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

[Spiritual Jew]

It cannot be a literal time frame and an indefinite one at the same time.

No one was saying that. You misunderstand everything. It's amazing how you do that. You either don't read anything carefully or you just simply have poor reading comprehension. I don't know which.

Amil only applies Revelation 20, just like claninja does, and not literally.

No, we do not. He does not see the thousand years as symbolically representing a time period with a beginning and an ending, but Amils do. He sees the thousand years as being an allusion to the thousand years between David and Christ and not to an actual time period that began with Christ's resurrection (which is when He began to reign and when Satan was bound) and ends with the loosing of Satan.

Also, unlike Amil, he sees Satan's little season as having begun at Christ's resurrection and ascension (that's when Amil believes the thousand years began, not Satan's little season) and ending at His second coming (parousia).

So, to say that we apply Revelation 20 like he does is simply not true at all.

How does one symbolically apply a literal time frame? Is that not called an oxymoron?

No one does. You're wasting your time asking ridiculous questions like that.

 

[Timtofly]

I have showed you different examples over the years of your misunderstandings. Why will you not answer a simple question that most Christians are happy to address?

So, Satan's little season started at Satan's casting out in association with Christ’s resurrection and ascension and ends at Christ's literal physical future climactic parousia?

Why argue over the little season of an indefinite period of time, when being bound is an indefinite period of time? You both are indefinite in your approach.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Why argue over the little season of an indefinite period of time, when being bound is an indefinite period of time? You both are indefinite in your approach.

It is definite that satan is unrestrained to go forth in all power of deception, just prior to the Lords second coming.
Read it and weep.

2Thess 2
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish,

because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.


We say good riddance to the wicked at his second coming....not a thousand years after.

 

[DavidPT]

It is definite that satan is unrestrained to go forth in all power of deception, just prior to the Lords second coming.
Read it and weep.

2Thess 2
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish,

because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.


We say good riddance to the wicked at his second coming....not a thousand years after.

And why are Amils not connecting any of that with the 42 month reign recorded in Revelation 13? Or are some of you but just not all Amils are? How is it reasonable that 2 Thessalonians 2:9 does not involve anything recorded per the following in Revelation 13?

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

The first(the head with a deadly wound that is healed) and 2nd beast(the false prophet) in Revelation 13 have to be alive and active at the time if Revelation 19 records both of them being cast alive into the LOF at Christ's 2nd coming.

 

[Timtofly]

Why are Premils always so keen to elevate the power and influence of Satan and denigrate and denounce the power and influence of Christ? This is another reason why all Bible-believing Christians should question Premil.

We don't elevate Satan. We declare him literally and physically bound.


Why do you put him on a leash and let him get away with stuff?

 

[DavidPT]

That is because they do have bodies. Night and day they are priest. Revelation 7:15.

"Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple:"

You are not comparing Scripture with Scripture here. Try comparing Revelation 7:15-17 with that of Revelation 21-22. Revelation 7:15-17 is not meaning now. It is meaning during the NHNE when the NJ descends from God out of heaven.

 

[Timtofly]

the greek structure (nouns and verbs) of vs 4 allows for 3 groups:

1.) those who sat upon thrones
2.) the souls of those who were beheaded.
3.) those who did not worship the beast

these, possibly up to 3 groups, are those that live and reign with the Christ for 1,000 years.

The location of these saints is not given in revelation 20.

Revelation 20 does locate them on the earth. The camp of the saints is on the earth, because those marching against the camp of the saints do so on the breadth of the earth. Earth is mentioned in the chapter.

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

 

[DavidPT]

We don't elevate Satan. We declare him literally and physically bound.


Why do you put him on a leash and let him get away with stuff?

Per Amil apparently satan can pretty much do everything he can do when he is loosed while he is bound. Per Amil he can deceive nations while he is bound and that he can wage war while he is bound, and so can he when he is loosed. Per Amil he can be walking about, as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, while he is bound and also be able to do that when he is loosed.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Per Amil apparently satan can pretty much do everything he can do when he is loosed while he is bound. Per Amil he can deceive nations while he is bound and that he can wage war while he is bound, and so can he when he is loosed. Per Amil he can be walking about, as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, while he is bound and also be able to do that when he is loosed.

Another deliberate and malicious misrepresentation of Amil - and you know it. If you would care to objectively study the OT and the NT you will see that a mammoth change occurred after the first resurrection that opened up the Gospel to the nations. The darkness was dispelled and they were no longer without excuse.

 

[Timtofly]

So, you believe that Satan's little season began with the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ and is still going on today and will continue until Christ's future parousia, right? Which means that you believe Satan's little season has lasted for almost 2,000 years so far. That doesn't seem like a "little season" to me.

1000 years is not an indefinite period of time either.

 

[sovereigngrace]

And why are Amils not connecting any of that with the 42 month reign recorded in Revelation 13? Or are some of you but just not all Amils are? How is it reasonable that 2 Thessalonians 2:9 does not involve anything recorded per the following in Revelation 13?

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

The first(the head with a deadly wound that is healed) and 2nd beast(the false prophet) in Revelation 13 have to be alive and active at the time if Revelation 19 records both of them being cast alive into the LOF at Christ's 2nd coming.

Revelation has several parallels (or recapitulations) covering the period preceding the return of Christ. Parallels are simply different camera views of the same corresponding intra-Advent period. They look at different aspects of the great spiritual battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness, righteousness and evil, truth and deceit, and light and darkness. It shows Christ (and His Church) victor over every expression of the demonic realm - over Satan, the beast, the false prophet and the demons. Each parallel winds down with the release of the kingdom of darkness from the abyss restraint before the second coming. We see the devils in Revelation 9:2-3, the beast in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, Revelation 11:7 and Revelation 17:8, the false prophet in Revelation 13:11 and Satan in Revelation 9:10-11 and Revelation 20:3 all being released before the second coming for a little season.

 

[claninja]

Many premils do not believe that Christ is reigning now in any sense. It's kind of hard to reign with Christ if He's not even reigning at all, right? I'm amazed that you're completely missing that point. DavidPT does not represent all Premils by any means, which I already told you before.

that’s a fair point. There are different types of premils, such as historic and dispensational.

I believe those like John Piper and Charles spurgeon are/were historic premil. But historic premils hold that Christ reigns in heaven:

“The fact is, that he does, now reign; that is in our text. It says, “He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Jesus is reigning even now in heaven.” The Spurgeon Library | He Must Reign

And I believe @DavidPT leans historic, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

Therefore, the OP needs to be specific on who he is addressing. Dispensational or historic.

Not as it relates to some Premils, but you're just not getting that because you seem to think that all Premils think exactly alike about everything, which is clearly not the case.

historic premils hold that Christ is presently reigning from heaven. As such, the OPs argument doesn’t counter the historic premil position.

Edit: If the OP wishes to counter any premil argument, supporting scripture that souls go to heaven to reign needs to be provided. However, such is not found in the OP.

No. Away from the body means you're not in a body, so that's talking about someone's soul and not their body. You seem to think that someone has to have a body to be in heaven, but if that was the case then why would Paul talk in terms of being away from the body at all?

huh? Away from the body means physically dead. Tent being destroyed means physically dead. They mean the same thing.

Being at home with the Lord means being with him in heaven.

agreed. Heaven is where Christ went to prepare a place for us. Then at his coming, would take us to be with him there.

That's why Paul talked about being away from his body but still being present with the Lord.

Paul was talking about the resurrection.

home with the Lord = house in heaven

If you need to have a body to be present with the Lord then what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Philippians 1:21-24 would make no sense.

Paul literally says we do not wish to be unclothed, but further clothed.

Again, you have to perform scriptural gerrymandering to ignore the context of the resurrection in 2 Corinthians 5.

 

[claninja]

Revelation 20 does locate them on the earth. The camp of the saints is on the earth, because those marching against the camp of the saints do so on the breadth of the earth. Earth is mentioned in the chapter.

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Good observation. So, are the camp of saints being warred against, the same as those living and reigning with Christ?

 

[DavidPT]

Good observation. So, are the camp of saints being warred against, the same as those living and reigning with Christ?

This is yet something else that makes Amil nonsensical, the fact the martyrs recorded in verse 4 have zero to do with the camp of the saints surrounded in verses 7-9. Why even bring martyrs up at all if what happens after the thousand years does not even involve them? If they are in heaven at the time, how could anyone surrounding the camp of saints back on earth possibly affect them one way or the other?

It seems to me that if we start with verse 1--And I saw an angel come down from heaven--this already tells us the scene is earth not heaven since it would be nonsensical for an angel to come down from heaven while remaining in heaven. That contradicts what the verse says.

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.


Maybe the reason he has to come down from heaven to earth because that is where Revelation 12:12 has satan being located following the war in heaven. That means when he is bound it has to be meaning post that of Revelation 12:12. But if one looks at the remaining verses in Revelation 12, where is there a place to fit a thousand year binding? If he is in the pit he wouldn't be having great wrath while in there. He would be having great wrath when he is not in the pit. Two times he is not in the pit. Before the thousand years and after the thousand years. If he is not bound during Revelation 12:12-17, yet, he is bound in this age, that would have to mean he is bound while he still had access to accusing the brethren before God. I don't see any logic in that myself. What I conclude then, since I see Revelation 12:17 leading to the end of this present age, he is bound at the end of that war he unleashes on the saints during his 42 month reign.

 

[DavidPT]

Another deliberate and malicious misrepresentation of Amil - and you know it. If you would care to objectively study the OT and the NT you will see that a mammoth change occurred after the first resurrection that opened up the Gospel to the nations. The darkness was dispelled and they were no longer without excuse.

that he should deceive the nations no more

Since when does no more not mean exactly what it says?

In the KJV doing a phrase search for 'no more' in the book of Revelation it brings up some of the following results.

Revelation 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.



Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.


Revelation 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;


Revelation 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Which of these passages do you propose that 'no more' does not mean exactly what it says? Let's take Revelation 7:16, for instance---They shall hunger no more. Does this mean they will still hunger, just a little less than before? Or does it mean they will hunger no more, period? As to Revelation 20:3, it says satan is bound that he should deceive the nations no more. How can that not mean the exact same thing 'no more' means in Revelation 7:16? If anyone still hungers that hardly equals one hungering no more. If any nations are still being deceived that hardly equals nations being deceived no more.

 

[Timtofly]

Being at home with the Lord means being with him in heaven. Heaven is the home of the souls of the dead in Christ right now. That does not require having a body. That's why Paul talked about being away from his body but still being present with the Lord. If you need to have a body to be present with the Lord then what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Philippians 1:21-24 would make no sense.

"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you."

This does not say without a body. This is talking about sinful flesh. Paul endures this sinful flesh to remain faithful on earth. There was still a permanent incorruptible physical body waiting for him, and he has enjoyed it since the first century.


"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him."

Which of these bodies:

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Notice the phrase whether absent or present? Absent or present with the Lord. The point was not about "not having" a body. Absent from the body is the same thing as present with the Lord. Paul was distinguishing between being absent or present with the Lord. Not being present or absent from a body.

Paul set the topic with the first verse. The following verses complement the point about having a permanent physical body in Paradise, not written to contradict that point.

 

[Timtofly]

That is not what he was saying. Our spiritual enemies are not humans.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The point was that we have authority over evil spirits/demons just like is described here:

Luke 10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” 17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

You make it sound like spirits do not inhabit human bodies. Since when do spirits do physical things without a human in the mix?

 

[DavidPT]

Revelation 12:17 is describing something that happens immediately after Satan is cast out of heaven, though. And he was cast out long ago. So, Revelation 12:17 is not a parallel to Revelation 20:8. It does NOT say that Satan's binding has anything to do with him being bound from persecuting believers. So, why do you act as if it does?

Let's try the following angle. Let's assume Amil. Can you point out anywhere in Revelation 20:1-6 where it indicates satan goes to war with anyone during that period of time? It for sure indicates that in Revelation 20:7-9. You would think if it applies to the thousand years as well, it would have at least said so somewhere within those first 6 verses.

Why would Amils not think this part of Revelation 12:17--and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ--parallels the 42 months recorded in Revelation 13? How can those 42 months not be meaning in the end of this age? Does not this 42 months involve the beast that ascends out of the pit making war with the saints? If what I brought up in Revelation 12:17 began 2000 years this would have to mean that the beast ascended out of the pit 2000 years ago and that the 42 month reign of the beast has been going on for almost 2000 years. Per Amil that would equal that the 42 month reign and the thousand years, these are speaking of the exact same period of time. It would also mean when the beast is supposed to still be in the pit per Amil.

Keep in mind I'm suggesting what it would have to mean per a scenario like that, and not, that Amils are saying that is what it means.

 

[Timtofly]

No one was saying that. You misunderstand everything. It's amazing how you do that. You either don't read anything carefully or you just simply have poor reading comprehension. I don't know which.

No, we do not. He does not see the thousand years as symbolically representing a time period with a beginning and an ending, but Amils do. He sees the thousand years as being an allusion to the thousand years between David and Christ and not to an actual time period that began with Christ's resurrection (which is when He began to reign and when Satan was bound) and ends with the loosing of Satan.

Also, unlike Amil, he sees Satan's little season as having begun at Christ's resurrection and ascension (that's when Amil believes the thousand years began, not Satan's little season) and ending at His second coming (parousia).

So, to say that we apply Revelation 20 like he does is simply not true at all.

No one does. You're wasting your time asking ridiculous questions like that.

The literal time frame is from David to Christ. Closer to a literal 1000 years, than 1991 indefinite years.

You both are wrong in your application of Revelation 20.

 

[Timtofly]

We say good riddance to the wicked at his second coming....not a thousand years after.

There is no wicked during the 1000 years. Not sure of your point. I say good riddance as well at the Second Coming. Still not sure of your point.