Please don’t anyone take offense, but here’s my general observation regarding controversial questions of interpretation such as this one about the rapture (harpazo in Greek).
There seems to be two different types of hermeneutics employed for this and other controversial questions:
(a) The process of building a solid case for an air-tight preferred or preconceived system of biblical theology. It requires intensive scholarly interpretation to make all “problematic” passages fit. Simply ignoring problematic passages also works when one doesn’t want to torture scriptures into saying whatever one wants them to say.
(b) The process of discovering the original intent of scriptural passages without regard for superficial conformity with a presupposed system of theology. It also allows the existence of apparent inconsistencies without any need to immediately rationalize the differences.
Note that a similar situation exists in the study of physics. Experiments confirming both the general theory of relativity and confirming quantum mechanics have demonstrated without reasonable doubt that both are scientifically true. The problem is that they are incompatible with each other. The choices in physics are
(a) Reject either one of the two and try to find ways of explaining away the other one in either relativistic terms or quantum terms.
(b) Accept both of them, recognizing their incompatibility while looking for a third, deeper and encompassing theory that unifies both.
Choice (b) is what most physicists have chosen to follow.
In Jewish eschatology, many Jews believe in two messiahs that each come once: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David.
In Christian eschatology, many Christians believe in one Messiah coming twice, and either a single harpazo or, more rarely, more than one harpazo.
A few who believe in only one harpazo conclude that it’s only for the wicked of the earth, namely the harvest of the “tares” at the end of the age. Others believe in multiple instances of harpazo, starting with Enoch.
Those Christians who believe in one Messiah and only one return believe that the Messiah will come both as a thief in the night to steal from the “master of the house” and at the same time come visibly with great fanfare to all on the earth such that “every eye shall see him.” This is an unusual kind of thief to be sure. In this case, no one will know when the thief will come except that it’s 1,260 days after the Temple is desecrated during the Great Tribulation when people are nevertheless happily eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage.
And then, some others have allegorized everything in the scriptures to the degree that they expect nothing will actually happen.
What I try to do is expend more effort in understanding context, language, culture, and intent than rationalizing scriptures to my preferred preconceptions. This is hard for me to do, but with this method, I will expect to be wrong only some of the time rather than simply wrong—and the majority of eschatological theories will indeed turn out to be wrong.
For a recent example, contrary to my previous beliefs, I’ve recently come to a tentative conclusion that the part of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 describing the legs of iron followed by the feet of iron mixed with clay describes the Roman Republic followed by the Roman Empire in 27 BCE.
If this is the correct interpretation, then “the stone that struck [the feet of] the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” is a description of the growth of Christianity rather than describing the second coming of Messiah. And instead, the ten toes (not mentioned in Daniel) might be referenced by the ten “days” of persecution, speculatively the ten Roman emperors who persecuted the early Christians, as stated with regard to the church at Smyrna in Revelation 2:10 rather than the ten-horned beast in Revelation 12:3.
I hope this helps.