so did every animal not aboard the ark die. This assuming the flood was global. Assuming it was, well there was an ark for animals to board at the time. There won't be an ark for animals to board prior to the 2nd coming though. So assuming the 2nd coming is like the flood in Noah's time where everyone not on the ark were destroyed, this would indicate the same fate happens to all of the animals on the earth when Christ returns. They too are destroyed with the wicked.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Assuming one agrees this is meaning post the 2nd coming, and that one agrees literal animals in view here. My question then is. If all of the animals were destroyed with all of the wicked at the 2nd coming, the same way they were all destroyed during Noah's day, how then do animals reappear in Isaiah 65? Does God resurrect some of them? Does God create brand new ones? If either of these, where are there any Scriptures supporting this idea? But if these are not reasonable possibilties, wouldn't the only possibility left be that animals survived the 2nd coming? But how, if the entire planet is supposed to be engulfed in flames according to some interpretations of 2 Peter 3? And finally, if animals can survive, thus not be destroyed at the 2nd coming, why can't the same be true of some of the unsaved?

Click to expand...

Hello, 1corinthians 15: 35-44 gives some light on that topic..verse 39 said that not all flesh are the same..people,animals, birds and fish this is the Natural body..they also have spiritual body in verse 44..but it's God who gives a Body as He has determine (spiritual body of each kind of flesh)..this is their resurrented body...

Thank you

ewq1938 said:

Not if the flood wasn't global. Also, there was a very sinful incident by someone on the ark that happened after they landed so it isn't true there wasn't an unrighteous person on the ark. Same for Lot. His wife was secretly unrighteous and left with Lot, but turned around showing what was in her the whole time. And, in that story we know it isn't global so not all unrighteous people were killed. Only some were specifically targeted for death and it will be the same when Christ returns. Some will die, some will live to be ruled over by Christ and his saints.

Click to expand...

Hello, everyone on the arch commited sin in their lives but that is not for us to determine which one is saved and not it's God's. .we are all sinners from Adam to me or whoever..otherwise NO ONE will be declare righteous in God's sight...
He can make a sinner become righteous because He is God..
IF the Bible said thearlier descendant of this world trace back to Noah's family then it means No other family exist therefore the flood is Global in my opinion...

Thank you

ewq1938 said:

I'm just showing you that righteous and unrighteous survived the flood, and that righteous and unrighteous survived the fire of Lot, and righteous and unrighteous shall survive the second coming.

Click to expand...

While it might be debatable about the flood, as to whether it was local or global, it shouldn't be debatable about what happened in Lot's day. Clearly that was local, thus not all of the wicked on the planet were also destroyed at the time. So IMO this at least shows that God can deal with some of the wicked without having to deal with all of the wicked at that particular time.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.


Interestingly, Jesus used the example of Noah's day and Lot's day to make His point. Verse 29 says--- and destroyed them all. We already know it wasn't meaning every wicked person on the planet at the time. In context then, 'all' is only referring to the wicked in that particular region.

Even though I choose to conclude the flood was global in Noah's day, it then makes me wonder why Jesus would use one example here where all the wicked on the planet were destroyed at that time, assuming the flood was global, then turn right around and use another example where they weren't? This of course makes me wonder if the flood was really global after all? I just don't know for certain, yet I tend to favor it being global as opposed to regional. But it does seem like Jesus is not being constent here if in the former 'all' means all of the wicked at that time, and in the latter 'all' only means some of the wicked at that time.

DavidPT said:

Here's a question or two for you. Per the flood not only did every human not aboard the ark die, so did every animal not aboard the ark die. This assuming the flood was global. Assuming it was, well there was an ark for animals to board at the time. There won't be an ark for animals to board prior to the 2nd coming though. So assuming the 2nd coming is like the flood in Noah's time where everyone not on the ark were destroyed, this would indicate the same fate happens to all of the animals on the earth when Christ returns. They too are destroyed with the wicked.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Assuming one agrees this is meaning post the 2nd coming, and that one agrees literal animals in view here. My question then is. If all of the animals were destroyed with all of the wicked at the 2nd coming, the same way they were all destroyed during Noah's day, how then do animals reappear in Isaiah 65? Does God resurrect some of them? Does God create brand new ones? If either of these, where are there any Scriptures supporting this idea? But if these are not reasonable possibilties, wouldn't the only possibility left be that animals survived the 2nd coming? But how, if the entire planet is supposed to be engulfed in flames according to some interpretations of 2 Peter 3? And finally, if animals can survive, thus not be destroyed at the 2nd coming, why can't the same be true of some of the unsaved?

Click to expand...

revelation 20:9-11

fire from heaven destroys all outside the camp of the saints, any plants and animals inside the same may survive?

Erik Nelson said:

revelation 20:9-11

fire from heaven destroys all outside the camp of the saints, any plants and animals inside the same may survive?

Click to expand...

Per my current perspective though, Revelation 20:9-11 would be meaning after the 2nd coming. What already happened to or did not happen to the animals when Christ returned, would all be in the past at this point. I get your point though, and it's a good point, yet from my perspective it would be a moot point. But if I agreed Revelation 20:9-11 happens in this age instead, I do see some logic in what you are saying in that case.

ewq1938 said:

So you think the second coming happened in the past no one knows when it happened? That's not the second coming I have read of.

Click to expand...

No I never said that. The Bible indicates there is more than one “coming” of Jesus. Thee Second Coming as more like the first I suppose, has not yet occurred.

ewq1938 said:

Well, many do because he and his saints will rule over them for a thousand years.

Click to expand...

When the Bible says He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, does that mean only 1000 hills? The 1001th hill of cattle aren’t his?

The 1000 means many, not an exact number.

Dorothy Mae said:

When the Bible says He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, does that mean only 1000 hills? The 1001th hill of cattle aren’t his?

The 1000 means many, not an exact number.

Click to expand...

If a thousand hills really mean all the hills in the world, where I myself don't have a dispute with that idea, but to then to try and compare it to something like years, where obviously all of the years in the world are not in view, but only a certain amount are, is not a good comparison IMO.

Why don't you just argue it like some others are arguing it around here lately? Why not argue it's thousands years rather than thousand years?

Are you then suggesting that whenever 'thousand' is used in the Bible, it never means an exact number?

Leviticus 26:8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.


Why not just say instead---and an hundred of you shall put a thousand to flight---if a thousand can mean any amount imaginable? If a thousand can mean 2000 or even 3000, why can't it also mean 10 thousand? So why say 10 thousand if a thousand is the same as 10 thousand?


Numbers 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

So how did Moses determine how many of each tribe to send out if a thousand in the Bible can never mean exactly 1000, but has to mean any amount higher than that? If someone today said 1000 troops are being deployed somewhere, should one take that to mean exactly 1000? Or should one take that to mean it could be meaning 2000 or even 3000 instead?


Numbers 35:4 And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about.
Numbers 35:5 And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.

If a thousand can mean 2000 or even 3000, etc, why is verse 5 saying two thousand cubits if a thousand cubits mean the same thing? Why is one verse saying a thousand cubits while the other verse is saying two thousand cubits?

claninja said:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Peter states he was living the in the last days. It appears the last days started during Peter's generation.

When do these last days end? Before the millenium, during the millenium, or after the millenium?

Click to expand...

If they end before the millennium, this seems to imply two different ages are in view. If they end during the millennium, this seems to imply satan doesn't have a little season after the millennium though Revelation 20 indicates he does. If they end after the millennium, this seems to imply only one age is in view here rather than two.

Maybe what needs to be determined first, what and what cannot take place during the millennium? Then from that try and determine which age these things appear to fit better. This age or the next age when Christ has returned.

The first thing that comes to mind, which cannot happen during the millennium, satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium. Does that appear to fit this current age, or an age that hasn't even begun yet? I'm pretty sure you probably already know what I think. I don't think it fits this present age. I don't know how anyone can? Yet many apparently can.

ewq1938 said:

I'm just showing you that righteous and unrighteous survived the flood, and that righteous and unrighteous survived the fire of Lot, and righteous and unrighteous shall survive the second coming.

Click to expand...

Hello, you're right that righteous and unrighteous survive both arch and fire of Lot, But neither Noah or Lot can Save them from their SINS that why those who are being saved from both flood and fire commit sin afterward. BUT ONLY Jesus was given that task by God as the Angel said to Joseph in Matthew 1:21, That his wife Mary will give birth to a son and he are to give him the name JESUS because He will save His people from their sins...
So if Jesus saved us from our sins are we going to commit sin afterward? Isn't through Him we declare righteous before God so how can any unrighteous survive this coming fire without being made righteous with God through the blood,body and life of the Only One whom He chose Jesus Christ. Romans 5:9 said " we are saved from God's wrath through Him...
Thank you

DavidPT said:

If a thousand hills really mean all the hills in the world, where I myself don't have a dispute with that idea, but to then to try and compare it to something like years, where obviously all of the years in the world are not in view, but only a certain amount are, is not a good comparison IMO.

Click to expand...

Now let’s consider the differences. It's not talking about all the years the world has known or will know. It’s talking about HOW LONG something will last. It has been much longer than 1001 years. The 1000 means a lot that cannot be counted. It matches.

Why don't you just argue it like some others are arguing it around here lately?

Click to expand...

I don’t know their arguments and besides, I think for myself.

Why not argue it's thousands years rather than thousand years?

Click to expand...

Seems kind of silly and it doesn’t say that does it?

Are you then suggesting that whenever 'thousand' is used in the Bible, it never means an exact number?

Click to expand...

I’d have to look at the individual cases.

Leviticus 26:8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

Click to expand...

So they’ll not put 10001 to flight?

Why not just say instead---and an hundred of you shall put a thousand to flight---if a thousand can mean any amount imaginable? If a thousand can mean 2000 or even 3000, why can't it also mean 10 thousand? So why say 10 thousand if a thousand is the same as 10 thousand?

Click to expand...

The Hebrews were fond of metaphors and didn’t limit “a lot” to only 1000.

Numbers 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

Click to expand...

Obviously not unable to be counted. The 3000 saved on the day of Pentecost were also not “unable to be counted.”

So how did Moses determine how many of each tribe to send out if a thousand in the Bible can never mean exactly 1000, but has to mean any amount higher than that?

Click to expand...

You know, we use the metaphor “starving” meaning very hungry. It doesn’t mean that no one ever starved becayae it’s also a metaphor.

If someone today said 1000 troops are being deployed somewhere, should one take that to mean exactly 1000?

Click to expand...

Are they a Hebrew author from 2000 years ago? The Bible wasn’t written by a western man.

Numbers 35:4 And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about.
Numbers 35:5 And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.

If a thousand can mean 2000 or even 3000, etc, why is verse 5 saying two thousand cubits if a thousand cubits mean the same thing? Why is one verse saying a thousand cubits while the other verse is saying two thousand cubits?

Click to expand...

Agsin, you are not understanding what a metaphor is. We say it’s raining cats and dogs not meaning these pets are falling down on us. It also doesn’t mean there are no cats or dogs in the world.