Do you believe in the “Rapture,” even though the term, “rapture of the church,” nor the word “rapture” are found in the Bible?

First, to conclude that, neither the word nor the term is found in the Bible would necessarily depend on what translation one uses to draw such conclusion.

Second, based on the qualifications set-forth by the question, the word “grandfather” is not found in the Bible either. In fact, the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible, based on the questions qualifications. Are we to assume, then, that there are in fact no such things as grandfathers or Bibles?

Third, the Greek word, “harpazo” means, “to seize, snatch up, catch away” (1Thes. 4:17; 2Cor. 12:4; Rev. 12:5); and its Latin form, “rapeabo” is the English word, “rapture.”

Therefore, the word rapture is in fact found in the Bible in the sense of its original languages.

Fourth, concerning the “rapture of the church”:

In Revelation 12:5, John the Revelator records that the child born was “caught up” to God in the heavens.

In 2Corinthians, the apostle Paul is explaining how one was “caught up” into the third heaven.

And in 1Thessalonians 4:17 Paul explains how the believers in Christ will be “caught up” into the air with the Lord, and so shall forever be with the Lord.

Therefore, we can conclude that this Greek word necessarily means that the subject or subjects are taken outward and upward.

Thus, in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Paul is speaking of this as being done to the church, which is affectionately termed, “The Rapture of the Church” by its proponents.

Fifth, hermeneutics, or the interpretation of Scripture, also must be taken into consideration.

For those who interpret the Book of Revelation as, “The things seen” (chapter 1), “The things that are” (the churches – chapters 2-3), and “the things which must come here after” (chapters 4-22), the rapture of the church is promised in 3:10 when Christ says, “I will keep you from the hour of testing that will come upon the whole world…” The word,”from,” in “keep you from,” is the Greek word, “ek,” meaning “out of.”

If John would have meant that Christ would keep believers safe “through” the time of testing (as the Israelites were kept safe by God through the plagues of Egypt) he would have used the Greek word, “dia.”

But John does not say that Christ will keep them safe “through,” but that Christ will keep them “from” the testing upon the whole world. [This supports a pre-tribulation rapture.]

Also in Revelation, the church is never mentioned again until chapter 22, save for a parenthetic break when Christ repeats the phrase, “let those with an ear hear,” but unlike in chapters 2-3 doesn’t finish the phrase, “… what the Spirit says to the churches” (13:9) because the churches have been raptured.

Sixth, Scripture clearly teaches a bodily resurrection of the dead/rapture of the living church (1Thes. 4:13-18; 1Cor. 15:20, 23, 40, 42-44; 51-55; Phil. 3:21).

Seventh, as in any good New Testament theology there is an Old Testament precedent. God “took” Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24).

The Hebrew word for “took” is, “laqach,” meaning, “to carry away.” This can be easily translated, like the Latin version, “raptured.”

Likewise, in 2 Kings 2:11 Elijah is “taken up” (Hebrew, “alah”) into the heavens.

Eighth, there is, in the Old Testament, an analogy of the rapture of the church (Isaiah 26:19-21).

Ninth, there is, in the Old Testament, an argument from silence for the rapture of the church (Zechariah 15:5).
[How did these holy ones come down from heaven with God if they did not first go up to Him?]

Tenth, we shall not, here, enter into the analogy of the ancient Jewish wedding ceremony, which speaks of the rapture of the church.

And eleventh, likewise, we shall not, here, enter into the mystical hermeneutics of Matthew 17:1; 1 Kings 18:12; Acts 8:39; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; and Revelation 11:12; 12:5 (but I urge you to look at them again and see them anew).

Therefore, while in some translations the “rapture of the church” is not strictly mentioned, the over-arching ideology of it is all-throughout the Scriptures.

And finally, do not blame this doctrine, as some erroneously do, on Scofield or Darby; for, what I have enumerated here is biblical, etymological, and far more theological than any one person’s doctrine.

If we all come from Adam and Eve, aren’t we all products of incest?

This is definitely a Freudian (Sigmund Freud) conclusion, but no. In fact, the same conclusion could be drawn since we are all descendants of Noah (only eight people of the same family walked off the boat), but it would still be “no” as an answer!

For one, if this were in fact true, why is it that Asians are far different appearing than Westerners? And why the different skin pigment?

Genesis 11:1-9 is the story of the “Tower of Babel,” which is actually an account of the people of the earth attempting to build the first city in history with a tower that would reach “to the heavens.”

God (it is interesting that He said “let Us” go down as the people were saying “let us” go up, but that is another conversation) moves instead to “confound their language so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”

But, rather, He not only changed the “one language” that the people spoke into multiple languages, He “scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

And I tell you, not only that, but He instantly changed their DNA as well; if their language and location were miraculously changed, why not their genetic make-up as well?

That being true, then, no, we are not all products of incest; for, since the “Great Dispersion” every group (or tribe) had their own language, geographic location, and DNA.

Now, the idea that certain tribes of people may have migrated across “land bridges” at some point and time in history notwithstanding, the biblical historical account of world-wide population is that God scattered them abroad.

Likewise, the Evolutionary idea that the reason for different skin pigments and facial features is a matter of “Adaptation” (the idea that different climates and surroundings, over time, will change the features and pigments of entire groups or tribes) is an illogical leap from the Empirical evidence (“science”). While adaptation because of natural surroundings (like weather, geography, etc.) does occur in human beings (as it does in animals) in some degree, it does not necessarily follow that this is the reason for the far reaching differences from race to another. It is far easier to explain (and believe) that God changed, on bio-molecular levels, each group of human beings.

Were certain books excluded from the Bible Canon because of something the church was hiding?

In short, no. The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy in how the Bible came together, and that some books were “hidden” because of some embarrassment to the church lacks credence as much as it does historical knowledge. Ignorance of facts and hatred for the Medieval Church fuels the myths of this sort, which is precisely what the early church is accused of in this legend.

“Canon” means “rule” or “standard.” In the second century, before there was an official “Bible,” a standard was set for proper teaching in corporate worship by selecting which writings were acceptable for the church. The Jewish Canon of what Christians call the Old Testament was generally accepted. Irenaeus, in the second century A.D., called for the “Catholicity” and “Apostolicity” of any and all accepted books as a standard.

“Catholicity” means that any book that was to be used in public worship had to be one recognized by all the church and not just certain corners of it. “Apostolicity” means that any book that was to be used in public worship had to be one written by an apostle or, at least, an eye-witness of an apostle.

The first Christian canon from antiquity is known as the Muratorian Canon (2nd century) [believed by many to be based on the collection of Origin of Alexandria]. Some scholars believe it to be a reaction to a heretic of the times, a man named Marcion. Marcion created a canon of his own, which consisted only of a mutilated Gospel of Luke (with any reference of Israel’s promises removed) and ten letters of Paul. At any rate, the Muratorian Canon contained, as its core, the “Pauline Canon.” The Pauline Canon was thirteen letters contributed to the Apostle Paul (the Letter to the Ephesians has instead, “To the Laodiceans”). The four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were present. The letters of Jude and 1st and 2nd John are also included. Yet another inclusion is the “Book of Wisdom.” The books 3rd John, 1st and 2nd Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation are not contained, listed, nor mentioned.

Athanasius, in his Easter Letter (A.D.367), lists the exact 27 books of the present 21st century Bible as “being canonized… as they have been received.”

In Africa, the Synod of Hippo (A.D.393) and the Councils of Carthage (A.D. 397 and 419) [overseen by Augustine of Hippo] canonized the same 27 books.

They also canonized the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Jewish canon) to “close” the canon of the Bible.

Incidentally, other writings were read and used for teaching (though not for public worship), such as “The Shepherd of Hermes,” writings from “Clement,” and many writings not included in the Jewish canon but respected nonetheless.

The Latin Vulgate (Roman Catholic) includes the Apocrypha as canonized. Eastern Orthodox recognize 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 Maccabees.

The Russian Orthodox adds to this 2 Esdras.

These additions were rejected by most (if not actually all of the ancient fathers) as authorized, but certainly good for edification.

So, unless this conspiracy began in the late first century or at the latest the early second century (which confounds all reason for lack of need) there is simply no evidence of a cover-up by the church. The only books that ever caused any controversy were actually books that, in fact, made it into the canon (especially James). And two books were used as much as the canon, but were not canonized – 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermes.

The books of controversy today (the Gnostic books) were never in contention because they were not “handed down” from the apostles and eye-witnesses.

What do you say to someone who doesn’t believe in God?

Because someone doesn’t believe in God doesn’t make God any less existent. I can say I don’t believe in taxes, but they are still due on April 15th (whether I pay them or not is irrelevant to their existence).

If one doesn’t believe in God then that one is either an Atheist or an Agnostic. Either way, that one defies the Laws of Logic and is thereby illogical. Though Christians are the one’s labeled “ignorant,” by definition the Atheist and Agnostic are the ones uninformed, and not for a lack of information (Agnostic) or evidence (Atheist).

While there are many ways that we could go about this – like arguing the definition of “Atheist” and how the point is lost to thus be and the unintelligibility of an “Agnostic” to ultimately know if he/she exists or not, or using a strict theological debate where the insistence is to keep everything biblical, or strict debate according to the Laws of Logic where we deal with first principals, subsequent principles, and syllogisms – I will limit my answer to deductive reasoning only as it is the best way that I have found to have a discussion without enflaming the person to which I speak (and vice-versa).

The point of my argument, here, is not to prove God (which is illogical, God needs not proving), but to get the person to deduce the necessity of a “God” or, for this intent and purpose, a “First Cause.”

It should also be noted that some people are simply opponents (not because I want them to be, but because they only want to argue) and no amount of reason will sway them from their delusion.

So it begins:

I ask – “How did we get here?”
The person replies – “Evolution…”

[Now, it is here that we could launch into a tirade about the improbability (rather, impossibility) of the Evolutionary Hypothesis but, at this point, I continue on with the dialogue.]

I ask – “From what did we Evolve?”
The person’s reply – “Monkeys, fish, primeval pool of single celled organisms, etc…”

I ask – “From where did this string of events come?”
The person’s reply – “From random ‘living matter…’”

I ask – “From where did this ‘living matter’ come?”
The person’s reply – “From dead matter…”

[Again, it is here that we could point out the improbability (rather, impossibility) that dead matter could produce living matter. I mean, even Darwin explained that something “outside of creation” had to produce the “energy” to bring life to dead matter, which I would then ask the origin of this “something outside of creation.” He would never admit God but, really, what else can you call something “outside of creation” other than God?]

[But, I digress…]

I ask – “From where did the dead matter come?”
The person’s reply – “From the ‘Big Bang…’”

[Again, I digress…]

I ask – “So, all matter came as a result of the ‘Big Bang?’ From where, then, did the ‘bang’ come? From your own account, something from outside of matter (creation for the Christian) must have ‘banged’ the material being ‘banged.’”

See, the argument is that it is illogical to think that something uncreated suddenly decides to create itself. It cannot “decide” anything, for it doesn’t exist. Something that doesn’t exist cannot make itself exist. Something outside of itself must decide that it wants it to exist. And this something is the “First Cause.” I call Him “God” because He likes it!

Like it or not, any reasonable person must agree to this deduction of a “First Cause.” And then we can talk about this being the God of the Bible.

Incidentally, the person to whom you speak will probably, at some point, ask, “From where did God come” or “Who created God?”

To which I would reply, “God, by definition, cannot ‘come from’ anywhere. He cannot be created or He is not God and I am talking about whoever made him. Being outside of creation (or matter) there is no need for Him to be created.”

Ultimately this will lead to where you want to be, in a conversation about God.

Remember, there is nothing to fear from any “scientific” argument, for real “science” will always give evidence of God.

The Empirical Method (“science”) is the study of the natural processes of creation.

God is supernatural, and not only outside of the natural, but the Creator of it.

I fear death. What does the Bible have to say about the subject?

Even in the Old Testament there are accounts of hopelessness when it comes to death (Eccl. 3:19-21). Many religions attempt to get around the huge stone of death by imagining reincarnation of one sort or another.

There is, in fact, no hope outside of one simple yet profound fact: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The great stone has been “rolled away;” the division between the known and the unknown as been removed; the dead end of death has become a freeway to life unending.

In the Old Testament there was a distant hope of eternal life, but the means thereof were not discernable in that time. Life, in essence, revolved around “namesake” and leaving a legacy for generations to come was the goal. What happened at the point of death was an uncertainty, as the writer of Ecclesiastes exclaims, “Humanity has no more hope than an animal. Who is to say that the spirit of a human being ascends at death and doesn’t descend like that of an animal?” Truth-statements are not the point here, but the thought process is.

What follows is some common philosophy concerning death.

In the midst of life we are in death – Unknown

Some believe Death to be mysterious and inexplicable

William Morris – “Death have we hated, knowing not what it meant.”

Bacon – “Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark.”

Hamlet – “That dread of something after death.”

Some believe Death to be the one inevitable thing in life

Shakespeare makes Caesar say in Julius Caesar: “It seems to me most strange that men should fear; seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

In Cymbeline he writes, “Fear no more… and come to dust.”

Some believe Death to be sheer extinction

Roman poet Catullus pleading with Lesbia for her kiss says: “… Live and love! Care not for many things; but when our short day takes flight, sleep we must one endless night.”

Some believe Death to be the supreme terror, the unmitigated evil

Shakespeare, in Measure for Measure, makes Claudio say: “Death is a fearful thing!”

Robert Burns – “But oh! Fell deaths untimely frost that nipt my flower so early!”

Some see Death as Escapism

Keats – “I am half in love with easeful death.”

Shakespeare in one of the sonnets cried: “Tired with all these, for restful death I cry.”

Nicholas Row – “Death is the privilege of human nature.”

Swinburne in The Garden of Prosperpine writes: “From too much love of living, from hope and fear set free, we thank with brief thanksgiving… That no man lives forever.”

Some are a little closer, and believe

Death to be a transition, yet still unknown

Longfellow – There is no death! What seems so is transition; this life of mortal breath is but a suburb of the life Elysian, whose portal we call death.”

George Meredith – “Death met I too, and saw the dawn glow through.”

Some believe Death to be an adventure

Barrie made Peter Pan say: “To die will be an awfully big adventure.”

Charles Frohman’s last words (died in the Lusitania disaster): “Why fear death? It is the most beautiful adventure in life.”

Unknown scholar – “Do you realize that in an hour or two I will know the answers for which we have been searching all our lives?”

However, due to Christ’s resurrection, think what you will of the philosophy of death, Scripture is clear to the truth of the matter:

Removal of the “Great Stone” called Death (Mark 16:4)

Death is an entrance into the personal presence of God.

“If we have lived in Christ, then we can also die with Him, certain that, in dying, we go to be forever with the Lord.”

So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2Cor. 5:6, 8)

My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. (Phil. 1:23b)

But we do not want you to be uniformed about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. (1Thes. 4:13)