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

[Timtofly]

What is the point of meeting in the air if everyone was going to Paradise? Why not just meet in Paradise?

Amils are the only ones who have a viable explanation for why we will meet Christ in the air when He comes. And that is because He will be sending fire down upon the entire earth when He comes (2 Peter 3:10-12), so it makes sense that His people need to be taken off of the earth when that happens. And then the judgment occurs after that which won't be in heaven/paradise since heaven and earth pass away before the judgment commences (Rev 20:11-15). After that we will inherit the new heavens and new earth. Scripture never teaches that believers will bodily be taken to heaven/paradise when Christ returns.

So the goats are meeting in mid air as well?

So Jesus did not ascend bodily to heaven? If the church is considered the spiritual body in Christ, do we loose all individuality at physical death? The point about having our own permanent incorruptible physical body in heaven is that we do retain our individual beings. We do not recieve physical bodies after the New Jerusalem descends. Paul states in 2 Corinthians 5, those bodies already exist in Paradise. Not some future event thousands of years into the future.

 

[Timtofly]

Huh? That made no sense.

He had a much easier time of doing that in OT times than in NT times since he didn't have to contend with the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit in OT times like he has had to in NT times.

Yet here we are 1991 years later, and Satan has convinced the majority of humanity that the first century was mythology. He has worked harder since the Cross, than prior to the Cross. Especially since Amil has him dragging around heavy chains as he goes about his business.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Maybe one of the problems in my case is that it is not always easy for me to express my thoughts in writing as opposed to if I were expressing them in person with someone face to face? I'm not certain how to express in writing what it means if the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming and that at the beginning of it there are a thousand years, then at the end of that thousand years there is massive death, yet Revelation 21 records the following--And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away(Revelation 21:4)---but then if we compare that with the following in Isaiah 66 also involving the time of the NHNE--- And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me(Isaiah 66:24 )---then compare that with yet another passage involving the NHNE---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind(Isaiah 65:17)---where it is then obvious that the former is still coming to mind per Isaiah 66:24 if they are doing that during the NHNE---how can this not mean that the NHNE is something that is progressive rather than something that is instantaneous?

But you are trying to justify the unjustifiable without any direct biblical support. That is why you are struggling to explain it. There is nothing you are presenting here that proves a gradual progressive regeneration of the earth after the second coming - and you know it. This is all bias extra-biblical theological speculations. And this is exactly at the gist of Premil, it is always forcing a meaning on Scripture that suggests that Scripture contradicts itself and therefore allows them to push their flawed doctrine. This subject is a case-in-point. It allows Premils to invent 2 NHNEs - Mark 1 that is corrupt, temporal and full of billions of the unrighteous, and needs replaced after 1000 years, and Mark 2 that is perfect, glorified and righteous and belongs alone to the elect and will last forever. They do the same with "the last days." Because of their misinterpretation of Isaiah 2 and Malachi 4, they invent an additional last days period that starts after "the last day." That is insane. 2 wrongs do not make a right. Their faulty theology causes them to duplicate clear, distinct, unique and singular time-periods in order to fit their false narrative.

There is no suggestion anywhere in Scripture that there are 2 NHNEs. That is a Premil fabrication. The reality is, you are forcing something upon Isaiah 60, 65, 66 and Zechariah 14 that they do not say.

Isaiah 66:22-24: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”

This is talking about the lake of fire in eternity!!!

This is just hyperbole language describing the reality of eternity in terms that the OT listener/reader could easily grasp. That is nothing more than poetic verbiage used to impress eternity to we humans stuck in time.

Hyperbole, derived from a Greek word meaning “over-casting” is a figure of speech, which involves an exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis. It is a device that we employ in our day-to-day speech.

This relates to the new earth, not some future millennium. I am at a loss to see where you think this teaches Premil. Where does it say that Satan will be released 1,000 years after Christ's Coming? Where does it say that devils will be released 1,000 years after Christ's Coming?

 

[Timtofly]

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Judging the world is not the same event as judging the dead.

Do you equate the world with those already dead, or the living who have not physically died?

 

[Timtofly]

One needs to interpret that judgment in light of the verses that preceded it, thus Scripture interpreting Scripture. Starting towards the end of Matthew 24 then continuing in Matthew 25, Jesus was describing two types of professed servants of His, profitable and unprofitable. The sheep do the will of the Father, regardless that they might not fully realize it at all times. IOW, it just comes natural to them. It indicates they are humble not arrogant. They just do what is right, regardless. The goats OTOH are professed servants of Christ, where if a fellow brother and sister had a need, such as needing food, and even though they could meet that need, they sent them on their way instead. A good example would be the following.

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

How can those meant in verse 16 not be the goats? Can they be meaning the sheep?

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:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
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?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Look what verse 45 indicates. Now compare that with James 2:16. How can those meant in verse 16 not be the goats? Can they be meaning the sheep? Who is James addressing in that passage? Is it not the brethren? Doesn't that mean in verse 16, And one of you say unto them, IOW if one of you, the brethren, say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Would that be something the sheep recorded in Matthew 25 would do? If it isn't, how can that not be what the goats would do then? Don't some of you even think logic counts for anything? How is it logical that if the brethren meant in James 2 are meaning those that profess Christ, and that these recorded in verse 16 are not anything the sheep would do, that this still does not mean they are the goats in Matthew 25 then. If they are not the goats in Matthew 25 they have to be the sheep then, except the sheep don't do things like this. That is a contradiction.

Why are some not interested in what the Scriptures are teaching, but instead seem to be more interested in winning the argument no matter what, that only they can be correct, not the Scriptures themselves? God forbid that the Scriptures be correct if it contradicts what I'm concluding. In the James 2 passage, atheists, for example, are not meant here, the brethren are meant here in regards to how the brethren treat one another over all.

Others can believe what they want. Others can believe they are correct not the Scriptures. Me, I'm sticking with believing and agreeing with the Scriptures. There is no way the goats in Matthew 25 are not meaning unprofitable servants of Christ. Only someone of the OSAS camp might deny that Christ has unprofitable servants, and that their fate in the end is the LOF. Why would any one of the NOSAS camp deny it as well?

You never gave a verse stating these souls ever professed to be redeemed.

Jesus never claimed they were redeemed. Jesus based His judgment on their works. Jesus did not base His judgment on His shed Blood. We are not saved because of works period.

James tells us we can be saved, but it is empty salvation, and only gets us in the door of Paradise. A full salvation experience has us working out that salvation with fruitful works. The word "works" is not synonymous in Matthew 25 and James. One is just works, the other is the fruit of one's salvation experience.

You have yet to prove works proves one has been redeemed. Both redeemed and unredeemed can do good works. Being redeemed is not a monopoly of doing good works. Even our righteousness and good works are just filth in God's eyes when it comes to having redemption.

An unprofitable servant looses their reward. No where does Scriptures say they loose their salvation. One cannot interpret James using Matthew 25.

The whole issue of NOSAS stems from attempting to equate the OT Israel with the NT redeemed. OT Israel was the natural branch cut off. Natural, being they had no choice even in being a branch. Obviously many chose Satan over being a natural branch. Gentiles are not literally grafted in as a corporate body. One cannot choose not to be grafted in. One has to choose first, before becoming part of the tree. In Paul's symbolism, he warns that the wild branch itself can be cast off. But even Paul is not declaring redeemed Gentiles will loose their redemption. He is stating, the ability for Gentiles to be part of the tree may stop. We are not to take grace and the gift of Atonement for granted.

The parable of the prodigal son shows a return to the family. Where is the parable about the prodigal son who never returns to the family?

 

[DavidPT]

An unprofitable servant looses their reward. No where does Scriptures say they loose their salvation. One cannot interpret James using Matthew 25.

Maybe you can't interpret Matthew 25 that way, yet I just did. Something else that proves you wrong is the fact in Matthew 25 itself, it clearly says unprofitable servants can lose their salvation. It says it right before the context switches to the sheep and goats judgment.

Matthew 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

All one needs to do now, which is not something I'm going to bother to do for them, is to then look for passages involving outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth, and what all that involves.

As to James 2:16 since that involves the brethren, either they are the sheep meant in Matthew 25 or they are the goats meant in Matthew 25. It's that simple.

 

[Timtofly]

Maybe you can't interpret Matthew 25 that way, yet I just did. Something else that proves you wrong is the fact in Matthew 25 itself, it clearly says unprofitable servants can lose their salvation. It says it right before the context switches to the sheep and goats judgment.

Matthew 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

All one needs to do now, which is not something I'm going to bother to do for them, is to then look for passages involving outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth, and what all that involves.

As to James 2:16 since that involves the brethren, either they are the sheep meant in Matthew 25 or they are the goats meant in Matthew 25. It's that simple.

Still talking about Israel. If you are into Replacement theology, you may have a point. Israel was placed under the Law. They still had no choice in being held to the Law. Redemption is not about the Law, but about grace. I would say Israel still has an obligation to fulfill the Law, except the branch was broken off, and yet to be placed back.

 

[claninja]

Again, you avoid most of my points in most of my posts. You ignore the many arguments that blow apart Hahnism.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say you made up the term “hahnism”.

I’m not sure what that is, but sure, you just keep on “blowing it apart”.

The perfect tense can describe an action that started in the past and is still continuing now and into the future.

incorrect. The perfect tense, in Ancient Greek, describes a completed action at some point in the past with the results being felt up to the present. It is not the action itself that continues, for the action is completed, it is the result of the completed action that continues to the present.

For example:

“i have moved to the United States”.

The moving is completed, and the present state results are that you are presently living/residing in the US.

I have lived in the United States since 2007.

This example doesn’t seem to represent a completed action in the past with the results being experienced up to the present. You seem to be conflating English perfect present with Greek perfect.

Notice below, the Greek present tense can be translated as English perfect present, which seems to be more in line with your example:

“2) {DURATIVE PRESENT

Some grammarians call this the progressive present. An action or a state of being which began in the past is described as continuing until the present. The past and the present are gathered up in a single affirmation. An adverb of time is often used with this kind of present, but a verb alone is sometimes sufficient as in the final example given below. This use of the Greek present is usually translated by the English present perfect. Although impractical to bring out in English translation, the full meaning is that something has been and still is.}

a) [Compare Luke 13:7]:

"Behold, I have been coming for three years seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I have found none."

"I have been coming" = "erchomai" = lit., "am coming", present, indicative

"I have found none" = "ouch heuriskO" = lit., "am finding", present, indicative

Note that context establishes that the action portrayed is not absolutely continuous to the extent that when it has begun, it is unceasing; but it is an action which is nevertheless ongoing in a repetitive manner - He comes one time, ends, and then another and another comes, goes and then it comes again.”
(BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: PERFECT TENSE IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK)

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

I don’t know where you are getting your sources for this from, but the perfect definitely does not mean repeated actions between past and present.

Additionally, This is not an example of the perfect tense.

Instead, This would be simple past (aorist), and is the same as saying “I visited Florida many times”.

but has been ongoing since Jesus left this earth to ascend to heaven.

“Had drawn near” is not present tense. It is perfect tense, thus indicating literal nearness as defined in helps word studies:

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).

 

[sovereigngrace]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say you made up the term “hahnism”.

I’m not sure what that is, but sure, you just keep on “blowing it apart”.




incorrect. The perfect tense, in Ancient Greek, describes a completed action at some point in the past with the results being felt up to the present. It is not the action itself that continues, for the action is completed, it is the result of the completed action that continues to the present.

For example:

“i have moved to the United States”.

The moving is completed, and the present state results are that you are presently living/residing in the US.



This example doesn’t seem to represent a completed action in the past with the results being experienced up to the present. You seem to be conflating English perfect present with Greek perfect.

Notice below, the Greek present tense can be translated as English perfect present, which seems to be more in line with your example:

“2) {DURATIVE PRESENT

Some grammarians call this the progressive present. An action or a state of being which began in the past is described as continuing until the present. The past and the present are gathered up in a single affirmation. An adverb of time is often used with this kind of present, but a verb alone is sometimes sufficient as in the final example given below. This use of the Greek present is usually translated by the English present perfect. Although impractical to bring out in English translation, the full meaning is that something has been and still is.}

a) [Compare Luke 13:7]:

"Behold, I have been coming for three years seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I have found none."

"I have been coming" = "erchomai" = lit., "am coming", present, indicative

"I have found none" = "ouch heuriskO" = lit., "am finding", present, indicative

Note that context establishes that the action portrayed is not absolutely continuous to the extent that when it has begun, it is unceasing; but it is an action which is nevertheless ongoing in a repetitive manner - He comes one time, ends, and then another and another comes, goes and then it comes again.”
(BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: PERFECT TENSE IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK)





I don’t know where you are getting your sources for this from, but the perfect definitely does not mean repeated actions between past and present.

Additionally, This is not an example of the perfect tense.

Instead, This would be simple past (aorist), and is the same as saying “I visited Florida many times”.




“Had drawn near” is not present tense. It is perfect tense, thus indicating literal nearness as defined in helps word studies:

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).

You are an expert at going down rabbit trails. If the coming of the Lord was still drawing nigh and you equate it with the coming of Titus in AD70, then it was still approaching when the promise was given. What was the completed action?

 

[claninja]

You are an expert at going down rabbit trails.

Thank you

If the coming of the Lord was still drawing nigh and you equate it with the coming of Titus in AD70, then it was still approaching when the promise was given. What was the completed action?

The completed action was the “drawing near”.

Just as the hour for Jesus to be betrayed “had drawn near”, so to had the end of all things and the parousia of Christ drawn near to James and Peter’s audience

Matthew 26:46 See, the hour has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense) , and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

1 peter 4:7 The end of all things has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)

James 5:8 for the coming of the Lord has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)


Thus, the apostles did in fact believe Christ’s parousia would occur in their lifetime.

Ellicot commentary:
“Probably, if St. Peter had thought the world would stand twenty centuries more, he would have expressed himself differently; yet see 2Peter 3:4-10.”

benson commentary:
“Many commentators indeed understand St. Peter as speaking only of the end of the Jewish commonwealth, city, temple, and worship.”

Matthew Henry
“4:7-11 The destruction of the Jewish church and nation, foretold by our Saviour, was very near”

Pulpit
“When St. Peter wrote these words, the end of the holy city, the center of the ancient dispensation, was very near at hand; and behind that awful catastrophe lay the incomparably more tremendous judgment, of which the fall of Jerusalem was a figure.”

Cambridge
“They expected to be among those who should be living when He came (1 Corinthians 15:51), who should be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). A few years—we might almost say, looking to 2 Peter 3:8, a few months—sufficed to shew that the divine plan extended over a wider range than their thoughts and expectations. And yet, in one very real sense, they were not altogether mistaken. The end of all that they had known and lived in, the end of one great æon, or dispensation, was indeed nigh at hand. The old order was changing and giving place to the new. There was to be a great removal of the things that were shaken, that had decayed and waxed old, that the things that could not be shaken might remain (Hebrews 12:27).”

 

[sovereigngrace]

Thank you




The completed action was the “drawing near”.

Just as the hour for Jesus to be betrayed “had drawn near”, so to had the end of all things and the parousia of Christ drawn near to James and Peter’s audience

Matthew 25:46 See, the hour has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense) , and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

1 peter 4:7 The end of all things has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)

James 5:8 for the coming of the Lord has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)


Thus, the apostles did in fact believe Christ’s parousia would occur in their lifetime.

Ellicot commentary:
“Probably, if St. Peter had thought the world would stand twenty centuries more, he would have expressed himself differently; yet see 2Peter 3:4-10.”

benson commentary:
“Many commentators indeed understand St. Peter as speaking only of the end of the Jewish commonwealth, city, temple, and worship.”

Matthew Henry
“4:7-11 The destruction of the Jewish church and nation, foretold by our Saviour, was very near”

Pulpit
“When St. Peter wrote these words, the end of the holy city, the center of the ancient dispensation, was very near at hand; and behind that awful catastrophe lay the incomparably more tremendous judgment, of which the fall of Jerusalem was a figure.”

Cambridge
“They expected to be among those who should be living when He came (1 Corinthians 15:51), who should be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). A few years—we might almost say, looking to 2 Peter 3:8, a few months—sufficed to shew that the divine plan extended over a wider range than their thoughts and expectations. And yet, in one very real sense, they were not altogether mistaken. The end of all that they had known and lived in, the end of one great æon, or dispensation, was indeed nigh at hand. The old order was changing and giving place to the new. There was to be a great removal of the things that were shaken, that had decayed and waxed old, that the things that could not be shaken might remain (Hebrews 12:27).”

This doesn't make sense. "Eth in the KJV denotes an ongoing reality. Obviously the promise had not arrived so it was still drawing nigh.

 

[claninja]

This doesn't make sense. "Eth in the KJV denotes an ongoing reality. Obviously the promise had not arrived so it was still drawing nigh.

what do you mean “eth” ?

 

[sovereigngrace]

what do you mean “eth” ?

In the KJV, "eth" at the end of a word denotes an ongoing reality.

 

[claninja]

In the KJV, "eth" at the end of a word denotes an ongoing reality.

The “eth” is used for present indicative verbs:

“an ending of the third person singular present indicative of verbs, now occurring only in archaic forms or used in solemn or poetic language: doeth or doth; hopeth; sitteth”

(Definition of eth | Dictionary.com)

Eggizo is not a present indicative active in 1 Peter 4:7 nor James 5:8, but is in the perfect tense IN ORIGINAL GREEK.

Just as the hour for Jesus to be betrayed “had drawn near”, so to had the end of all things and the parousia of Christ drawn near to James and Peter’s audience

Matthew 25:46 See, the hour has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense) , and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

1 peter 4:7 The end of all things has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)

James 5:8 for the coming of the Lord has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)

Again, did the apostles believe the coming of Christ was literally soon or no?

 

[DavidPT]

In the KJV, "eth" at the end of a word denotes an ongoing reality.

Revelation 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,


Here is an example of what you appear to be meaning. Can't imagine that being an ongoing reality, though. If it was a word such as believeth, I can see that likely meaning an ongoing reality every place that word is used in the KJV.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Revelation 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,


Here is an example of what you appear to be meaning. Can't imagine that being an ongoing reality, though. If it was a word such as believeth, I can see that likely meaning an ongoing reality every place that word is used in the KJV.

Please address my posts I have addressed to you and which you have avoided that expose Premil instead of butting into another conversation re Full Preterism.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The “eth” is used for present indicative verbs:

“an ending of the third person singular present indicative of verbs, now occurring only in archaic forms or used in solemn or poetic language: doeth or doth; hopeth; sitteth”

(Definition of eth | Dictionary.com)

Eggizo is not a present indicative active in 1 Peter 4:7 nor James 5:8, but is in the perfect tense IN ORIGINAL GREEK.

Just as the hour for Jesus to be betrayed “had drawn near”, so to had the end of all things and the parousia of Christ drawn near to James and Peter’s audience

Matthew 25:46 See, the hour has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense) , and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

1 peter 4:7 The end of all things has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)

James 5:8 for the coming of the Lord has drawn near (eggizo: perfect tense)

Again, did the apostles believe the coming of Christ was literally soon or no?

Stop avoiding. Address my last query. If the coming of the Lord was still drawing nigh and you equate it with the coming of Titus in AD70, then it was still approaching when the promise was given. What was the completed action?.

 

[DavidPT]

Please address the multiple posts I have addressed to you and which you have avoided that expose Premil instead of butting into another conversation.

You do not own this board. You are not in charge of it. This is a public forum. If you don't care for anyone to comment on something you had said, regardless that it wasn't addressed to them, simply take discussions like that and post them in PMs since PMs usually involve private discussions, posting in public doesn't. What are so worried about? That something else you are insisting is fact, actually isn't fact, and that you would rather others not bring that to light? Is that what is going on here?

 

[claninja]

What was the completed action?.

I didn’t avoid, I already answered in post 1691. The completed action is “has drawn near”. Eggizo is a verb and it is in the perfect tense, thus it is a completed action

now, did the apostles believe Christ would come in there life time or no?

 

[power1]

Jesus is reigning now.

He does not reign on earth now.