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

[Spiritual Jew]

What do you mean by "the Discourse"?

I would assume he's talking about the Olivet Discourse.

 

[DavidPT]

You apparently are not recognizing that when it says in verse 5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", it is a parenthetical statement and has nothing to do with the first resurrection. The statement "This is the first resurrection" refers back to verse 4. So, it is the ones described in verse 4 who have part in the first resurrection, not "the rest of the dead".

As to the rest of the dead, the fact that verse tells us that the rest of the dead don't live again until, shouldn't that mean that some of the dead already lived again? Don't Amils typically argue that Revelation 20:4 only says they lived, and not, lived again? Why didn't verse 5 simply say---the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were finished? The fact it said again, it doesn't seem reasonable to not apply the same to those who have part in the first resurrection, that they lived again. How can a resurrection, in any sense, not involve living again?

Suppose Revelation 20:4 had said this instead---and they lived again and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Would that change how some of you are currently interpreting it?


Per Premil none of the rest of the dead meant are physically alive during the thousand years. Per Amil the rest of the dead meant, all of them are still physically alive during the thousand years, except for any of the dead who were already dead before the beginning of the first century. How can any of the rest of the dead still be physically alive during the thousand years if we are told, as of the first resurrection, the rest of the dead, they lived not again until the thousand years expire? This implies they have to already be physically dead at this point, as of the first resurrection, doesn't it? Why call them the rest of the dead if some of them are still physically alive during the thousand years? Wouldn't this mean there is no hope for these, that their destiny is already determined before they have physically died? Clearly, the rest of the dead meant in verse 5, their destiny is the LOF since it is only those that have part in the first resurrection, that their destiny is not the LOF.

BTW, of all things, I had a dream about the thousand years last night. A dream about the debate. And in the dream the debate was favoring Amil not Premil. Don't know what it means? I don't recall every detail of the dream, unfortunately.

 

[DavidPT]

I would assume he's talking about the Olivet Discourse.

That's exactly what I was meaning. Since the 2nd coming is recorded in the Discourse, and that if satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming, which portions of the Discourse do Amils propose involve satan's little season? If Amils think none of the Discourse involves satan's little season, why even insist satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming then?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

As to the rest of the dead, the fact that verse tells us that the rest of the dead don't live again until, shouldn't that mean that some of the dead already lived again? Don't Amils typically argue that Revelation 20:4 only says they lived, and not, lived again?

Yes, and that is my argument as well. The Greek word translated as "lived" in verse 4 (zao) is different than the one used in verse 5 (anazao) where it talks about the rest of the dead living again. Tell me why different words were used there if they are meant to mean the same thing? The word used in verse 4 is not one that is used to describe a resurrection while the word used in verse 5 is one that is used to refer to a resurrection. Explain that if verse 4 is talking about people being bodily resurrected.

This is yet another one of those things that we've talked about before multiple times and you seem to have completely forgotten that. You don't give any indication that you recall us ever having talked about this before even though we have at least a few different times.

Why didn't verse 5 simply say---the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were finished? The fact it said again, it doesn't seem reasonable to not apply the same to those who have part in the first resurrection, that they lived again. How can a resurrection, in any sense, not involve living again?

Your inability to understand that we all have spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection is what prevents you from understanding what it means to have part in the first resurrection. As I have told you multiple times before, I believe that Revelation 20:6 implies that someone MUST have part in the first resurrection in order for the second death to not have power over them. That isn't a problem for Amil at all, but it is for Premil since, with Premil, not all believers from all time have part in the first resurrection.

Suppose Revelation 20:4 had said this instead---and they lived again and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Would that change how some of you are currently interpreting it?

Sure. But, it doesn't say that, so it's pointless to even waste time talking about how we would interpret it if it said something else.

Per Premil none of the rest of the dead meant are physically alive during the thousand years. Per Amil the rest of the dead meant, all of them are still physically alive during the thousand years, except for any of the dead who were already dead before the beginning of the first century. How can any of the rest of the dead still be physically alive during the thousand years if we are told, as of the first resurrection, the rest of the dead, they lived not again until the thousand years expire? This implies they have to already be physically dead at this point, as of the first resurrection, doesn't it?

As always, you are only looking at things from your own perspective and not even attempting to try to look at it the way an Amil does. How can you even hope to understand what we believe and why if you don't make any effort to try to look at things from our perspective?

From the Amil perspective, the rest of the dead would include all unbelievers who were dead when Christ began to reign long ago as well as any unbelievers who died after that. Amil doesn't require that the only ones who reign with Christ reign with Him for the full thousand years and it doesn't require the rest of the dead to only refer to those unbelievers who were dead before the beginning of the thousand years. Those are things that Premil requires. You're always trying to force Amil to fit the requirements that Premil demands. We're not obligated to do that since we don't see the first resurrection as being the mass bodily resurrection that will occur at Christ's second coming.

Why call them the rest of the dead if some of them are still physically alive during the thousand years?

Because it's talking about any of them who died before and during the thousand years.

Wouldn't this mean there is no hope for these, that their destiny is already determined before they have physically died?

No. You're reading way too much into the text. It's only talking about unbelievers. It's not declaring the fate of any particular person, it's just talking about anyone who was unsaved when they died and anyone who is unsaved when they die from the time the thousand years began on.

Clearly, the rest of the dead meant in verse 5, their destiny is the LOF since it is only those that have part in the first resurrection, that their destiny is not the LOF.

Obviously. Did you think I disagreed with that?

BTW, of all things, I had a dream about the thousand years last night. A dream about the debate. And in the dream the debate was favoring Amil not Premil. Don't know what it means? I don't recall every detail of the dream, unfortunately.

It means that you need to become an Amil, obviously.

 

[Zao is life]

The Beast

Revelation 17:8 states, “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”

This passage strongly shows that the beast existed prior to the day of John, stating, “the beast that was.” Notwithstanding, the terminology that follows appears slightly contradictory – “is not, and yet is.” One could be tempted to reason: it either is or else it isn’t, notwithstanding, this reading plainly says that it both “is” and “is not.” The import of the reading appears to demonstrate that the beast did exist in John’s day, and in fact, before John’s day, but that it had not fully developed into what it would eventually become. There is a saying in Northern Ireland that appears to explain this reading – ‘He is a big fellow, but a wee jacket fits him’ i.e. ‘he is not as big as he thinks he is’. This appears to be the meaning.

Revelation 17:11-13 further enlarges, “the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 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.”

A plain reading of these passages proves that, whatever the beast truly represents, he/it was expressly in existence before the time that John received this symbolic revelation. The beast cannot therefore merely be a last few years end-time phenomenon, as some would have us believe. After all, he existed before John wrote Revelation. We learn through the apostle’s first century testimony that the beast expressly “was” (past tense)...

Hello SG.

God bless you.

Post #1 (your OP) is all true, but you use biblical truth to support a 1+1=3 logical fallacy: None of the facts you list in Post #1 proves Revelation 20 is talking about a thousand years, where:
(a) the second death has no power over us NOW, even before our own bodily resurrection (i.e OSAS); and
(b) one thousand years = a sci-fi space time where 1,000 years is spiritual time = no time = at least 1,990+ years.

I could provide a very strong biblical argument using only two passages in the Revelation for the new heavens and new earth following immediately after the return of Christ. But your OP, though well thought out, well presented, and packed with facts, is still not proving anything about Revelation 20 - it's still back to which assumption people choose to make: You've assumed that all the FACTS in your OP proves the thousand years of Revelation 20 is not a literal thousand years - but you only do so from the basis of your 1+1=3 logical fallacy which is produced by the assumption you have made and continue to make regarding the thousand years of Revelation 20.

Whereas your OP is excellent (aside from not proving a symbolic thousand years), your arguments regarding Revelation 17 in the above post appear convoluted, and comes across as nothing more than a desperate attempt to understand an extremely tricky passage.

The 10 kings and the 7th kingdom (head) of Revelation 17 did not exist in the 1st century when John received the Revelation. We know this because John is expressly told:

* ".. the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have received no kingdom yet, but will receive authority as kings one hour with the beast." (verse 12).
* ".. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. And there are seven kings; five have fallen, and one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition." (verses 9-11).
* The beast mentioned in verse 11: The beast that "was" (i.e had existed before John received the Revelation) "is not" (i.e did not exist at the time John received the Revelation) was introduced in verse 8:

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (verse 8).

Notice that the text tells us that the 10 kings mentioned in verse 12 will hand their power and authority over to the beast that "was and is not", but these 10 kings had not yet received a kingdom when John received the Revelation. When John received the Revelation, five kingdoms and their kings (the heads of the beast) had come and gone, one existed at the time John received the Revelation, and the seventh had not yet come.

* Revelation 13:8 says of the seven-headed-ten-horned beast that "all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world." Compare this with 17:8:

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (Revelation 17:8).

It does seem that the 10 horns of the beast rising from the sea in Revelation 13 are the same 10 horns/10 kings that will give their power and authority to the the beast that "was and is not", making it/him the 8th king (Revelation 17:11).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The best way to understand the beast that "was, is not and will ascend out of the bottomless pit" is to imagine a woman who was married and divorced 7 times, to seven different men.

Then she marries an 8th time, but her 8th husband is one of the first seven.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The Revelation most definitely is remaining consistent with biblical symbolism regarding beasts and horns, and it most certainly is telling us about seven kingdoms and their kings, five of whom had come and gone by the time John received the Revelation, one of whom existed when John received the Revelation, and another (the seventh) which was yet to come at the time John received the Revelation.

John was told that this seventh kingdom would have 10 kings who would hand over their power and authority to the beast that "was, and is not, and yet is", making it/him the 8th king.

Like the 8th husband of our imaginary female celebrity wannabe (who was onto her 6th husband at the time John received the Revelation), this beast had existed even before John received the Revelation, no longer existed when John received the Revelation, and yet it/he would rise from the bottomless pit and exist again as the 8th king.

So we now have 1,900+ years of history following John's penning of the Revelation from which we can make lots of guesses as to the identity of the beast that "was and is not" (who John was told would be the 8th king who would receive all the power and authority of the ten kings of the 7th "head", who were still to come when John received the Revelation).

Admittedly it's not as easy as working out the identity of the players in the house that Jack built, but it's easy enough not to get too lost in the details of Revelation 17 and Revelation 13. The big problem with any theory which identifies the beast that "was and is not" as anything other than the beast which gets destroyed by Christ at the time of His return, is that the Revelation repeatedly states that this beast will be destroyed by Christ at His return.

So (the house that Jack built) if we assume that those mentioned in Revelation 20 had refused to worship some other beast, and we assume this is the case because we assume that the thousand years are not literal, and we assume that the thousand years are not literal because we assume that our reigning with Christ NOW = the 2nd death has no power over us NOW (and we are those mentioned in Revelation 20),

then among other things we will need to develop other convoluted theories such as the theory regarding Revelation 17 which you shared in the post quoted above.

It's a pity, because your OP, aside from the logical fallacy of assuming it proves a non-literal thousand years, was excellent and packed with truth that should cause the most damaged, hobbling crippled believers to be uplifted in spirit and to sing praise God in their hearts, if they read all those verses in your OP carefully.

I have not quoted the two passages in the Revelation which I believe prove that the NHNE follows immediately after the return of Christ, because that's a different subject, and not part of your posts which I've spoken about here.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, and that is my argument as well. The Greek word translated as "lived" in verse 4 (zao) is different than the one used in verse 5 (anazao) where it talks about the rest of the dead living again. Tell me why different words were used there if they are meant to mean the same thing? The word used in verse 4 is not one that is used to describe a resurrection while the word used in verse 5 is one that is used to refer to a resurrection. Explain that if verse 4 is talking about people being bodily resurrected.

This is yet another one of those things that we've talked about before multiple times and you seem to have completely forgotten that. You don't give any indication that you recall us ever having talked about this before even though we have at least a few different times.

I recall our past discussions. Over time some ppl are capable of changing their mind about something, or at least rethinking things. I know I'm capable of things like that. I guess you already have your mind fully made up about most of these things.

Let's look at another place zao is used rather that anazao, then tell me why zao doesn't mean the same as anazoa in this case?

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth(zao), and was dead; and, behold, I am alive(zao) for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Do you then see it being incorrect to understand it like such---I am he that liveth again, and was dead?

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Do you then see it being incorrect to understand it like such---These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive again?

You're always trying to force Amil to fit the requirements that Premil demands. We're not obligated to do that since we don't see the first resurrection as being the mass bodily resurrection that will occur at Christ's second coming.

And you have room to talk? Isn't that what you do with Zechariah 14, for instance? Aren't you trying to force Premil to fit the requirements that Amil demands? Especially in regards to verses 16-19.

Because it's talking about any of them who died before and during the thousand years.

That's a fair point I guess. I'll just leave it at that for now.

Obviously. Did you think I disagreed with that?

That wasn't the reason I said that. It was simply part of my trying to reason through things.

 

[DavidPT]

I have not quoted the two passages in the Revelation which I believe prove that the NHNE follows immediately after the return of Christ, because that's a different subject, and not part of your posts which I've spoken about here.

If you are up to it anytime soon, it would be nice if you could start a thread on this since I for one am interested in your thoughts on this. I, too, though I'm a Premil, tend to think the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming. Most Premils are against this idea, yet these same Premils have Isaiah 65 involving the thousand years, where that obviously involves the NHNE. As if there is a former NHNE followed by a new completely different NHNE. All one has to do is read Revelation 21:1 and it's plainly obvious that one NHNE doesn't precede another NHNE.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Does this mean this---And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away? Of course not. It is meaning the present heaven and the present earth were passed away.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Hello SG.

God bless you.

Post #1 (your OP) is all true, but you use biblical truth to support a 1+1=3 logical fallacy: None of the facts you list in Post #1 proves Revelation 20 is talking about a thousand years, where:
(a) the second death has no power over us NOW, even before our own bodily resurrection (i.e OSAS); and
(b) one thousand years = a sci-fi space time where 1,000 years is spiritual time = no time = at least 1,990+ years.

I could provide a very strong biblical argument using only two passages in the Revelation for the new heavens and new earth following immediately after the return of Christ. But your OP, though well thought out, well presented, and packed with facts, is still not proving anything about Revelation 20 - it's still back to which assumption people choose to make: You've assumed that all the FACTS in your OP proves the thousand years of Revelation 20 is not a literal thousand years - but you only do so from the basis of your 1+1=3 logical fallacy which is produced by the assumption you have made and continue to make regarding the thousand years of Revelation 20.

Whereas your OP is excellent (aside from not proving a symbolic thousand years), your arguments regarding Revelation 17 in the above post appear convoluted, and comes across as nothing more than a desperate attempt to understand an extremely tricky passage.

The 10 kings and the 7th kingdom (head) of Revelation 17 did not exist in the 1st century when John received the Revelation. We know this because John is expressly told:

* ".. the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have received no kingdom yet, but will receive authority as kings one hour with the beast." (verse 12).
* ".. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. And there are seven kings; five have fallen, and one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition." (verses 9-11).
* The beast mentioned in verse 11: The beast that "was" (i.e had existed before John received the Revelation) "is not" (i.e did not exist at the time John received the Revelation) was introduced in verse 8:

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (verse 8).

Notice that the text tells us that the 10 kings mentioned in verse 12 will hand their power and authority over to the beast that "was and is not", but these 10 kings had not yet received a kingdom when John received the Revelation. When John received the Revelation, five kingdoms and their kings (the heads of the beast) had come and gone, one existed at the time John received the Revelation, and the seventh had not yet come.

* Revelation 13:8 says of the seven-headed-ten-horned beast that "all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world." Compare this with 17:8:

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (Revelation 17:8).

It does seem that the 10 horns of the beast rising from the sea in Revelation 13 are the same 10 horns/10 kings that will give their power and authority to the the beast that "was and is not", making it/him the 8th king (Revelation 17:11).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The best way to understand the beast that "was, is not and will ascend out of the bottomless pit" is to imagine a woman who was married and divorced 7 times, to seven different men.

Then she marries an 8th time, but her 8th husband is one of the first seven.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The Revelation most definitely is remaining consistent with biblical symbolism regarding beasts and horns, and it most certainly is telling us about seven kingdoms and their kings, five of whom had come and gone by the time John received the Revelation, one of whom existed when John received the Revelation, and another (the seventh) which was yet to come at the time John received the Revelation.

John was told that this seventh kingdom would have 10 kings who would hand over their power and authority to the beast that "was, and is not, and yet is", making it/him the 8th king.

Like the 8th husband of our imaginary female celebrity wannabe (who was onto her 6th husband at the time John received the Revelation), this beast had existed even before John received the Revelation, no longer existed when John received the Revelation, and yet it/he would rise from the bottomless pit and exist again as the 8th king.

So we now have 1,900+ years of history following John's penning of the Revelation from which we can make lots of guesses as to the identity of the beast that "was and is not" (who John was told would be the 8th king who would receive all the power and authority of the ten kings of the 7th "head", who were still to come when John received the Revelation).

Admittedly it's not as easy as working out the identity of the players in the house that Jack built, but it's easy enough not to get too lost in the details of Revelation 17 and Revelation 13. The big problem with any theory which identifies the beast that "was and is not" as anything other than the beast which gets destroyed by Christ at the time of His return, is that the Revelation repeatedly states that this beast will be destroyed by Christ at His return.

So (the house that Jack built) if we assume that those mentioned in Revelation 20 had refused to worship some other beast, and we assume this is the case because we assume that the thousand years are not literal, and we assume that the thousand years are not literal because we assume that our reigning with Christ NOW = the 2nd death has no power over us NOW (and we are those mentioned in Revelation 20),

then among other things we will need to develop other convoluted theories such as the theory regarding Revelation 17 which you shared in the post quoted above.

It's a pity, because your OP, aside from the logical fallacy of assuming it proves a non-literal thousand years, was excellent and packed with truth that should cause the most damaged, hobbling crippled believers to be uplifted in spirit and to sing praise God in their hearts, if they read all those verses in your OP carefully.

I have not quoted the two passages in the Revelation which I believe prove that the NHNE follows immediately after the return of Christ, because that's a different subject, and not part of your posts which I've spoken about here.

I also believe that the NHNE follows immediately after the return of Christ.

There is a reason why Amillennialists do not take the thousand years literally!

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That's exactly what I was meaning. Since the 2nd coming is recorded in the Discourse, and that if satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming, which portions of the Discourse do Amils propose involve satan's little season? If Amils think none of the Discourse involves satan's little season, why even insist satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming then?

We know that time period is marked by increased deception and wickedness. So, I could see Matthew 24:9-13 and Matthew 24:23-26 as relating to Satan's little season. Also, I would say that the days before His second coming that Jesus compared to the days of Noah before the flood involve Satan's little season as well (Matt 24:37-39).

 

[sovereigngrace]

Hello SG.

God bless you.

Post #1 (your OP) is all true, but you use biblical truth to support a 1+1=3 logical fallacy: None of the facts you list in Post #1 proves Revelation 20 is talking about a thousand years, where:
(a) the second death has no power over us NOW, even before our own bodily resurrection (i.e OSAS); and
(b) one thousand years = a sci-fi space time where 1,000 years is spiritual time = no time = at least 1,990+ years.

I could provide a very strong biblical argument using only two passages in the Revelation for the new heavens and new earth following immediately after the return of Christ. But your OP, though well thought out, well presented, and packed with facts, is still not proving anything about Revelation 20 - it's still back to which assumption people choose to make: You've assumed that all the FACTS in your OP proves the thousand years of Revelation 20 is not a literal thousand years - but you only do so from the basis of your 1+1=3 logical fallacy which is produced by the assumption you have made and continue to make regarding the thousand years of Revelation 20.

Whereas your OP is excellent (aside from not proving a symbolic thousand years), your arguments regarding Revelation 17 in the above post appear convoluted, and comes across as nothing more than a desperate attempt to understand an extremely tricky passage.

The 10 kings and the 7th kingdom (head) of Revelation 17 did not exist in the 1st century when John received the Revelation. We know this because John is expressly told:

* ".. the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have received no kingdom yet, but will receive authority as kings one hour with the beast." (verse 12).
* ".. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits. And there are seven kings; five have fallen, and one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition." (verses 9-11).
* The beast mentioned in verse 11: The beast that "was" (i.e had existed before John received the Revelation) "is not" (i.e did not exist at the time John received the Revelation) was introduced in verse 8:

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (verse 8).

Notice that the text tells us that the 10 kings mentioned in verse 12 will hand their power and authority over to the beast that "was and is not", but these 10 kings had not yet received a kingdom when John received the Revelation. When John received the Revelation, five kingdoms and their kings (the heads of the beast) had come and gone, one existed at the time John received the Revelation, and the seventh had not yet come.

* Revelation 13:8 says of the seven-headed-ten-horned beast that "all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world." Compare this with 17:8:

"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (Revelation 17:8).

It does seem that the 10 horns of the beast rising from the sea in Revelation 13 are the same 10 horns/10 kings that will give their power and authority to the the beast that "was and is not", making it/him the 8th king (Revelation 17:11).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The best way to understand the beast that "was, is not and will ascend out of the bottomless pit" is to imagine a woman who was married and divorced 7 times, to seven different men.

Then she marries an 8th time, but her 8th husband is one of the first seven.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The Revelation most definitely is remaining consistent with biblical symbolism regarding beasts and horns, and it most certainly is telling us about seven kingdoms and their kings, five of whom had come and gone by the time John received the Revelation, one of whom existed when John received the Revelation, and another (the seventh) which was yet to come at the time John received the Revelation.

John was told that this seventh kingdom would have 10 kings who would hand over their power and authority to the beast that "was, and is not, and yet is", making it/him the 8th king.

Like the 8th husband of our imaginary female celebrity wannabe (who was onto her 6th husband at the time John received the Revelation), this beast had existed even before John received the Revelation, no longer existed when John received the Revelation, and yet it/he would rise from the bottomless pit and exist again as the 8th king.

So we now have 1,900+ years of history following John's penning of the Revelation from which we can make lots of guesses as to the identity of the beast that "was and is not" (who John was told would be the 8th king who would receive all the power and authority of the ten kings of the 7th "head", who were still to come when John received the Revelation).

Admittedly it's not as easy as working out the identity of the players in the house that Jack built, but it's easy enough not to get too lost in the details of Revelation 17 and Revelation 13. The big problem with any theory which identifies the beast that "was and is not" as anything other than the beast which gets destroyed by Christ at the time of His return, is that the Revelation repeatedly states that this beast will be destroyed by Christ at His return.

So (the house that Jack built) if we assume that those mentioned in Revelation 20 had refused to worship some other beast, and we assume this is the case because we assume that the thousand years are not literal, and we assume that the thousand years are not literal because we assume that our reigning with Christ NOW = the 2nd death has no power over us NOW (and we are those mentioned in Revelation 20),

then among other things we will need to develop other convoluted theories such as the theory regarding Revelation 17 which you shared in the post quoted above.

It's a pity, because your OP, aside from the logical fallacy of assuming it proves a non-literal thousand years, was excellent and packed with truth that should cause the most damaged, hobbling crippled believers to be uplifted in spirit and to sing praise God in their hearts, if they read all those verses in your OP carefully.

I have not quoted the two passages in the Revelation which I believe prove that the NHNE follows immediately after the return of Christ, because that's a different subject, and not part of your posts which I've spoken about here.

My previous post re the beast proves that the beast was before John. The same goes for the mystery of iniquity and antichrist. They all relate to the same ongoing entity. The symbolic description is looking at its whole life, which takes it right up until the second coming.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I recall our past discussions. Over time some ppl are capable of changing their mind about something, or at least rethinking things. I know I'm capable of things like that. I guess you already have your mind fully made up about most of these things.

If I ever change my mind on these things I'll be sure to let you know. I have not seen you change your mind at all on these things after all these years. So, that's why all you need to do is think of what we've talked about in the past about this and there's your answer. Assuming you can recall what we've said about it in the past. If not, that's fine, we can go over it again. But, you did say you recall our past discussions and neither of us have changed our views since then, so....yeah.

Let's look at another place zao is used rather that anazao, then tell me why zao doesn't mean the same as anazoa in this case?

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth(zao), and was dead; and, behold, I am alive(zao) for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Do you then see it being incorrect to understand it like such---I am he that liveth again, and was dead?

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Do you then see it being incorrect to understand it like such---These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive again?

We've had this exact discussion before. If you recalled those discussions I'm not sure why you would be asking me this now. You'd already know what I believe because my beliefs on Revelation 20 have not changed since then.

Anyway, those verses are not speaking of the actual act of Jesus being resurrected. They are speaking of the fact that He was previously dead and is now alive. If it was talking about the actual act of Him being resurrected then the word anazao would have been used instead of zao.

If you're trying to argue that the word zao can be used to refer to a resurrection, then tell me why it's not used in verse 5 where the word anazao is used instead. I believe two different words are used for a reason, but you apparently don't?

And you have room to talk? Isn't that what you do with Zechariah 14, for instance? Aren't you trying to force Premil to fit the requirements that Amil demands? Especially in regards to verses 16-19.

No, that isn't what I do with Zechariah 14. How do you figure that is the case? I don't try to force you to look at it from the Amil perspective in terms of the timing of it in relation to the second coming of Christ. The only thing I do is talk about how it's not possible for animal sacrifices to be reinstated in the future and believing that Zechariah 14:16-19 is literal and will happen in the future requires you to believe in animal sacrifices being reinstated because that is what observing the feast of tabernacles involves. That's undeniable.

But, if you have some kind of spiritual interpretation of that passage instead of a literal, physical interpretation, then what is it? I've never seen it.

 

[Bob_1000]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Those who have had part in the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5), live and reign with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead are the rest who do not live and reign with Christ and they do not have part in the first resurrection since they are not resurrected until AFTER the thousand years is over. The rest of the dead are the unjust. They get resurrected after the thousand years and after Satan's little season and then face judgment, as recorded in Revelation 20:11-15.

You apparently are not recognizing that when it says in verse 5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished", it is a parenthetical statement and has nothing to do with the first resurrection. The statement "This is the first resurrection" refers back to verse 4. So, it is the ones described in verse 4 who have part in the first resurrection, not "the rest of the dead".

It can't be a parenthetical statement when the resurrection of the just and the unjust take place on the LAST DAY.

The only thing parenthetical in those verses is the 1st resurrection. The first group of believers died before Christ paid for the right to raise them, the second group of believers were alive at the resurrection which explains what the 1000 years represent. It's even spelled out right here:

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

It's just like the cattle on a THOUSAND hills. Everybody knows that's not literal, it represents SHEEP that belong to God. Every day in the life of the sheep on a thousand hills is a "thousand years".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you are up to it anytime soon, it would be nice if you could start a thread on this since I for one am interested in your thoughts on this. I, too, though I'm a Premil, tend to think the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming. Most Premils are against this idea, yet these same Premils have Isaiah 65 involving the thousand years, where that obviously involves the NHNE. As if there is a former NHNE followed by a new completely different NHNE. All one has to do is read Revelation 21:1 and it's plainly obvious that one NHNE doesn't precede another NHNE.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Does this mean this---And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away? Of course not. It is meaning the present heaven and the present earth were passed away.

It makes no sense for a Premil to think that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in at the second coming of Christ in light of the fact that John said there will be no more death at that point (Rev 21:4). Most Premils disagree with you on that for good reason.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It can't be a parenthetical statement when the resurrection of the just and the unjust take place on the LAST DAY.

It is a parenthetical statement. The NIV even puts parentheses there. But I do agree with that the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust will take place on the last day. That has not yet occurred. But, that isn't what Revelation 20:4-5 is about. The first resurrection is Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, 1 Cor 15:20, Rev 1:5). We spiritually have part in His resurrection when we're saved. The souls John saw were in heaven and they live and reign with Christ there. Revelation 20:4 is not speaking about the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ, but is speaking of those who have died and had spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection.

The only thing parenthetical in those verses is the 1st resurrection. The first group of believers died before Christ paid for the right to raise them, the second group of believers were alive at the resurrection which explains what the 1000 years represent. It's even spelled out right here:

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

It's just like the cattle on a THOUSAND hills. Everybody knows that's not literal, it represents SHEEP that belong to God. Every day in the life of the sheep on a thousand hills is a "thousand years".

I don't know what you're talking about here. Maybe you weren't aware, but I'm an Amillennialist and I don't take the thousand years literally. However, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the thousand years of Revelation 20.

 

[DavidPT]

It makes no sense for a Premil to think that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in at the second coming of Christ in light of the fact that John said there will be no more death at that point (Rev 21:4). Most Premils disagree with you on that for good reason.

Why then do these same Premils think some of Isaiah 65 involves the thousand years? Does not any of that involve the NHNE? How does it make good sense for them to disagree with me when they are doing the exact same thing? If they have some of Isaiah 65 involving the thousand years after the 2nd coming, and that this involves the NHNE according to those same verses, how can that not be the same thing that I'm concluding, that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming?

I know what you're probably thinking. That's something I need to ask them not you. But that is beside the point. The point has to do with you finding it a good reason for most Premils to disagree with me about that when they are doing the exact same thing themselves. I'm not aware of any Premil who thinks none of Isaiah 65 involves the thousand years. It's not like there are two sets of NHNE or something. There is only one NHNE in the future.

 

[ShineyDays2]

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 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.

Am I to assume you don't have any letitimate answers to my questions that were in post #1221 which were....

~ What is the difference between Gog and Magog?
~ Where are the "four quarters of the earth"?
~ Our planet earth does not have corners to it so what does that mean?
~ What "nations" are going to be deceived?

 

[DavidPT]

Am I to assume you don't have any letitimate answers to my questions that were in post #1221 which were....

~ What is the difference between Gog and Magog?
~ Where are the "four quarters of the earth"?
~ Our planet earth does not have corners to it so what does that mean?
~ What "nations" are going to be deceived?

I did see your questions at an earlier time. Just haven't gotten around to try and answer any of them yet.

(What is the difference between Gog and Magog?)

According to Ezekiel 38-39 Gog appears to be a person, a spirit being perhaps, and Magog appears to be meaning land.

(Where are the "four quarters of the earth"?)

I thought I already said where they are when I said this seems to involve global not just regional. I take the 4 quarters of the earth to mean the entire planet.


(Our planet earth does not have corners to it so what does that mean?)

I just explained with the prev answer.

(What "nations" are going to be deceived? )


All nations, apparently.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Why then do these same Premils think some of Isaiah 65 involves the thousand years? Does not any of that involve the NHNE? How does it make good sense for them to disagree with me when they are doing the exact same thing? If they have some of Isaiah 65 involving the thousand years after the 2nd coming, and that this involves the NHNE according to those same verses, how can that not be the same thing that I'm concluding, that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming?

I know what you're probably thinking. That's something I need to ask them not you. But that is beside the point. The point has to do with you finding it a good reason for most Premils to disagree with me about that when they are doing the exact same thing themselves. I'm not aware of any Premil who thinks none of Isaiah 65 involves the thousand years. It's not like there are two sets of NHNE or something. There is only one NHNE in the future.

That is not true. And stop talking on behalf of all Premils. Most Premils have a corrupt Mark 1 version of the NHNE and have a perfect Mark 2 version of the NHNE.

 

[DavidPT]

That is not true. And stop talking on behalf of all Premils. Most Premils have a corrupt Mark 1 version of the NHNE and have a perfect Mark 2 version of the NHNE.

You are making zero sense to me here. What point are you trying to make? Is it reasonable for anyone to think that there is 2 NHNEs then, where one is temporary and the other is permanent or something? I'm Premil and I too think some of Isaiah 65 involves the thousand years. Maybe the solution is, like I have proposed in the past, the NHNE are a process in the beginning, something that doesn't happen in a snap of the fingers. That it takes a thousand years, a little season, and a great white throne judgment to get to the final result of what the NHNE will end up being.

At least I'm not thinking something silly, such as everything can be fulfilled within 24 hours or less once Christ returns, as if everyone present at the GWTJ can stand before God one at a time to give an account of themselves, and that this judgment can be started and finished within the same 24 hours it allegedly begins.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You are making zero sense to me here. What point are you trying to make? Is it reasonable for anyone to think that there is 2 NHNEs then, where one is temporary and the other is permanent or something? I'm Premil and I too think some of Isaiah 65 involves the thousand years. Maybe the solution is, like I have proposed in the past, the NHNE are a process in the beginning, something that doesn't happen in a snap of the fingers. That it takes a thousand years, a little season, and a great white throne judgment to get to the final result of what the NHNE will end up being.

At least I'm not thinking something silly, such as everything can be fulfilled within 24 hours or less once Christ returns, as if everyone present at the GWTJ can stand before God one at a time to give an account of themselves, and that this judgment can be started and finished within the same 24 hours it allegedly begins.

Impossible. The NHNE is perfect. You continually misunderstand and misrepresent Isaiah 65. When I have presented a literal Hebrew rendering of it you have ignored it.

You keep hurling your false charge of "everything can be fulfilled within 24 hours or less once Christ returns" at Amils despite that been refuted numerous times. This is another white elephant and shows how little you grasp about Amil after all these years. I can only conclude that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent that position because you have no answer to it.