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

[Spiritual Jew]

You have a strange sense of Satan working over time in the OT, and literally doing nothing for the past 1991 years.

I don't believe that Satan has been literally doing nothing for the past 1991 years. All you ever do is misrepresent what I believe. Is it on purpose or do you just have terrible reading comprehension?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Are some of you unable to read what the text plainly states? What does the text plainly state? It states this---when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory.

Either Scripture interprets Scripture or it doesn't. I happen to think it does.

Yes, it does. Matthew 25:41 is clearly describing the same event as Revelation 20:15. What else can the goats being cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels represent except for those whose names are not written in the book of life being cast into the lake of fire?

Using scripture to interpret scripture, since Matthew 25:41 happens at Christ's return and Revelation 20:15 happens AFTER the thousand years and Satan's little season then we have to conclude that Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:11-15 are portraying the same judgment and will occur when Christ returns which will be AFTER the thousand years and Satan's little season.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Even though I'm a Premil, I'm not exactly your typical Premil. Premils do have a gap as indicated in 2.). But, since I'm not the typical Premil I don't have this same gap being applied per my view. Therefore, my position is basically 1.) and not 2.) instead. It makes zero sense that if the overcomers are rewarded with authority over things when the 2nd coming occurs, that they have to wait a thousand years and a little season to be rewarded with having right to the tree of life, having right to enter the gates of the city. My view is, the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming in the end of this age and that the thousand years are the first thousand years of the everlasting NHNE.

Your belief about the NHNE makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Revelation 21: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.

This verse indicates that the new heaven and new earth are not ushered in at all in any way, shape or form until the first heaven and first earth pass away first. Since you, like Amils, believe the NHNE is ushered in at the return of Christ, then you must believe that the first heaven and first earth, which is the current heaven and earth, pass away first. So, in what sense do you believe heaven and earth will pass away at Christ's second coming?

And then what about this:

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

How do you interpret this verse? Do you think that this verse isn't fulfilled until 1000 years (plus Satan's little season) after Revelation 21:1? It seems like you must believe that since you certainly don't believe that there will be no more death after Christ returns. So, where is there any indication that Revelation 21:4 would be fulfilled at a much later time than Revelation 21:1? It seems to me that the statement "for the former things are passed away" would include the first heaven and first earth passing away, so that places the fulfillment of this verse at the same time as when the first heaven and first earth pass away and the new heaven and new earth are ushered in.

 

[DavidPT]

How many times do you want me to say it? There is NO GAP. Jesus ushers in eternity.

The logic is this. Jesus returns. The very second He returns is not meaning 1 Corinthians 15:24 at that point in time. Even if 1 Corinthians 15:24 were fulfilled 5 minutes after He has returned, that means there is a gap of 5 minutes after He has returned and that 1 Corinthians 15:24 is fulfilled. Even though it's silly to think all of that can take place within 5 minutes, even this example, as silly as it is, proves a gap.

If you still insist there is no gap whatsoever, this obviously adds up to that you think, though you don't actually think this, yet it's what it adds up to though, that when Christ returns He doesn't destroy the lost after He has returned, nor does He raise the lost dead after He returns, nor does He execute the GWTJ after He returns, though it is plainly obvious that all of those thing are meaning after He returns, and that all of those things have to be fulfilled before 1 Corinthians 15:24 can be fulfilled.

IOW, it is a contradiction to claim there is no gap after He has returned and when 1 Corinthians 15:24 is meaning, then agree that Christ destroys the lost, raises the lost dead, executes the GWTJ, after He has returned, then 1 Corinthians 15:24 is fulfilled.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The logic is this. Jesus returns. The very second He returns is not meaning 1 Corinthians 15:24 at that point in time. Even if 1 Corinthians 15:24 were fulfilled 5 minutes after He has returned, that means there is a gap of 5 minutes after He has returned and that 1 Corinthians 15:24 is fulfilled. Even though it's silly to think all of that can take place within 5 minutes, even this example, as silly as it is, proves a gap.

If you still insist there is no gap whatsoever, this obviously adds up to that you think, though you don't actually think this, yet it's what it adds up to though, that when Christ returns He doesn't destroy the lost after He has returned, nor does He raise the lost dead after He returns, nor does He execute the GWTJ after He returns, though it is plainly obvious that all of those thing are meaning after He returns, and that all of those things have to be fulfilled before 1 Corinthians 15:24 can be fulfilled.

IOW, it is a contradiction to claim there is no gap after He has returned and when 1 Corinthians 15:24 is meaning, then agree that Christ destroys the lost, raises the lost dead, executes the GWTJ, after He has returned, then 1 Corinthians 15:24 is fulfilled.

Amils believe the coming of Christ is a wholesale climactic event that includes the rescue of the elect, the destruction of the wicked, the resurrection and judgment of mankind. Time is no longer relevant because we are now in eternity. This is the end!

 

[Timtofly]

This is another passage that blows apart Premillennialism. As you well know: there is no 1,000 yrs mentioned (or recognized) in this passage. You have to force it into the sacred text. It rather demonstrates (like the rest of Scripture) that the end is the end and that it

Yet, you yourself force this 1000 years into an intra-Advent period not in the text. If there has not been 1991 years between the Cross and the Second Coming, then surely there will not be a 1000 years between the Second Coming and the end. We are all preterist and just do not know it. There is literally no time between the Cross and the end, if a day. It was a singularity, and Paul was writing as if it all, happened already. If there is no time placed in the text, you cannot claim one and deny the other, based on one forcing any time into the text. If it is wrong to place the 1000 years, it is also wrong to place 1991 years as well. No time has happened, because "any time" breaks your rule that "time should not be interjected into the text".

 

[DavidPT]

How is it obvious to you that the sheep and goats judgment takes place on earth? What is that based on?

Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In like manner involves Him being physically present at one location, then departing that location, then arriving at another location, then being physically present at that location instead. He was initially physically present on the earth. Then left the earth and ascended to heaven, and once arriving there, He is then physically present in heaven.

The opposite of that would be, He is physically present in heaven, He then leaves heaven descending to the earth, and once arriving there He is then physically present on the earth.

Then there is this in Matthew 25.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


Where would He be coming to if not the earth? Where would He then be sitting upon the throne of His glory if not the earth? It's not like Jesus is not a physical person. Maybe the throne is not literal, or maybe it even is, Jesus is literal though, and the earth is literal, and that Jesus obviously will be dwelling on the earth forever at some point. Why would He not start doing that when He is sitting upon the throne of His glory? It's your interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3 that is clouding some of your thinking, which BTW, Revelation 19 also involves the 2nd coming, yet it doesn't even remotely depict anything involving 2 Peter 3 that you take in the literal sense, as happening at the time. Revelation 19 does not depict a planet that is literally engulfed in flames at the time, and that the lost are literally being burned to death.

Do you think the following two verses somehow are not speaking of the same thing? If so, then explain how that can be the case.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The LOF is clearly in view in Revelation 19, and it does indicate that the beast and fp are cast alive into the LOF at that time. Maybe the goats join them as well at the time? The sheep and goats judgment is meaning at the 2nd coming. Clearly, Christ judges and sentences the goats at that time. It would make no sense to raise them again later, then judge them yet again, sentence them yet again, therefore, even though Revelation 19 doesn't mention anyone else joining the beast and fp at the time, being cast into the LOF, maybe the goats do get cast in when they do.

Your argument likely is, just make the sheep and the goats judgment and the GWTJ one and the same, nothing to speculate about at that point. Maybe so, but none of that solves what I initially brought up before I got to this part since you don't even believe Christ sets foot on this present planet ever again, that He only sets foot on it once the NNHE are created first.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In like manner involves Him being physically present at one location, then departing that location, then arriving at another location, then being physically present at that location instead. He was initially physically present on the earth. Then left the earth and ascended to heaven, and once arriving there, He is then physically present in heaven.

The opposite of that would be, He is physically present in heaven, He then leaves heaven descending to the earth, and once arriving there He is then physically present on the earth.

Nope. You are interpreting that passage using extreme doctrinal bias. Acts 1:11 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus returning to the same place that He left. It says He will come in like manner as they saw Him go into heaven. You're acting as if it says He will come back to where He left to go to heaven, but it does not say that at all. The manner in which He ascended to heaven was bodily and visibly. He will descend from heaven in like manner: bodily and visibly. But, scripture does not teach that He will come down to the earth, it teaches that we will meet Him "in the air". Think about it. If he was coming all the way down to the earth, then what is the point of meeting Him "in the air"? Wouldn't we just meet Him on the earth instead if He was coming down to the earth? I would think so.

Then there is this in Matthew 25.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


Where would He be coming to if not the earth?

I don't know. It doesn't say. Can you acknowledge that it doesn't tell us? You said it was obvious that it's on earth. I beg to differ.

Where would He then be sitting upon the throne of His glory if not the earth?

Wherever He wants. Revelation 20:11-15 indicates that He is sitting on a throne somewhere after heaven and earth flee away, so isn't it obvious that He's perfectly capable of judging people somewhere besides on the earth?

It's not like Jesus is not a physical person. Maybe the throne is not literal, or maybe it even is, Jesus is literal though, and the earth is literal, and that Jesus obviously will be dwelling on the earth forever at some point.

The new earth, sure. So, maybe it will be on the new earth. But, it won't be on the earth as we know it where sin and death would continue to happen afterwards.

Why would He not start doing that when He is sitting upon the throne of His glory? It's your interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3 that is clouding some of your thinking[

I could not disagree more. I find your interpretation of 2 Peter 3 to be completely ludicrous and heavily influenced by doctrinal bias. 2 Peter 3 is very clear and straightforward, but you can't see that because you look at it through biased Premil glasses.

which BTW, Revelation 19 also involves the 2nd coming, yet it doesn't even remotely depict anything involving 2 Peter 3 that you take in the literal sense, as happening at the time.

Why would figurative language resemble what happens literally? How many times do I have to tell you that symbols don't have to resemble what they represent in reality? For example, does Satan literally look like a dragon with seven heads and ten horns in reality? I'm sure he doesn't.

You interpret the figurative passage (Revelation 19) literally and the literal passage (2 Peter 3) figuratively which absolutely boggles my mind. Which passage is contained within a book that undeniably has a lot of symbolic text within it, Revelation 19 or 2 Peter 3?

Revelation 19 does not depict a planet that is literally engulfed in flames at the time, and that the lost are literally being burned to death.

That's because it's figurative language. It does portray the complete destruction of the wicked, though, which lines up with 2 Peter 3.

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

Revelation 19 describes Christ slaying people with a sword that comes out of His mouth. If you can't discern that as being symbolic, then you are just severely lacking in discernment when it comes to differentiating between symbolic and literal text.

The LOF is clearly in view in Revelation 19, and it does indicate that the beast and fp are cast alive into the LOF at that time

Which proves nothing whatsoever as it relates to the goats depicted in Matthew 25:31-46, so it's pointless to even mention that.

Maybe the goats join them as well at the time? The sheep and goats judgment is meaning at the 2nd coming.

The goats obviously represent unbelieving people. And those people don't have their names written in the book of life. Which passage more closely resembles a large number of unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire, Revelation 19:20 or Revelation 20:15? Obviously, Revelation 20:15. But, naturally, you would try to make Matthew 25:41 fit Revelation 19:20 instead because of your doctrinal bias.

Clearly, Christ judges and sentences the goats at that time. It would make no sense to raise them again later, then judge them yet again, sentence them yet again, therefore, even though Revelation 19 doesn't mention anyone else joining the beast and fp at the time, being cast into the LOF, maybe the goats do get cast in when they do.

I hope you don't think you're making a strong argument here.

Your argument likely is, just make the sheep and the goats judgment and the GWTJ one and the same, nothing to speculate about at that point. Maybe so, but none of that solves what I initially brought up before I got to this part since you don't even believe Christ sets foot on this present planet ever again, that He only sets foot on it once the NNHE are created first.

It's clear that Matthew 25:41 is the same event as Revelation 20:15, so you should interpret other scripture in light of more clear scripture like that instead of trying to change the timing of Matthew 25:41 to somehow be different than the timing of Revelation 20:15.

 

[DavidPT]

The goats obviously represent unbelieving people. And those people don't have their names written in the book of life. Which passage more closely resembles a large number of unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire, Revelation 19:20 or Revelation 20:15? Obviously, Revelation 20:15. But, naturally, you would try to make Matthew 25:41 fit Revelation 19:20 instead because of your doctrinal bias.

One shouldn't use the word 'obviously', unless it is clearly so. I might need to take my own advice on that as well.

You still fail to grasp who are meant by the goats in that context. Jesus separates them into two groups, then addresses each of them collectively as a group, and that they each collectively as a group answer Him. This doesn't mean each person is not individually judged, it just means that this judgment only involves certain type of ppl. How can anyone read that account, then see how the goats answer collectively as a group, that this group then also contains unrepentant satanists, unrepentant unbelievers, unbelieving Jews, unrepentant witches, and unrepentant atheists, to name a few?

Look at how the goats as a group answers Jesus. That indicates all of them answer Him in that manner, not just some of them instead.

Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?


How can anyone possibly not grasp that these have been professing that Jesus is their Lord? Meaning in life before they appear at this judgment. How can anyone that agrees that NOSAS is Biblical then disagree that this is meaning the ones recorded in Matthew 7 for one, where, even though they professed to do works in His name, Jesus still tells them to depart from Him? If all of the above I submitted are in this group as well, that being unrepentant atheists, etc, how could they possibly answer Jesus like that? How can anyone think that even remotely makes any sense?

 

[claninja]

The "perfect" indicates that the matter under discussion is present or simultaneous with the time of speaking.

what are you talking about? That is definitely NOT what the perfect tense means. Where are you getting your information from? You have yet to post any sources for your claims about the perfect tense.

the perfect tense indicates a past completed action with the results being experienced up to the present.

for example

“I believe” (present tense) is not the same as saying “I have believed” (perfect tense)

“The car is drawing near” (present tense) is not the same as saying “The car has drawn near” ( perfect tense)

here is actual evidence of the meaning:

Source 1:
“The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe a completed action which produced results which are still in effect all the way up to the present. Sample translation: “I have believed.”

Notice that the perfect tense carries two ideas: (1) completed action and (2) continuing results. The action was completed at some time in the past, and the results continue up to the present.”
(Greek Tenses Explained – Ezra Project).

source 2:
“The perfect tense is used to describe completed action in the present time (i.e. I have studied Greek).”
(LESSON XII: Perfect and Pluperfect Indicative Active)

source 3:

• “COMPLETED. This is a completed action that has lasting results. This aspect often reflects a state resulting from past action. For example, if someone has just died, then he is dead. In fact, it is the resulting state that is often the emphasis of this aspect, not the action of the verb itself. I have made you a drink, i.e., your drink is ready.
  • Greek marks this aspect by using the PERFECT STEM (e.g. the perfect and pluperfect tenses)“

(The Perfect System: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone)

The "active" indicates that the subject exists in the state indicated.

again, what are you talking about and where are you getting your information from? Are you just making things up as you go?

“active” is a “voice”. When a verb is in the active voice it simply means the subject performs the action of the verb.

For example:

“The boy hit the ball”. Hit is in the active voice.

“the boy was hit by by the ball” Hit is in the passive voice.

“the boy hit himself with the ball” Hit is in the middle voice.

see evidence below for how voices work:

“The Greek verb has three VOICES, the active, middle, and passive.

The active voice is used when the subject of the sentence is the agent of the action described in the verb.

The middle voice denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action.

The passive voice is used to show that the subject of the verb is acted on.”

(LESSON V: Verbs—Introductory.)

There is absolutely nothing in the perfect tense here that indicates a completed action, as you suggest.

Lol! a completed past action with ongoing results is the very definition of the perfect tense.

There is also nothing in the word or tense that expresses "LITERAL extreme closeness and/or nearness."

Helps word studies says otherwise in regards to the 14 uses of eggizo in the perfect tense:

1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

One shouldn't use the word 'obviously', unless it is clearly so. I might need to take my own advice on that as well.

In this case I feel very safe in using the word. It certainly would make no sense whatsoever for saved believers to be cast into "everlasting fire" to experience "everlasting punishment".

You still fail to grasp who are meant by the goats in that context.

No, I'm definitely not failing to grasp that at all. They suffer the same fate as what those whose names are not written in the book of life suffer, so it's very clear to me as to who the goats represent.

Jesus separates them into two groups, then addresses each of them collectively as a group, and that they each collectively as a group answer Him. This doesn't mean each person is not individually judged, it just means that this judgment only involves certain type of ppl. How can anyone read that account, then see how the goats answer collectively as a group, that this group then also contains unrepentant satanists, unrepentant unbelievers, unbelieving Jews, unrepentant witches, and unrepentant atheists, to name a few?

Why wouldn't it include them? Will they not be cast into everlasting fire to experience everlasting punishment?

Look at how the goats as a group answers Jesus. That indicates all of them answer Him in that manner, not just some of them instead.

Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?


How can anyone possibly not grasp that these have been professing that Jesus is their Lord?

That does not imply that they ever professed Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. Do you somehow not know that all people will one day acknowledge Him as Lord? For unrepentant unbelievers, it will be too late for them to be saved, but they will acknowledge Him as Lord.

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What is described in the passage above will happen on judgment day, which is what Matthew 25:31-46 portrays.

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

It's clear to me that Matthew 25:31-46 portrays what is described here in Romans 14:10-12. At that point even all the unrepentant people you mentioned will "acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father". So, when the goats are calling Him "Lord" it doesn't mean they're doing so because He was their personal Lord.

Meaning in life before they appear at this judgment. How can anyone that agrees that NOSAS is Biblical then disagree that this is meaning the ones recorded in Matthew 7 for one, where, even though they professed to do works in His name, Jesus still tells them to depart from Him? If all of the above I submitted are in this group as well, that being unrepentant atheists, etc, how could they possibly answer Jesus like that? How can anyone think that even remotely makes any sense?

Do you have to bring NOSAS into everything? My goodness, that is annoying. It's referring to all unbelievers, including those who are like the ones recorded in Matthew 7 as well as those who never acknowledged Him at all, but will acknowledge Him as Lord on that day just as everyone will.

Tell me this. Why would God want to reward a mass group of believers with eternal life in His kingdom and cast a mass group of unbelievers into the fire on two completely separate occasions separated by 1000+ years? Seems pretty inefficient. You like to talk about logic, so tell me where the logic is in that.

Also, which of the two future judgment days that you believe in do you think the following passage refers to?

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Helps word studies says otherwise in regards to the 14 uses of eggizo in the perfect tense:

1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).

On this matter, a basic understanding of “time” and “eternity” will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” or “near” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

Even you require a future fulfillment of these passages, albeit you are besotted with the wrong person and the wrong event - Titus and his coming in AD70, instead of Jesus and His return. So, you are arguing against yourself.

It is quite ironic that Preterists are quick to rubbish the interpretation of eggizō as “impending” or “approaching” yet are quick and comfortable to stretch out the word to mean 40 years down the road. That is hardly imminent! What they are in fact doing is playing games with the English language in order to support their theological bias. They are trying to force a manufactured meaning on this word in the sacred text so as to reinforce Preterism. No one could rightly a 40-years wait as imminent.

The question is: are we looking at this subject from God's perspective in heaven or from man's perspective on earth? A “brief period of time” would surely be something closer to a few hours, days or weeks rather than 40 years. For us mere earthlings who are promised approximately 70 years on this earth, 40 years is a long time. It is not “a brief period of time.” It is therefore far off in earthly terms.

When it comes to His return we are exhorted to always be prepared. The closeness is relative, because we are talking about One who lives in eternity.

Your cut-and-pastes do not display scholarly knowledge but just an ability to cherry-pick that which supports your error.

 

[claninja]

Even though I'm a Premil, I'm not exactly your typical Premil. Premils do have a gap as indicated in 2.). But, since I'm not the typical Premil I don't have this same gap being applied per my view. Therefore, my position is basically 1.) and not 2.) instead.

I’ve noticed your beliefs tend to line More with historical premil rather than dispensational, which is much more consistent than dispensational premil.

My view is, the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming in the end of this age and that the thousand years are the first thousand years of the everlasting NHNE.

interesting, so you believe the 1,000 years is literal for the first part of the NHNE. Since the NHNE mention nations still needing healing and that there are wicked outside the gates of the city (revelation 21-22)is this who the resurrected just rule over?

I definitely agree the NHNE are usher in with the 2nd coming.

I definitely agree that Christ rewards (right to sit on the throne, right to the tree of life, right to rule over the nations) at the 2nd coming.

i would also agree that the resurrection of the just is definitely involved, at least In part, in revelation 20:4-6. However, I also believe revelation 20:4-6 represents what we experience now, as we are presently a royal priest as declared by Peter (1 Peter 2:9).

In other words, I believe John, In revelation 20:4-6, is seeing 2 events normally separated by a period of time(being spiritually raised as a royal priest hood and the bodily resurrection of the just) as one single event through the lens of Christ’s resurrection at the first advent. I believe revelation 20 blocks together things according to purpose (hebrew block logic) and not chronological time (western step logic), as evidenced by the Just not being judged at the end of the chapter at the GWTJ along with the unjust.

Until implies an end of something.

not necessarily. It can also emphasize a reference point.

for example, In stephens speech, he stated the Israelites multiplied UNTIL another pharaoh arose who did not know Joseph. Now, did the Israelites cease to multiply after this time? No, In fact they multiplied more.

Acts 7:17-18 But as the time of the promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the peoples increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph.

exodus 1:12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel.

Therefore, since scriptures declare that Christ will reign forever and that there is no end to his kingdom (Luke 1:33, Hebrews 1:8), I believe 1 Corinthians 15:24, is simply a reference point, not a cessation point.

 

[claninja]

It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word.

In the perfect tense it means literal nearness according to helps word studies. You have yet to surmount this with any evidence.

Your cut-and-pastes do not display scholarly knowledge but just an ability to cherry pick that which supports your error.

What a ridiculous non argument. How do you cherry pick a definition? What part of the definition did I leave out? Please, I’m really curious to know.


If I am wrong about what the perfect tense means and what the active voice means, then Please by all means provide evidence that your understanding is correct.

So far you seem to just be making things up, and won’t provide any evidence about what you claim beside and English dictionary definition.

 

[sovereigngrace]

In the perfect tense it means literal nearness according to helps word studies. You have yet to surmount this with any evidence.





What a ridiculous non argument. How do you cherry pick a definition? What part of the definition did I leave out? Please, I’m really curious to know.


If I am wrong about what the perfect tense means and what the active voice means, then Please by all means provide evidence that your understanding is correct.

So far you seem to just be making things up, and won’t provide any evidence about what you claim beside and English dictionary definition.

Again, you avoid most of my points in most of my posts. You ignore the many arguments that blow apart Hahnism. You also avoid the self-defeating aspect of your argument. Even you require a future fulfillment of these passages, albeit you are besotted with the wrong person and the wrong event - Titus and his coming in AD70, instead of Jesus and His return. So, you are arguing against yourself.

The drawing nigh is simply telling us that the waiting is not new or fresh, but has been ongoing since Jesus left this earth to ascend to heaven. Jesus promised in John 14:2–3: “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

The perfect tense can describe an action that started in the past and is still continuing now and into the future. For example: I have lived in the United States since 2007.

It can describe an action that is being repeated between the past and present. For example: we have visited Florida many times.

 

[DavidPT]

Your belief about the NHNE makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I do tend to feel I find support for some of this in the OT, but everything I have proposed you and others see zero connection.

I don't know what else to conclude if I am convinced that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming and that I'm not convinced some things can even work with Amil, otherwise I would simply switch to Amil based on that I agree the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming.

I'm not the only person on the planet that tends to think the thousand years parallel the beginning of the NHNE. But I didn't decide to take this position because other ppl also hold to it, thus adopting their position. I wasn't even aware at the time that others also hold this position, or at least I don't recall being aware. I only became aware after I Googled this in order to see if anyone else held this position. And the same with the sheep and goats judgment and how I interpret it. There are others that interpret it similar to me, except I never realized that until after the fact, after I had Googled that as well. How is it explainable that I'm coming to some of these conclusions on my own, then later finding out others are coming to pretty much the same conclusions? Is that just a coincidence?

 

[Timtofly]

I don't believe that Satan has been literally doing nothing for the past 1991 years. All you ever do is misrepresent what I believe. Is it on purpose or do you just have terrible reading comprehension?

I said Satan literally did not do anything in the OT and you called that ridiculous. Then I claim the opposite, and you claim I have a reading comprehension issue. So why do you get to critique me, when I point out the obvious? Obviously you think he has had fun on a long chain, yet no Scripture to prove that. If you were placed in chains, what part of the sentence stating you are locked up in chains, means those chains were not supposed to completely have you bound in chains?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I said Satan literally did not do anything in the OT and you called that ridiculous.

Because it is. Have you never read the book of Job?

Then I claim the opposite, and you claim I have a reading comprehension issue.

You have misrepresented my views with your comments many times which shows that you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or you're purposely misrepresenting my views. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you have a reading comprehension problem rather than assume that you misrepresent my beliefs on purpose.

So why do you get to critique me, when I point out the obvious? Obviously you think he has had fun on a long chain, yet no Scripture to prove that.

I've given you scriptures to show the affect that Christ's death and resurrection and the preaching of the gospel have had on Satan, but you lack the discernment to understand what those scriptures mean and how they relate to his binding. I can't help that. And, you're not able to discern that Revelation 20 is figurative language describing a dragon being physically chained in a pit/prison which figuratively represents Satan's binding. But, you think it teaches that Satan will be somehow literally bound with a literal chain that prevents him from doing anything at all.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I do tend to feel I find support for some of this in the OT, but everything I have proposed you and others see zero connection.

I don't know what else to conclude if I am convinced that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming and that I'm not convinced some things can even work with Amil, otherwise I would simply switch to Amil based on that I agree the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming.

I'm not the only person on the planet that tends to think the thousand years parallel the beginning of the NHNE. But I didn't decide to take this position because other ppl also hold to it, thus adopting their position. I wasn't even aware at the time that others also hold this position, or at least I don't recall being aware. I only became aware after I Googled this in order to see if anyone else held this position. And the same with the sheep and goats judgment and how I interpret it. There are others that interpret it similar to me, except I never realized that until after the fact, after I had Googled that as well. How is it explainable that I'm coming to some of these conclusions on my own, then later finding out others are coming to pretty much the same conclusions? Is that just a coincidence?

Does Revelation locate the NHNE at the beginning or end of the millennium?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I do tend to feel I find support for some of this in the OT, but everything I have proposed you and others see zero connection.

I don't know what else to conclude if I am convinced that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming and that I'm not convinced some things can even work with Amil, otherwise I would simply switch to Amil based on that I agree the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming.

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.

Do you have the first heaven and first earth (the current heaven and earth) passing away at the second coming of Christ? I ask that because the verse above indicates that the current heaven and earth have to pass away first before the new heaven and new earth are ushered in. If you do believe the current heaven and earth pass away at the second coming, then in what sense do you believe they pass away at that time? And then what about Revelation 21:4 which indicates that there is no more death, pain, crying or sorrow at the time when the NHNE is ushered in? How do you reconcile that verse with your view?

I'm not the only person on the planet that tends to think the thousand years parallel the beginning of the NHNE.

Congratulations on not being the only one who believes that. It doesn't make me think it's any less nonsensical to me just because you're not the only one who believes that, though.

But I didn't decide to take this position because other ppl also hold to it, thus adopting their position. I wasn't even aware at the time that others also hold this position, or at least I don't recall being aware. I only became aware after I Googled this in order to see if anyone else held this position.

The position makes no sense at all. I mean none whatsoever. In my opinion. There is absolutely nothing anywhere in scripture to suggest that the creating of the new heavens and new earth is a long process. None. Instead, passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13 and Revelation 21:1-4 indicate that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in right after the current heavens and earth pass away.

And the same with the sheep and goats judgment and how I interpret it. There are others that interpret it similar to me, except I never realized that until after the fact, after I had Googled that as well.

Congrats on not being the only one to share what I consider to be a false interpretation. Obviously, there are lots of false interpretations of scripture that are shared by more than one person, so just because you're not the only one to believe this is not evidence that your interpretation is correct.

How is it explainable that I'm coming to some of these conclusions on my own, then later finding out others are coming to pretty much the same conclusions? Is that just a coincidence?

It's not a coincidence at all. But, all this means is that you're not the only one to interpret scripture with a Premil bias. If someone interprets scripture with a Premil bias, as you do, then they're going to tend to interpret a passage like Matthew 25:31-46 a certain way to try to make it fit the Premil doctrine even though it clearly doesn't. It's no surprise that you're not the only one who has done that. It results in denying what I believe to be obvious things such as denying that Matthew 25:41 is a portrayal of the same event described in Revelation 20:15. And it leads to believing in two judgment days which contradicts all the scripture which teaches that there is one judgment day (Acts 17:31, Matthew 12:36, 2 Peter 2:9, 1 John 4:17, etc.).