Premillennialism ignores the tenses in the original Greek in order to sustain its teaching

[Timtofly]

Yet even in the unregenerate who died prior to Judgement Day; they all currently know what their outcome will be on Judgement Day. They know this based on where they currently are. If they are in Sheol; they know they will be condemned for their sin. Because all who've been atoned for; post Christ's righteousness having delivered them from Sheol, are no longer in Sheol.

This is not what Zechariah 14 is declaring.

"And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holiness Unto The Lord; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar."

This is an ongoing theme. Not a one time day of judgment.

Right now, today, the nations are not being held accountable as described.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Jesus built His church on faith. Not works in keeping the law.

The church in the wilderness had faith in God and in His future plans of sending His Son the Messiah as a sacrifice for their sins. Do you think someone was part of the church in the wilderness by keeping the law? Did you ignore what I said about how it is impossible to keep the law (James 2:10)?

The church in the wilderness did not have the death and resurrection of Jesus to believe in.

They had faith in God and in His future plans. They were not in the church in the wilderness by keeping the law, but rather because of their faith. Do you deny that their spiritual Rock was Christ?

1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Before the foundation of current creation.

Revelation 13:8

"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

According to God, this happened before it happened in literal time.

It happened at a certain point to effect human history. But it was already a fact before Creation. That is why Abraham fully understood the Gospel thousands of years prior to 30AD.

I believe that is not a good translation of that verse. Jesus was clearly slain a bit less than 2,000 years ago, so it makes no sense to say that He was slain before the foundation of the world. I believe the NASB translated the verse more accurately.

Revelation 13:8 All who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slaughtered.

It is the book of life that has been written since the foundation of the world. The Lamb was obviously after the foundation of the world.

 

[Timtofly]

Now "Christ coming in glory". Go back to Exodus where Moses wanted to see God's face. What did God tell him. That no man (earthy entity) could see God's glory and live. No why is that? Because the current state of the fallen cosmos can not withstand the righteousness of God without God's presences destroying it. Thus the "2nd coming of Christ in His glory" would HAVE TO initiate the destruction of the current cosmos. That is the ONLY possible outcome, because a corrupt cosmos can not stand in the presence of God's glory and "live".

So that being the only possible outcome of the "return of Christ in His glory" means that we have to be living in the "millennial reign" right now.

This reason is not the only one. Yes, sin cannot endure in God's presence. But endurance is not instant. In fact endurance can have longevity. Even up to 7 years of longevity, no?

The other side of the equation is that God cannot endure sin, yet He has put up with it for almost 6000 years. A longer endurance than 7 years, no?

At the Second Coming spiritual blindness will be removed and humans will have to endure God's Holiness. To mankind Holiness would be tribulation. To have spiritual blindness removed even more so, because human understanding will be trampled upon so much so, that God will have to allow some to be decieved, to withstand God's Holiness after the Second Coming.

Saying it is impossible for humans to see creation and God as they ought, is ridiculous. The whole of creation was designed to view God just as easily as not. It is God's mercy that has allowed wicked humans to exist in comfort. To exist in discomfort is also a reality, no?

Why the denial, that Jesus can physically reign on earth for 1000 years? Why is that impossible for God? Why does God need humans to excuse God and claim that the future 1000 years is the here and now?

 

[Timtofly]

No, you have not. Not even close.

Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’" 18 things known from long ago. 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

In verse 14, James indicated that what Simon (Peter) had described (in verses 7-11) was in agreement with the prophets and then he proceeded to quote Amos 9:11-12. That clearly means that what Peter had talked about in verses 7-11 related to the fulfillment of Amos 9:11-12 and what he talked about was how the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles just as it had been given to Jewish believers and he talked about how Jews and Gentiles were saved the same way: by grace and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 19, James himself indicated that Amos 9:11-12 was related to the Gentiles turning to God, which was obviously already happening back then.

Please address this. You have not rebutted this whatsoever. But, why would you even want to? James made it very clear that what Peter was talking about related directly to what Amos 9:11-12 is about. I don't see that as being debatable.

Why would you limit this to a one time event in the first century?

Would it not be applicable, and even more so after the Second Coming?

No where did James or Peter declare God finished with the prophecy of Amos? Do you have a verse to prove God is all finished?

 

[DavidPT]

What you're really asking is why is it a bad idea to read the text in a literal, straightforward way instead of seeing it as being figurative or having a spiritual application instead. Because, obviously, not all scripture is written in a literal, straightforward way. Especially Bible prophecy. That is why Paul said we need spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit to understand scripture (1 Corinthians 2:6-16).

Tell me, is it clear in the Old Testament that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Christ (Gal 3:16) and those who belong to Christ (Gal 3:29)? No, right? So, is it as simple as choosing to agree with what the Old Testament text says about the promises God made to Abraham and his seed or do we need help from the New Testament to discern what that means?

Ezekiel 39:23 And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.

The verse Douggg submitted above, it says this. It says the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword. Douggg even highlighted some of that. How can the house of Israel meant here not be meaning the ones that went into captivity for their iniquities? IOW, how can it mean the church?

Let's now compare to the following.

Amos 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

If the captivity in verse 14 does not involve inquity on their part, what was the reason for the captivity, then? Is not any of the house of Israel meant in Ezekiel 39:23 meaning any of the Israel meant in Amos 9:14-15? Isn't it the Israel meant in Amos 9:14 that shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them?

Is it not the Israel meant in Amos 9:14 that He will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which He have given them? Who is the speaker in these verses? Is it not the LORD God? Is it really such a bad idea to simply choose to agree with what is being said, then?

Once again, and I brought this up already, not sure which post or if it was even in this thread, one should be comparing Amos 9:14 to Isaiah 65:21-22, and interpreting Amos 9:14 in light of that. But since some ppl might think you can't interpret one OT passage in light of another OT passage, you can only interpret the OT in light of the NT, they might think this is a bad idea as well.

 

[Timtofly]

Do we need more than one passage to tell us about souls living and reigning with Christ? I wasn't aware that a verse can't be true unless another verse says the exact same thing. Interesting.

Revelation 20 is all we need. Yet some here claim that is the wrong approach. Revelation really does not need any other Scripture to declare it true, or to declare only one interpretation is indicated. The argument that amil are right because they change the text to fit other Scripture is still not the straightforward reading of the text. Interpretation according to the context of the chapters around Revelation 20 is still a valid interpretation.

Making Revelation 20, take an out of context interpretation, is plausible, even if incorrect. Asking for Scripture that declares the exact same wording as Revelation 20 cannot invalidate that Scripture. Also giving one's own symbolic opinion does not change the words and meaning of Revelation 20.

 

[Douggg]

The church in the wilderness had faith in God and in His future plans of sending His Son the Messiah as a sacrifice for their sins.

No they did not. It was hidden.

1Corinthians2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Even to the disciples,

Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

 

[Douggg]

Do you think someone was part of the church in the wilderness by keeping the law?

Not by keeping it, but by given it, and them saying "I do" to the terms of the Mt. Sinai covenant.

The church in the wilderness is just another way of saying Israel.

In Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The 1260 days is the testimony time of the two witnesses which they will feed her the Word of God - testimony about Jesus.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Revelation 20 is all we need. Yet some here claim that is the wrong approach.

Once again, you completely missed my point. I was not at all saying that Revelation 20 is all we need. That is absolutely false. I've said repeatedly that our interpretation of Revelation 20 cannot contradict other scripture. Yours does. My point had to do with the concept of souls living and reigning with Christ. There is no scripture which says that souls can't live and reign with Christ. But, there also isn't any other scripture which specifically talks about souls living and reigning with Christ. But, Revelation 20 does indicate that and, to me, that's enough because there is plenty of other scripture that speaks of the fact that Christ reigns now.

Revelation really does not need any other Scripture to declare it true, or to declare only one interpretation is indicated.

But your interpretation of it should not contradict other scripture, but it does. That's the problem. My interpretation of souls being in heaven and reigning with Christ there does not contradict other scripture.

The argument that amil are right because they change the text to fit other Scripture is still not the straightforward reading of the text.

We don't change the text at all. That is a false accusation. We interpret it differently than you. We recognize figurative text when we see it and we interpret it accordingly, unlike you.

Interpretation according to the context of the chapters around Revelation 20 is still a valid interpretation.

An interpretation that contradicts other scripture is not valid.

Making Revelation 20, take an out of context interpretation, is plausible, even if incorrect.

That statement made no sense whatsoever.

Asking for Scripture that declares the exact same wording as Revelation 20 cannot invalidate that Scripture.

That's my point. There isn't any other scripture which says that souls can't reign with Christ. But, there is scripture which indicates that all believers will be changed and have immortal bodies when Christ returns while all unbelievers will be killed. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts those scriptures.

Also giving one's own symbolic opinion does not change the words and meaning of Revelation 20.

What does that even mean?. If text is symbolic you don't need to change the words to interpret it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No they did not. It was hidden.

1Corinthians2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The princes of this world were not believers. Are you saying you think that even the prophets who prophesied about Christ didn't know He was coming even though they prophesied about it?

Even to the disciples,

Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Did the disciples represent everyone? How did Old Testament saints like Simeon and Anna know about the coming Messiah and what He was coming to do (read Luke 2:25-38)?

Look, if you don't want to believe that Old Testament saints are part of the church then that's on you. I know that they are all our brothers and sisters in Christ and are part of His body, the church, every bit as much as we are.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not by keeping it, but by given it, and them saying "I do" to the terms of the Mt. Sinai covenant.

So, they didn't need to have faith? Really? Do you think they are in heaven now just because of saying "I do" to the terms of the Mt. Sinai covenant even if they didn't have faith?

The church in the wilderness is just another way of saying Israel.

In Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The 1260 days is the testimony time of the two witnesses which they will feed her the Word of God - testimony about Jesus.

Come on. That is ridiculous. Not all from Israel are believers. No unbelievers could be in the church! You are sadly mistaken.

Also, Revelation 12 indicates that the offspring of the woman are Christ (verse 5) and "those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus" (verse 17). That's a description of the spiritual Israel of God, not the nation of Israel.

 

[Douggg]

The princes of this world were not believers. Are you saying you think that even the prophets who prophesied about Christ didn't know He was coming even though they prophesied about it?

The princes of this world is a referral to Satan and his angels. Satan was behind the crucifixion of Jesus.

The prophets, and them who believed what the prophets said, knew the messiah was coming, but that he would be put to death and rise again on the third day as the way which God would redeem mankind from the penalty of sin - was hidden from understanding from everyone in creation.

Come on. That is ridiculous. Not all from Israel are believers. No unbelievers could be in the church! You are sadly mistaken.

Also, Revelation 12 indicates that the offspring of the woman are Christ (verse 5) and "those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus" (verse 17). That's a description of the spiritual Israel of God, not the nation of Israel.

Of course Israel is not yet corporately believers. They become believers by the testimony of the two witnesses which will include about the soon betrayal by their perceived messiah at the time - the Antichrist.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We are living in that generation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why would you limit this to a one time event in the first century?

It's not a one time event, it's a daily event of Gentiles being saved the same way Jews are which is by grace through faith in Christ.

Would it not be applicable, and even more so after the Second Coming?

No. It will be too late for anyone to be saved at that point.

No where did James or Peter declare God finished with the prophecy of Amos? Do you have a verse to prove God is all finished?

Where did I say that? Do you have to misunderstand everything? It's an ongoing daily thing (people being saved) that started long ago.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The princes of this world is a referral to Satan and his angels. Satan was behind the crucifixion of Jesus.

They knew the messiah was coming, but that he would be put to death and rise again on the third day as the way which God would redeem mankind from the penalty of sin - was hidden from understanding from everyone in creation.

You better read the passage you quoted again. It says the princes of this world did NOT know that Jesus was coming to die for the sins of the world and it says if they did then they wouldn't have crucified him. What you're saying contradicts that.

Of course Israel is not yet corporately believers. They become believers by the testimony of the two witnesses which will include the betrayal of their perceived messiah at the time - the Antichrist.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We are living in that generation.

If the woman is Israel, then she's had offspring for a long time before this generation, including both believers and unbelievers. But, nowhere does it say she has any offspring except for Christ and those who follow Christ, so the woman cannot be the nation of Israel and has to be the spiritual Israel of God instead. You can't get around that even though you will try since you never want to just accept the truth.

 

[Douggg]

You better read the passage you quoted again. It says the princes of this world did NOT know that Jesus was coming to die for the sins of the world and it says if they did then they wouldn't have crucified him. What you're saying contradicts that.

No contradiction. There is an underlying reason.

The reason God had not destroyed Satan and his angels is because if God had done so prior the cross and resurrection - God would have to had to destroy all of mankind as well in equal justice for our sins.

Effectively, mankind was made a hostage by Satan, when Satan got Adam and Eve to sin.

Crucifying Jesus is what released mankind from being hostage (something that Satan did not want) - that God afterward would be just to destroy Satan and his angels - yet pardon mankind from destruction - as our sins have been washed away as though they never happened.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Saying it is impossible for humans to see creation and God as they ought, is ridiculous.

Not sure where you got the impression that I said it was impossible for humans to see creation? Scripture says no one can see God in His glory and live. "The heavens declare the glory of God" does not mean we see God's glory in creation. We see a reflection of God's glory in the creation. Big difference. BIG difference!

The whole of creation was designed to view God just as easily as not.

Do you think that when you look at a tree, you're seeing God? God and His creation are two separate things. Always have and always will be. That reality is what made Jesus so unique as a human being. How does God cleave Divinity onto a created entity. (I don't know, but that's what Jesus was. A Divine nature and a human nature inseparably cleaved to each other.) But hey, for an entity that's omnipotent. God can do what ever He wants.

Why the denial, that Jesus can physically reign on earth for 1000 years? Why is that impossible for God? Why does God need humans to excuse God and claim that the future 1000 years is the here and now?

Why would Jesus physically reign on a corrupt earth? What would be the point? To demonstrate that He has the power to do this? God doesn't need to prove to us that He's God. Jesus could have reigned over a material kingdom while he lived here on earth. He didn't do that though. Why not?

 

[The Righterzpen]

This is not what Zechariah 14 is declaring.

"And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holiness Unto The Lord; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar."

This is an ongoing theme. Not a one time day of judgment.

Right now, today, the nations are not being held accountable as described.

There comes a point where there will be "Judgement Day" and time will be over; despite the fact that God's judgement currently abides on the unregenerate because of their sin. Scripture also says that the wicked reserve up unto themselves wrath against the day of judgement. (Romans 2:5)

 

[grafted branch]

Premil should deal with Scripture. Nahum 1:5-7

"The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him."

Even if there are no more mountains or hills, there is still a place of protection wherever the Lord is.

You are going to have to be more specific. The earthly Jerusalem will be under the reign of Jesus Christ the Prince for 1000 years after wickedness is destroyed. When this earth passes away, there will be a totally different earth that we have not been fully informed about. It will not need current Jerusalem at the point the old earth passes away.

The question I was asking about was not necessarily for premil only but for anyone who has Israel literally being brought back to their literal land.


In Amos 9:15 it says I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them.


Question 1, is Israel never being pulled up out of their land an unconditional promise? If not can you give scriptural support for the promise being conditional?


Question 2, if it is an unconditional promise then what ever happens to the old earth (prior to NHNE) happens to Israel. What do you think will happen to the old earth?

 

[Timtofly]

Yes I do believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place but I don't recall the bible calling the Garden of Eden the bride of Christ.

Paradise is the same Garden.