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

[Spiritual Jew]

that he should deceive the nations no more

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

You have made this argument before and it's just as ridiculous now as it was then. You waste an unbelievable amount of time making straw man arguments. Time that you can't get back. Amils do not say that "no more" doesn't mean "no more" there. We completely agree that it literally means "no more" until the thousand years are over. The difference in our interpretations has nothing to do with that, but rather has to do with what we believe him deceiving the nations means.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

We need to interpret Scripture with Scripture. Usually I use Zechariah 14 in a case like this, but this time I will just leave that ch out of the equation and use the following in Daniel 7 instead.

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.


Everything recorded here is obviously part of the same scene taking place at the time. The LOF is obviously in view here. No problem though. The LOF is also in view in Revelation 19. Anyone reading the text above, unless they suffer from some form of reading comprehension regarding the above verses, they should be able to plainly see that only the beast involving the horn speaking great words is destroyed at the time, but as concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

How is verse 12 possibly supposed to fit Amil? Per Amil what is recorded above would be meaning the great white throne judgment. How could anyone's lives be being prolonged for a season and time during the GWTJ? That couldn't remotely be something that takes place during the GWTJ. Therefore, the GWTJ is not even in view in any of the above verses. The above verses fit Premil not Amil. Verse 12 works with Premil but certainly can't and doesn't work with Amil.

Once again, you have forgotten something that I've told you before. Daniel 7:12 is a parenthetical statement regarding what had happened to the other 3 historical beast kingdoms that preceded the beast kingdom described in Daniel 7:9-11. Basically, verse 12 is saying "Oh by the way, this is what had happened to the other three beast kingdoms before the fourth beast kingdom arrived on the scene". Your mistake is in thinking that all four beasts are around and in power at the same time, but they all follow one another historically.

Daniel 7:23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.

See how this describes the fourth beast as a kingdom? It's a world empire that historically follows the three beasts/kingdoms/world empires that preceded it. To think that Daniel 7:12 is talking about the other 3 beasts being around at the time of the fourth beast and continuing on for a time after the fourth beast is destroyed is a case of ignoring the context of Daniel 7.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.



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.



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




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



Paul was talking about the resurrection.

home with the Lord = house in heaven



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.

This has gotten old. We keep going around and around on this and I'm not interested in repeating myself yet again. So, I'm done from my end. But, can you please tell me what you believe happens to someone immediately after they die? I don't recall you ever addressing that. If you want me to take your view seriously then you need to explain what YOU believe happens when we die instead of me just giving my view over and over again.

 

[DavidPT]

Once again, you have forgotten something that I've told you before. Daniel 7:12 is a parenthetical statement regarding what had happened to the other 3 historical beast kingdoms that preceded the beast kingdom described in Daniel 7:9-11. Basically, verse 12 is saying "Oh by the way, this is what had happened to the other three beast kingdoms before the fourth beast kingdom arrived on the scene". Your mistake is in thinking that all four beasts are around and in power at the same time, but they all follow one another historically.

Daniel 7:23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.

See how this describes the fourth beast as a kingdom? It's a world empire that historically follows the three beasts/kingdoms/world empires that preceded it. To think that Daniel 7:12 is talking about the other 3 beasts being around at the time of the fourth beast and continuing on for a time after the fourth beast is destroyed is a case of ignoring the context of Daniel 7.

I have not forgotten that you view verse 12 in that manner.

If verses 9-11 involve the GWTJ but that verse 12 doesn't, it would be completely out of context to have verse 12 involving a context that has zero to do with it. That is as bad as what some Partial Preterists do with 'this generation' in the Discourse. They apply that to the first century regardless that the surrounding verses involve the 2nd coming in the end of this age. IOW, they are applying that out of context rather than applying it in context, the very same thing some of you do with verse 12 in Daniel 7. If you agree that Partial Preterists shouldn't be doing that in the Discourse involving this generation, yet, at the same time do something similar in Daniel 7 involving verse 12, why do you think it is ok when you do something like that but it is not ok when Partial Preterists do something like that as well?

Why can't some Partial Preterists simply argue the same regarding this generation in the Discourse, that it is a parenthetical statement that involves what took place during the first century regardless that the surrounding verses involve the 2nd coming? If some did, would it be a valid argument? Would it make them correct?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have not forgotten that you view verse 12 in that manner.

If verses 9-11 involve the GWTJ but that verse 12 doesn't, it would be completely out of context to have verse 12 involving a context that has zero to do with it.

Says you. I'm always amazed that you think you are the ultimate authority on how apocalyptic scripture should be understood. As if there's some rule that it all has to be chronological. That's not how apocalyptic literature works. Do some research on this and see for yourself instead of trying to force your own rules upon scripture.

That is as bad as what some Partial Preterists do with 'this generation' in the Discourse. They apply that to the first century regardless that the surrounding verses involve the 2nd coming in the end of this age. IOW, they are applying that out of context rather than applying it in context, the very same thing some of you do with verse 12 in Daniel 7. If you agree that Partial Preterists shouldn't be doing that in the Discourse involving this generation, yet, at the same time do something similar in Daniel 7 involving verse 12, why do you think it is ok when you do something like that but it is not ok when Partial Preterists do something like that as well?

Why can't some Partial Preterists simply argue the same regarding this generation in the Discourse, that it is a parenthetical statement that involves what took place during the first century regardless that the surrounding verses involve the 2nd coming? If some did, would it be a valid argument? Would it make them correct?

This is an irrelevant argument because there's nothing parenthetical in the Olivet Discourse. There's no evidence to back that theory up and no one even believes that.

However, I have evidence to back up my understanding of Daniel 7:12. That verse is even put in parentheses in the NIV translation. It's not as if I'm the only one who sees it this way. Far from it. Many Hebrew experts who worked on translating Daniel 7:12 had the same understanding as I do and there are many others who interpret the verse that way as well. But, I'm not aware of anyone who would try to say that there are parenthetical verses in the Olivet Discourse. So, what you said here doesn't hold any water as far as I'm concerned.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Says you. I'm always amazed that you think you are the ultimate authority on how apocalyptic scripture should be understood. As if there's some rule that it all has to be chronological. That's not how apocalyptic literature works. Do some research on this and see for yourself instead of trying to force your own rules upon scripture.

This is an irrelevant argument because there's nothing parenthetical in the Olivet Discourse. There's no evidence to back that theory up and no one even believes that.

However, I have evidence to back up my understanding of Daniel 7:12. That verse is even put in parentheses in the NIV translation. It's not as if I'm the only one who sees it this way. Far from it. Many Hebrew experts who worked on translating Daniel 7:12 had the same understanding as I do and there are many others who interpret the verse that way as well. But, I'm not aware of anyone who would try to say that there are parenthetical verses in the Olivet Discourse. So, what you said here doesn't hold any water as far as I'm concerned.

Have a look back at the amount of posts he skips around when they expose the Premil paradigm. He then comes back knit-picking irrelevancies.

 

[Timtofly]

Clearly, them coming out of great tribulation is something that happens in the here and now and not something that happens during the NHNE or anytime after Christ returns. I'm not saying nor suggesting otherwise. But as to Revelation 7:15 -17, that is meaning their destiny in the new Jerusalem in the NHNE once it comes down from God out of heaven. It is not meaning something already taking place now. Let's compare something else for a moment.

Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple(Revelation 7:15)

Let's now compare that with something recorded in Revelation 15.

and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled(Revelation 15:8)

Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple(Revelation 7:15)---and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled(Revelation 15:8)

How can both of these things possibly be true at the same time? Where I come from that is called a contradiction if both are true at the same time. Therefore, the former has to be meaning after the latter, and not before or during the latter instead.

Let's now compare with Revelation 22.

but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him(Revelation 22:3)----Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple(Revelation 7:15)

One is to go with the Scriptures that contradict(that being Revelation 7:15 and Revelation 15:8 in this case), and not instead go with the Scriptures that don't contradict(Revelation 22:3 and Revelation 7:15 in this case)???

Because the vials are after the 42 months. The vials did not take 1991 years to prepare.

You are basing the past on an event that has not even happened yet. An event that may never happen.

Just because your car may break down, does not mean you should keep it in the garage and never drive it.

 

[Timtofly]

If you say good riddance to the wicked at the Lords coming then who populates your future millennium?
Billions of uncircumcised of heart people come against us.

Who populated the earth when Adam and Eve sinned?

 

[Timtofly]

I think that’s why the Amil presents revelation 20:4 as souls of dead believers going to heaven, while the camp of saints being warred against on earth, are those who had not yet physically died.

to be fair to the Amil, and to counter the premil position, there are no scriptures, outside of revelation 20, that demonstrate the resurrected saints will be warred against by Satan and his army. such scriptures, just like souls going to heaven to live and reign prior to the resurrection, are absent.

Of course it does. Do we have to have the names of the decieved like Adam and Eve? Those resurrected in verse 4 have billions of offspring. There is no verse in Revelation 20 that states they cannot have children. What is the point of living on earth not having children?

You think resurrected humans cannot have children and are sterile? Did Adam and Eve have to sin before having offspring? Can only sinners conceive?

 

[Timtofly]

The point is that if all the wicked are destroyed at the second coming then that would not leave any mortals to populate an earthly millennial kingdom because believers would all have immortal bodies at that point. I know you don't agree with that, but I'm just explaining the point since you weren't getting it.

No such thing as an immortal body. It is an incorruptible body that is glorified with the spirit. I know you do not agree with that, but choose Greek thought processes, instead of what Paul literally wrote.

Paradise is the place the redeemed no longer need to procreate. The work of procreation happened on earth.

Those in Revelation 20:4 are given incorruptible physical bodies that can procreate on earth for 1000 years.

Besides the fact you take every aspect of that resurrection and place it in the first century where it does not belong. You think Satan has to be bound to keep from decieving souls in Paradise? The age to come did happen at the Cross for all those in Paradise. It is in Paradise where they are like the angels. In fact they have been ruling and reigning with Christ for 1991 years. No one needs Revelation 20 to state that, because Revelation 20 has not even happened yet.

You have all the verses. What is the point in keep going over them, if you just present the wrong interpretation, to defend the Amil position? You are the one taking Revelation 20 out of context and making it corroborate other Scriptures that have nothing to do with a future millennium.

 

[Timtofly]

You never remember anything I tell you. I have never said that I believe the 42 months refers to Satan's little season. Clearly, it would not make sense to conclude that those who don't worship the beast and are martyred during Satan's little season go on to reign with Christ for a thousand years since the thousand years precedes his little season.

Revelation 11:1-7 indicates that the beast doesn't ascend from the pit until the 42 months/1260 days are over, but you have the beast ascending from the pit at the beginning of the 42 months. The two witnesses prophesy and give their testimony during the 42 months/1260 days and it's not until that time period ends that the beast is able to overcome and kill them (Rev 11:7).

I've talked to you about this before (I actually remember our discussions, unlike you) and you just tried to brush it off and acted like that doesn't necessarily mean the beast doesn't ascend from the pit until then, but I find that to be a weak argument.

"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them."

This verse does not say anything about when the beast ascended. It is not worded to say, "when the beast ascended, it attacked". It just says the beast "that ascended".

In Revelation 13, you have a beast John saw who does come out of the earth, and at the beginning of the 42 months, not the end. The pit was opened back at the 5th Trumpet. Beings going in and out of the pit has already been ongoing for the 6th Trumpet, and the 7 Thunders. Should be fairly common by the 7th Trumpet.

I think the 2 witness parallel the 42 months, and are just mentioned, first, before Satan is introduced in chapter 12. We already have been told in chapter 10 what the 7th Trumpet is about, so chapter 11 is about the 7th Trumpet. The witnesses do start at the 7th Trumpet, not killed prior to the 7th Trumpet. The saints overcome in chapter 13 are the 144k. They have been witnessing since the 7th Seal. They retreat to Mt. Zion, and the 2 witnesses take over during the last 42 months up until Armageddon. The 3.5 days they lay dead are when the 7 vials are poured out. They are resurrected on a Sunday morning, and Armageddon is between 5pm and 6pm for one hour, later that day.


"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them."

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations."

Both chapter 17 and 19 show the battle of Armageddon. Chapter 16 are the vials and the call to battle for Armageddon. Chapters 17 and 18 declare who will be destroyed. Literally all of Adam's flesh and blood.

Unless you can prove no one will have any more offspring ever, those resurrected in Revelation 20:4 live and reign over their offspring to replenish the earth like Noah and his 3 sons. Except this time without Satan around and no sin nature. Daniel 9 declares the end of sin and transgressions. That is the reason for the days of when the 7th Trumpet sounds. Revelation 10:7

"But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." Daniel's 70th week will be concluded, and the Millennium will begin.

Of course, your scenario has no one left, and no one on the earth period. Those in the New Jerusalem cannot populate the earth. You declare there is no one literally at all on the earth to reign over. Just a huge city, fully populated, on an empty earth. They certainly are not going to go out onto the earth, because they are like the angels unable to multiply and fill the earth.

 

[DavidPT]

You never remember anything I tell you. I have never said that I believe the 42 months refers to Satan's little season. Clearly, it would not make sense to conclude that those who don't worship the beast and are martyred during Satan's little season go on to reign with Christ for a thousand years since the thousand years precedes his little season.

Revelation 11:1-7 indicates that the beast doesn't ascend from the pit until the 42 months/1260 days are over, but you have the beast ascending from the pit at the beginning of the 42 months. The two witnesses prophesy and give their testimony during the 42 months/1260 days and it's not until that time period ends that the beast is able to overcome and kill them (Rev 11:7).

I've talked to you about this before (I actually remember our discussions, unlike you) and you just tried to brush it off and acted like that doesn't necessarily mean the beast doesn't ascend from the pit until then, but I find that to be a weak argument.

You need to try and be more understanding of the way I go about things at times and quit assuming that I'm forgetting what you have said in the past. A lot of times I simply give my opinion of what something would mean or not mean if this were the case or if that were the case. That's all I'm basically doing a lot of the time. And you of all ppl should understand this procedure since you do something similar with Zechariah 14:16-19 for instance. In your mind if that is meaning after the 2nd coming that means it would mean animal sacrificing starts up again. I do not believe it would mean that, yet you do. Nor is it my position that animal sacrificing starts up again post the 2nd coming, period. You have a right to your opinions as to what something might mean or not mean and so should I have the same right to my opinions as to what something would mean if this were the case or if that were the case.

The following verse alone undeniably proves that the 42 months in Revelation 13 has to be a short era of time involving the same time period. IOW, for example, it can't span 100 years, nor 200 years, nor 500 years, so on and so on. It obviously has to span less that 100 years for certain. One reason why is the following verse I'm talking about.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Let's assume the 42 month reign spans a longer period of time than a literal 42 months, the same way Amils assume the thousand years span a longer period of time than a literal thousand years. Let's say the 42 month reign began 200 years ago, or maybe 300 years ago, or maybe 500 years ago. Has this 42 month reign already come and went then? Or are we still in this same 42 month period even today? If it already came and went, when did it begin and when did it end? This also means that the first vial of wrath has already been poured out since it is silly to think that the first vial of wrath does not get poured out on anyone that has been worshiping the beast during it's 42 month reign.

Just for the record. In my view, the vials of wrath follow the 42 month reign, and not, they are poured out before the 42 month reign or even during it.

But if the first vial of wrath is still future, and let's say this time instead of this 42 months already came and went, it began 300 years ago and that we are still in this 42 month era even as we speak. That scenario can't work with Revelation 16:2 either. How in the world does the first vial get poured out multiple times on different ppl not even living in the same era of time? Or, why would some get to worship this beast after it has ascended out of the pit yet not have the vials of wrath poured out on them, but others do get the vials of wrath poured out on them? Obviously, the only way for things to be fair, the 42 month reign has to involve an era of time where everyone worshiping the beast after it has ascended out of the pit, they are all alive at the same time. And if the first vial of wrath is future still, this alone proves that the 42 month reign of the beast is still future to us as well.

As to this 42 month reign, if it isn't meaning in the end of this age, the fact it involves both the beast and false prophet, so much for Revelation 19 getting fulfilled when Christ returns since both the beast and FP have to be alive and active at the time. Clearly, during it's 42 month reign they are both alive and active at the time. You might argue that they are demons of some kind, which means they can be alive and active for hundreds of years. But even so, what about the first vial of wrath, then? Or any of the vials of wrath for that matter? How do those vials get poured out on different ppl not even living in the same era of time?

 

[sovereigngrace]

You need to try and be more understanding of the way I go about things at times and quit assuming that I'm forgetting what you have said in the past. A lot of times I simply give my opinion of what something would mean or not mean if this were the case or if that were the case. That's all I'm basically doing a lot of the time. And you of all ppl should understand this procedure since you do something similar with Zechariah 14:16-19 for instance. In your mind if that is meaning after the 2nd coming that means it would mean animal sacrificing starts up again. I do not believe it would mean that, yet you do. Nor is it my position that animal sacrificing starts up again post the 2nd coming, period. You have a right to your opinions as to what something might mean or not mean and so should I have the same right to my opinions as to what something would mean if this were the case or if that were the case.

The following verse alone undeniably proves that the 42 months in Revelation 13 has to be a short era of time involving the same time period. IOW, for example, it can't span 100 years, nor 200 years, nor 500 years, so on and so on. It obviously has to span less that 100 years for certain. One reason why is the following verse I'm talking about.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Let's assume the 42 month reign spans a longer period of time than a literal 42 months, the same way Amils assume the thousand years span a longer period of time than a literal thousand years. Let's say the 42 month reign began 200 years ago, or maybe 300 years ago, or maybe 500 years ago. Has this 42 month reign already came and went then? Or are we still in this same 42 month period even today? If it already came and went, when did it begin and when did it end? This also means that the first vial of wrath has already been poured out since it is silly to think that the first vial of wrath does not get poured out on anyone that has been worshiping the beast during it's 42 month reign.

Just for the record. In my view, the vials of wrath follow the 42 month reign, and not, they are poured out before the 42 month reign or even during it.

But if the first vial of wrath is still future, and let's say this time instead of this 42 months already came and went, it began 300 years ago and that we are still in this 42 month era even as we speak. That scenario can't work with Revelation 16:2 either. How in the world does the first vial get poured out multiple times on different ppl not even living in the same era of time? Or, why would some get to worship this beast after it has ascended out of the pit yet not have the vials of wrath poured out on them, but others do get the vials of wrath poured out on them? Obviously, the only way for things to be fair, the 42 month reign has to involve an era of time where everyone worshiping the beast after it has ascended out of the pit, they are all alive at the same time. And if the first vial of wrath is future still, this alone proves that the 42 month reign of the beast is still future to us as well.

As to this 42 month reign, if it isn't meaning in the end of this age, the fact it involves both the beast and false prophet, so much for Revelation 19 getting fulfilled when Christ returns since both the beast and FP have to be alive and active at the time. Clearly, during it's 42 month reign they are both alive and active at the time. You might argue that they are demons of some kind, which means they can be alive and active for hundreds of years. But even so, what about the first vial of wrath, then? Or any of the vials of wrath for that matter? How do those vials get poured out on different ppl not even living in the same era of time?

You more than any poster is preoccupied with the identity of the beast and these 42 months. So, who is the beast? When did he begin?

Firstly, the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet's activity are not simply restricted to 42 months before Christ's coming.

Secondly, the beast represents the ongoing reign of Satan on the earth throughout time through the world secular antichrist system. It is not an end-time invention as Futurist's imagine.

Thirdly, Revelation is not chronological. It is a number of recaps describing the same intra-Advent period. The end of the millennium and Satan's "little season" corresponds with the end time persecution spoke elsewhere in Revelation and in other Scripture. The millennium does not follow Revelation 17-19 in time, but rather parallels it. Revelation 20 is the last of 7 recapitulations.

Fourthly, martyrdom was/is never limited to 42 months at the end. Every informed Bible student knows that. Martyrdom has occurred since the stoning of Stephen. Millions have been butchered by the beast system for their faith in the OT and NT, in the early Church under the Roman Empire, in the Middle ages under the persecution of Romanism, and right up until today. To limit martyrdom to 42 months at the end exposes your theological bias, your ignorance of history and your lack of objectivity.

Fifthly, there is good reason to connect Satan’s little season with the last 3.5 years (42 months/1260 days), found in Scripture. This does not demand a literal meaning in this most symbolic of books. This describes the final conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Satan and the beast will be loosed at the end to resist the people of God. That is when the restraint is simply removed. Right at the end, the kingdom of darkness is overthrown.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Who populated the earth when Adam and Eve sinned?

Are you suggesting that some of us redeemed will marry and have kids ?.

What a miserable failure that we be.

 

[DavidPT]

You more than any poster is preoccupied with the identity of the beast and these 42 months. So, who is the beast? When did he begin?

Firstly, the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet's activity are not simply restricted to 42 months before Christ's coming.

Secondly, the beast represents the ongoing reign of Satan on the earth throughout time through the world secular antichrist system. It is not an end-time invention as Futurist's imagine.

Thirdly, Revelation is not chronological. It is a number of recaps describing the same intra-Advent period. The end of the millennium and Satan's "little season" corresponds with the end time persecution spoke elsewhere in Revelation and in other Scripture. The millennium does not follow Revelation 17-19 in time, but rather parallels it. Revelation 20 is the last of 7 recapitulations.

Fourthly, martyrdom was/is never limited to 42 months at the end. Every informed Bible student knows that. Martyrdom has occurred since the stoning of Stephen. Millions have been butchered by the beast system for their faith in the OT and NT, in the early Church under the Roman Empire, in the Middle ages under the persecution of Romanism, and right up until today. To limit martyrdom to 42 months at the end exposes your theological bias, your ignorance of history and your lack of objectivity.

Fifthly, there is good reason to connect Satan’s little season with the last 3.5 years (42 months/1260 days), found in Scripture. This does not demand a literal meaning in this most symbolic of books. This describes the final conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Satan and the beast will be loosed at the end to resist the people of God. That is when the restraint is simply removed. Right at the end, the kingdom of darkness is overthrown.

You have already submitted this more than one time. What I just posted, that is the first time I ever posted that, meaning like that. Already, what I just posted debunks some of the things your post here brings up. I just showed, using one verse, Revelation 16:2 in this case, and a little common sense, as to why the 42 month reign has to be referring to a time period where everyone involved are all alive at the same time. Clearly, the 42 month reign involves the martyring of saints, yet, some Amils are arguing, that since satan's little season is meaning in this age prior to the 2nd coming, no saints are being martyred at the time. Yet, according to what you have submitted, his little season and this 42 month reign, they are one and the same.

Proof below of what I just said above when I said---Clearly, the 42 month reign involves the martyring of saints, yet, some Amils are arguing, that since satan's little season is meaning in this age prior to the 2nd coming, no saints are being martyred at the time. Yet, according to what you have submitted, his little season and this 42 month reign, they are one and the same.

You never remember anything I tell you. I have never said that I believe the 42 months refers to Satan's little season. Clearly, it would not make sense to conclude that those who don't worship the beast and are martyred during Satan's little season go on to reign with Christ for a thousand years since the thousand years precedes his little season..

Fifthly, there is good reason to connect Satan’s little season with the last 3.5 years (42 months/1260 days), found in Scripture. This does not demand a literal meaning in this most symbolic of books. This describes the final conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Satan and the beast will be loosed at the end to resist the people of God. That is when the restraint is simply removed. Right at the end, the kingdom of darkness is overthrown.

Which Amil should I believe here? One Amil is saying that satan's little season and the 42 month reign are not one and the same. Another Amil is saying they are.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You have already submitted this more than one time. What I just posted, that is the first time I ever posted that, meaning like that. Already, what I just posted debunks some of the things your post here brings up. I just showed, using one verse, Revelation 16:2 in this case, and a little common sense, as to why the 42 month reign has to be referring to a time period where everyone involved are all alive at the same time. Clearly, the 42 month reign involves the martyring of saints, yet, some Amils are arguing, that since satan's little season is meaning in this age prior to the 2nd coming, no saints are being martyred at the time. Yet, according to what you have submitted, his little season and this 42 month reign, they are one and the same.

Proof below of what I just said above when I said---Clearly, the 42 month reign involves the martyring of saints, yet, some Amils are arguing, that since satan's little season is meaning in this age prior to the 2nd coming, no saints are being martyred at the time. Yet, according to what you have submitted, his little season and this 42 month reign, they are one and the same.







Which Amil should I believe here? One Amil is saying that satan's little season and the 42 month reign are not one and the same. Another Amil is saying they are.

You have yet to address this post. Your MO is to avoid Amil rebuttals when they refute your teaching. Why do you not read what Amils write? You rather foist your Premil thinking upon passages that in no way refute Amil and then celebrate your misrepresentation. The 42 months are simply an unrestrained intensification of what has been ongoing through the centuries. The beast has been wrecking havoc under different guises for long before the First Advent. You cannot even admit that.

 

[DavidPT]

You more than any poster is preoccupied with the identity of the beast and these 42 months. So, who is the beast? When did he begin?

What is in question here, which you don't appear to be grasping, is some of the following. As to this 42 months. When does it begin? When does it end? Can it begin while the beast is still in the pit? Can it begin before the beast is even in the pit? Or can it only begin once the beast has ascended out of the pit? I choose the last choice myself.

As to this 42 months, once it begins can it span a long period of tme, such as more than 100 years? IOW, can it span an era of time where some ppl would already be long dead and gone before some ppl are even born? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it can only involve an era of time where anyone that is worshiping it at the time, they are all alive at the same time?

Amils appear to ignore the fact as to who it is that is being worshiped at the time. It is the beast that ascends out of the pit and that one of it's heads has a deadly wound that is healed, and that upon that same head that is where the 10 horns are located.

Amils also appear to ignore the fact, that before there can be an image to worship or not worship, a 2nd beast has to rise out of the earth first and do great wonders in the sight of men, thus deceiving them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; then finally 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.

Amils also appear to ignore the fact, that in order for there to be martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, the first beast in Revelation 13 has to rise out of the pit first and a 2nd beast has to rise out of the earth. But just disregard all that I guess, since it's more reasonable to prove something via something not even recorded in Scripture rather than with something recorded in Scripture.

The following is recorded in Scripture.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


Why would any truly objective person want to dispute that the martyrdom recorded here--Revelation 20:4, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads---does involve what is recorded in Revelation 13:5 and Revelation 13:15? How can one claim with a straight face that this same 42 months is after the thousand years if Revelation 20:4 already undeniably proves it is meaning a time before the thousand years even expire?

Yet, obviously this 42 months precede the 2nd coming in the end of this age. This is not a problem unless one insists this 42 months and satan's little season are one and the same. This is not a problem unless one insists that this 42 month reign is not followed by the 2nd coming.

Per Premil, this 42 months are meaning in the end of this age followed by the 2nd coming. Per Premil, this 42 months is not meaning satan's little season in Revelation 20. Premil appears to be the only position where nothing is being contradicted, meaning in regards to any of these things involving the 42 months and Revelation 20:4. Revelation 20:4--which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads---certainly isn't being contradicted per Premil.

 

[sovereigngrace]

What is in question here, which you don't appear to be grasping, is some of the following. As to this 42 months. When does it begin? When does it end? Can it begin while the beast is still in the pit? Can it begin before the beast is even in the pit? Or can it only begin once the beast has ascended out of the pit? I choose the last choice myself.

As to this 42 months, once it begins can it span a long period of tme, such as more than 100 years? IOW, can it span an era of time where some ppl would already be long dead and gone before some ppl are even born? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it can only involve an era of time where anyone that is worshiping it at the time, they are all alive at the same time?

Amils appear to ignore the fact as to who it is that is being worshiped at the time. It is the beast that ascends out of the pit and that one of it's heads has a deadly wound that is healed, and that upon that same head that is where the 10 horns are located.

Amils also appear to ignore the fact, that before there can be an image to worship or not worship, a 2nd beast has to rise out of the earth first and do great wonders in the sight of men, thus deceiving them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; then finally 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.

Amils also appear to ignore the fact, that in order for there to be martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, the first beast in Revelation 13 has to rise out of the pit first and a 2nd beast has to rise out of the earth. But just disregard all that I guess, since it's more reasonable to prove something via something not even recorded in Scripture rather than with something recorded in Scripture.

The following is recorded in Scripture.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


Why would any truly objective person want to dispute that the martyrdom recorded here--Revelation 20:4, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads---does involve what is recorded in Revelation 13:5 and Revelation 13:15? How can one claim with a straight face that this same 42 months is after the thousand years if Revelation 20:4 already undeniably proves it is meaning a time before the thousand years even expire?

Yet, obviously this 42 months precede the 2nd coming in the end of this age. This is not a problem unless one insists this 42 months and satan's little season are one and the same. This is not a problem unless one insists that this 42 month reign is not followed by the 2nd coming.

Per Premil, this 42 months are meaning in the end of this age followed by the 2nd coming. Per Premil, this 42 months is not meaning satan's little season in Revelation 20. Premil appears to be the only position where nothing is being contradicted, meaning in regards to any of these things involving the 42 months and Revelation 20:4. Revelation 20:4--which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads---certainly isn't being contradicted per Premil.

Many Amils believe the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 represents a short period of intense tribulation just before the coming of the Lord. They equate that with Satan's little season, the removing of the restraint on the mystery of iniquity in 2 Thessalonians 2 and the symbolic 3.5 years (42 months/1260 days) elsewhere in Revelation. That is my position.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No such thing as an immortal body. It is an incorruptible body that is glorified with the spirit. I know you do not agree with that, but choose Greek thought processes, instead of what Paul literally wrote.

LOL. Such nonsense. Figures that you'd rely on fallible Greek thought processes for understanding over scripture itself. The idea of an incorruptible, but not immortal, body is laughable. The words immortal and incorruptible mean the same thing. You are trying to change the definitions of words. Paul indicated in 1 Cor 15:50-54 that our bodies will be changed and become incorruptible and immortal at the same time which will be at the last trumpet.

Definitions:

incorruptible: not subject to death or decay; everlasting.

immortal: living forever; never dying or decaying

Clearly, an incorruptible body is immortal and vice versa. Your belief that the body becomes incorruptible first and then immortal at a later time makes no sense.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What is in question here, which you don't appear to be grasping, is some of the following. As to this 42 months. When does it begin? When does it end? Can it begin while the beast is still in the pit? Can it begin before the beast is even in the pit? Or can it only begin once the beast has ascended out of the pit? I choose the last choice myself.

As to this 42 months, once it begins can it span a long period of tme, such as more than 100 years? IOW, can it span an era of time where some ppl would already be long dead and gone before some ppl are even born? Or is it more reasonable to assume that it can only involve an era of time where anyone that is worshiping it at the time, they are all alive at the same time?

Amils appear to ignore the fact as to who it is that is being worshiped at the time. It is the beast that ascends out of the pit and that one of it's heads has a deadly wound that is healed, and that upon that same head that is where the 10 horns are located.

Amils also appear to ignore the fact, that before there can be an image to worship or not worship, a 2nd beast has to rise out of the earth first and do great wonders in the sight of men, thus deceiving them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; then finally 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.

Amils also appear to ignore the fact, that in order for there to be martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, the first beast in Revelation 13 has to rise out of the pit first and a 2nd beast has to rise out of the earth. But just disregard all that I guess, since it's more reasonable to prove something via something not even recorded in Scripture rather than with something recorded in Scripture.

The following is recorded in Scripture.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


Why would any truly objective person want to dispute that the martyrdom recorded here--Revelation 20:4, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads---does involve what is recorded in Revelation 13:5 and Revelation 13:15? How can one claim with a straight face that this same 42 months is after the thousand years if Revelation 20:4 already undeniably proves it is meaning a time before the thousand years even expire?

Yet, obviously this 42 months precede the 2nd coming in the end of this age. This is not a problem unless one insists this 42 months and satan's little season are one and the same. This is not a problem unless one insists that this 42 month reign is not followed by the 2nd coming.

Per Premil, this 42 months are meaning in the end of this age followed by the 2nd coming. Per Premil, this 42 months is not meaning satan's little season in Revelation 20. Premil appears to be the only position where nothing is being contradicted, meaning in regards to any of these things involving the 42 months and Revelation 20:4. Revelation 20:4--which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads---certainly isn't being contradicted per Premil.

You were asked who is the beast and when did he begin. Can you tell me where exactly in your post that you answered that question? I can't find it.

If you want to be looked at as someone who has an understanding of the beast and if you insist that the beast is a man, then tell us who he is. He "was" before John wrote the book of Revelation (Rev 17:8), so if the beast is a man then who is he?