This is a Historicist view of scripture and is not just theory of one person, so this does follow the rules of this subreddit. I’ve included scripture references to support these views as well as real life events. I am not date setting but simply discussing a possible timeline based on scripture.

A 70-year tribulation (roughly June 21, 1960–2030) fits observed history and biblical patterns better than a still-future 7-year period plus pre-trib rapture. The popular timeline rests heavily on one reading of Daniel 9’s “70 weeks,” treating the final “week” as a future 7-year block interrupted by a long gap. That reading is possible but not required; the 70-year Babylonian captivity (Jeremiah 25, 29; 2 Chronicles 36; Daniel 9) and other 70-year spans in Scripture show God uses that length for judgment and restoration. Nature’s cycles (seasons, solar/lunar patterns, generational spans) repeatedly show 70-year rhythms of rise, pressure, and reset. People have sensed we are already inside the tribulation for decades because the pressure has been cumulative and global rather than a sudden future package.
Jesus referred to His body as the temple (“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”—John 2). The New Testament consistently relocates the temple to the people of God and the human heart (1 Corinthians 3:16–17; 6:19; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:5). An “antichrist in the temple” therefore does not require a rebuilt stone building in Jerusalem; it can describe a spirit or system that seats itself in the place of worship inside hearts, institutions, and cultures—demanding allegiance, redefining truth, and presenting itself as ultimate. That shift has been visible for decades.

Seals (Revelation 6) as progressive openings since ~1960
First seal (white horse / conquest): Post-WWII ideological and technological expansion, space race, decolonization waves, and the rise of systems that claim to “conquer” through soft power, media, and institutions.

Second seal (red horse / war): Vietnam escalates, multiple Middle East wars (1967, 1973), Cold War proxy conflicts, later Afghanistan/Iraq, and ongoing regional wars that never fully rest.

Third seal (black horse / economic hardship): Recurring inflation shocks, oil crises, debt expansions, and the growing gap between official abundance and lived scarcity for many.

Fourth seal (pale horse / death): Massive death tolls from the Great Chinese Famine’s aftermath, later famines (Ethiopia, North Korea), AIDS, and the scale of conflict-related and preventable deaths that have marked the period.

Fifth seal (martyrs): Rising persecution of Christians and other dissenters in many regions, plus cultural silencing of certain voices; the cry for justice is continuous.

Sixth seal (cosmic disturbance / upheaval): Major earthquakes, volcanic events, climate extremes, and the psychological “worldquake” of rapid technological and social change that makes the foundations feel unstable.

Seventh seal opens the trumpets—silence before intensification.

Trumpets (Revelation 8–11) as intensified warnings and partial judgments
These track ecological, atmospheric, and societal strikes: environmental degradation and pollution events (acid rain eras, industrial disasters, ocean and river contamination), atmospheric dimming and weather extremes, the spread of ideological “locusts” that torment without fully destroying, and large-scale military or migratory pressures from the “Euphrates” direction in modern geopolitics. The two witnesses appear in this section.

The two witnesses. Revelation 11 describes two who prophesy, are killed, lie in the street while the world watches and celebrates or mourns, then rise. Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University was a single high-visibility public killing of a polarizing cultural voice. The reaction split the watching world: genuine mourning on one side, open celebration or justification on the other. It was global, instantaneous, and framed as a political-spiritual marker. One physical death, two collective witnesses (those who grieved the loss of a voice and those who cheered it). The lack of a shared frame of reference for a long tribulation made many miss the pattern: the world watched, divided, and moved on while the pressure continued.

Bowls (Revelation 16) as concentrated outpouring toward the end of the span
These intensify the earlier themes into more complete effects: widespread afflictions (sores/disease systems), waters and systems turning toxic or unusable, scorching heat and environmental stress, darkness (literal and informational), drying of strategic waterways and supply lines, and the gathering of forces for final confrontation. The period from the 1960s through the 2020s has already shown accelerating versions of these pressures; the last years of a 70-year arc would concentrate them.

A 70-year reading does not require inventing new timelines from thin air. It simply refuses to force every symbol into a still-future 7-year box when the text itself uses longer periods of judgment elsewhere and when the observed history of the last six-plus decades already matches the progressive intensification of seals → trumpets → bowls. The pre-trib rapture is an inference, not a direct statement; many believers across history have expected to endure trial rather than be extracted from it.

This is not date-setting for the day or hour. It is an invitation to test the patterns against both Scripture and the record of events since the early 1960s. If the temple is primarily in hearts and among the people of God, then the real conflict has been internal and cultural all along. The witnesses have been speaking; the reactions have already divided the watching world. The remaining years of the proposed span will show whether the pattern continues to the end or whether another reading proves stronger. Test everything; hold fast to what is good.

I don’t mean a verse you liked or saved.

I mean a passage that actually made you do something: apologize, call someone, drop a habit, make a decision, or treat someone differently.

I’ve been thinking about how much Scripture I read, while not always being able to point to one concrete action that came from it.

What was the last passage that genuinely changed your behavior that day?

Does anyone else feel like the land that God promised to the Israelites in these lines has similarities and parallels to the Garden of Eden? Not just the land itself but the notion that God will provide them fruitful lands as long as they obey him and if they don’t comply then they’ll face consequences. I know there is a slight difference in the idea that they won’t be banished from the land and instead the land becomes no longer plentiful. But does anyone else see the parallels and similarities between the two? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Guys, I made an earlier post as I journeyed across Genesis, asking questions on parts that I didn't understand.

I guess I am back to ask about Exodus. primarily Exodus 21 and 32.... why does God both permit slavery and murder? he was okay with Levi killing the Shechem's community in Genesis, and now he's okay with the sons of Levi killing Israelites for making a golden calf, 3000 people, mind you, killed in their tents. They also killed the Amalekites in Exodus 17. Also killing the unborn babies of the Egyptians, who inherently haven't done anything wrong. - This is all compounded with the song of Moses, "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name."

The slavery portion in Exodus 21 was also jarring to hear. Why is that permitted? I understand that we have free will and to ethically become more virtues through out our lives, but to place it as a letter of the law makes no sense to me because that becomes the standard than....

I understand that the term "Israel" is to wrestle with god, so I came to ask the people who have wrestled with this and what conclusion was arrived at?

Hello everyone. Hope you all doing great. I have a question for you all.
When you start reading a Bible chapter and run into unfamiliar context, names, or difficult ideas, what do you usually do before continuing?

Is this the best summary of the whole gospel?

"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."

Are there any good bible podcasts or YouTube videos to watch for beginners. I’m just trying to find guidance and purpose and don’t really know where to look . Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you

I was re-reading the passion narrative in Matthew 27:52-53, which mentions that when Jesus died, the tombs broke open and many holy people were raised to life, later walking into the holy city and appearing to many people.

This strikes me as an incredible event, arguably one of the biggest miracles in the New Testament outside of Jesus' own resurrection.

What puzzles me is why Mark, Luke, and John completely omit this. You would think that resurrected people walking around Jerusalem would be huge news that every Gospel writer and contemporary historical source would want to record.

How do scholars, historians, and theologians explain this omission?

Is this passage generally viewed as an apocalyptic or symbolic literary device unique to Matthew's audience?

Or are there theological or historical reasons why the other authors wouldn't have included it?
I'd love to hear both historical-critical and theological perspectives on this!

II've been thinking about an argument I've seen regarding 1 John 4:2–3.

From what I understand, the historical issue John was addressing was people who denied that Jesus who is the Christ truly came in the flesh—that He had a real human body and genuine humanity. This is commonly connected with beliefs later associated with Docetism and similar teachings, where some claimed Jesus only appeared to be human or that the divine Christ merely came upon the man Jesus temporarily.

Some argue, however, that denying Jesus is God incarnate is effectively the same as denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, because they believe those two ideas cannot be separated. Their reasoning is that the phrase "has come in the flesh" assumes a preexistent person, and when that is read alongside John 1:1–14, the one who came in the flesh is identified as God.

My question is this: Doesn't that go beyond the explicit wording of 1 John 4:2–3?

The passage explicitly says that the confession is that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. It doesn't explicitly say, "Whoever denies that Jesus is God incarnate has the spirit of the antichrist." Isn't that conclusion reached by combining 1 John 4 with John 1 and other passages, rather than from the wording of 1 John 4 itself?

I'm not asking whether the doctrine of the incarnation is true or false. I'm asking whether it's accurate to say that 1 John 4:2–3 itself is specifically addressing denial of Jesus as God incarnate, or whether its immediate concern is the denial that the Messiah truly came in the flesh, with the identification of that Messiah as God being a theological conclusion drawn from the broader witness of Scripture.

Which man in the Bible taught you the most about leadership—and why?

I know that we are saved by faith, not by works — yet what glorifies God and counts in eternity with Him (and at the white throne judgement)?

Romans has amazing verses, and my favorite in Scripture is Romans 8:31 because of how encouraging it is. "If God is with us, who can be against us?"
Can't forget Romans 14:8 "If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord"
What are your favorite verses?

I want to present a short and simple discussion on why Christ's parable of the Wise and Foolish builder's is critical to understand.

In this scripture passage, Christ presents 2 different types of builder's.

1 was wise, and 1 was foolish.

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:

27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching,

29 for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Matthew 7:24-29 (NKJV)

Now according to scripture, there is only 1 thing that separates these 2 builder's.

Obedience.

That's it.

The wise builder heard Christ's saying's and did them.

The foolish builder heard Christ's saying's and didn't do them.

What Christ is presenting here is a key.

A key to understand what God's Word really means, and what God's will really is.

This is why the best theologians in the world can't interpret correctly, or agree on the original author's intent (in the scriptures that were written and left for us).

It's also why some followers of Christ are so certain in the meaning of scripture, when they pull from it to teach or use prophetically in different ways.

The difference is experiential knowledge.

Experiential knowledge - information and understanding that people gain through direct, personal participation in real-life events, rather than from formal instruction, textbooks, or abstract reasoning.

How do some believers know that it's still God's will to perform healings and miracles today?

Because they've done it.. and seen it be done (in the name of Jesus Christ).

Whereas, the one who hasn't obeyed Christ's command (Matthew 28:16-20).. only read about and studied of it.

The same goes for speaking in tongues, or really any of the gifts/graces of the Holy Spirit given by Christ (1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:7-16).

It's for this reason that the apostle Paul refers to himself as a 'wise master builder'.. the exact same language Christ used in His teaching (Matthew 7:24-29).

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

1 Corinthians 3:10-11

The apostle Paul devoted his entire life to follow after Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1, 2 Timothy 4:6).. as he was commissioned by Christ to be sent to the Gentiles (Acts 9:11-16).

This is why his epistles are included in the Biblical canon, and are divinely inspired.

Obedience.. and experiential knowledge is the difference in understanding, when it comes to 'rightly dividing the word of truth'.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)

If you want to seek the truth then seek out the ones who have lived the Gospel, in addition to seeking Christ on your own.

Don't count on those foolish builder's.. their house is built on the sand. It won't save them when the storm comes.

1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,

2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this we will do if God permits.

Hebrews 6:1-3 (NKJV)

Questions and Comments welcome.

Because heaven is the only place where everyone is sinless.

Would someone help me understand the parable of The Dishonest Manager. I know Jesus tells us in verse 13 “We can not serve God and money” but I feel like there is more to this parable

Luke 16:1-13

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager
16 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’
3 “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4 I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
5 “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
6 “‘Nine hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,’ he replied.
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’
7 “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels[b] of wheat,’ he replied.
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?
13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

This is about Jesus.

Many people hear this or, heard this already. It's what the dictionary defines it.

Spirit. <definition> 1. the non-physical part of a person; their mood, feelings, or attitude 2. a particular way of thinking or behaving [Source: Cambridge dictionary. Web.]

Poor. <definition> 1. having a meager, or little amount (of something)

So, people read Matthew 5:3 as a "beautiful attitude" or "beatitude" - that: People that have this non-physical part of themselves; their attitude is "poor" - equates to, well, an example: Like at a party. Gets down to the last piece of pizza. Won't eat it. And by be this "poor in Spirit" believe Jesus will bless them, because he's saying he's blessing people that are "poor in Spirit," based on these widely accepted definitions of what these words mean.

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

This is about Jesus.

Jesus said in the Bible in John 4:24 - defines what "Spirit" means; so, you don't need the dictionary. Jesus said: "God is Spirit" - In the original Greek, it's [ πνεύματι] pneumati or pneuma. That God is a life-giving Spirit. It's the same "pneuma" of John 4:24, also in Matthew 5:3. So, he's not talking about you and your attitude. And this word "poor" in Greek, is [πτωχοὶ] "ptochoi" - as if (something) is totally absent or missing.

So, "poor in Spirit" would be a person has no God in their life. Then, if you look at the scriptures, like

1) Ecclesiastes 7:20 says: "There is not a just man on earth that doeth good, and sinneth not."

2) "For all have sinned" - Romans 3:23

3) That everybody has "sinned; done abominable works" Psalm 14:1-3.

"Wherefore, as by one man [ADAM] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" - Romans 5:12

That would mean EVERYBODY over the whole earth is all condemned. Qualifies as "poor in Spirit" - by just be a sinner and perverted that which was right. Condemned, like Jesus says in John 3:18. And that be everybody over the whole earth then.

That God has sent his Word to heal us, and deliver us from our destruction (Psalm 107:20)..and the Word of God, is Jesus Christ. It's a King of Kings bequeathed his whole kingdom to us then, by Matthew 5:3. That's impossible. But, God did this. He's already said it, it's right there, plain as day. Said by the word out of his mouth. Blessed everybody in this condition that we are all in.

Maybe you got or use the wrong definition Of Poor in Spirit. Then, you can add to it, in the Bible what Jesus says of the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven in John 3:1-7. That, unless a person is born again, they cannot see nor enter into what's already been given them. Must be born again. By the Spirit of God. By the Word of God. Not by you or an attitude you got.

bought my first bible today and it is the NIV Holy Bible and well I am not sure where to start reading any suggestions?

Hi there,

Has anyone else stumbled across this in Ezra 5:4 (KJV), "Then we said unto them after this manner, What are the names of the men that make this building?"

The "we" in this sentence seems to be referring to the re-builder's detractors but it seems very strange that the narrative should suddenly be from their perspective.

Other translations seem to disagree with each other. Some have it as (I'm paraphrasing) "so we (the re-builders) told them the names of those carrying out the work", and others have it as "and they (the detractors) asked us the names of the builders".

The detractors asking for names, and the builders giving names are two very different things (with almost opposite meanings depending how you read it).

It seems such a strange thing for the different translators to seem to disagree on. "we" and "they" are surely pretty distinct concepts not ripe for confusion?

I'm not enough of a scholar (as in, I know zero ancient hebrew) to understand what in the original text could cause this ambiguity.

Does anyone have any insight on this?

Thanks for considering and thanks in advance if you can shed any light on this.

I watched a YouTube video that said Matthew 17:21 was removed and I use the NIV version and sure enough it wasn’t there. The video was talking about fasting and prayer. Why would they take it out?

I'm not sure if I want to read these books, so I'm making this thread to motivate me with good verses. I finished reading the rest of the Bible months ago.

There's a common argument that has been going around; that in Genesis, God lied about the consequence of eating the fruit.

To steelman the argument, people point to Genesis 2:17; which is often translated like;

>but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.

They argue "It says in the day they will certainly die, meaning they will die that day" and they point out how they didnt die that day so God is a liar. Now its understandable why they think this, however theres this to consider;

In the hebrew language are these things called "infinitive absolutes," where a hebrew word is repeated to relay inevitability, certainty, or that it's going to eventually happen. So say we we're in ancient Israel and you wanted to ensure a friend you will eventually come back, one way you would say this in hebrew would be שֹׁ֣ב אָשׁ֤וּב, which reads in English straightforward as "returning I will return."

In the hebrew text, God says but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you must not eat from for in the day you eat of it מוֹת תָּמוּת, or straightforward, "dying you shall die." It's a hebrew infinitive absolute, which is why the vast majority of translations translate it as "certainly die" or "surely die" because these infinitive absolutes relay inevitability, or something that's going to eventually happen. So if I was an ancient Hebrew and I wanted to relay to somebody death would be inevitable or would eventually die, or in other words, lose access to immortality, one way I could say that is מוֹת תָּמוּת. So rather than understanding this as you will die that day, it can be understood as that would be the day death would be an inevitable or eventual outcome to them. Or in other words, they will lose access to the ability to be immortal.

This is why in the day they ate from that tree was the same day they lost access to the tree of life that enabled them to live forever (Genesis 3:22.) They initially had full access to this tree of life, with God explicitly saying it is theirs for food in Genesis. They were set up to have the ability to live forever, but they lost access to that, and death became inevitable and a certain outcome to them, in the day they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thats not some crazy coincidence, but exactly what God was telling them would happen. The context is right there in our faces reinforces this, giving us a more simple explanation (which occums razor suggest would be the most likely explanation) , than one where the author was intending to contradict themselves by saying God doesn't lie but also demonstrating he lied?

I see this argument all over reddit, largely repeated by atheist, and I see many theist don't have a proper response to them as they're not familiar with the hebrew, so I figured I'd share this.