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

[Timtofly]

Naturally, you're not going to find that when looking at it from the Premil perspective. But from my perspective, it's recorded in Revelation 11 where it describes the 42 months/1260 days of the two witnesses because I see that as a figurative portrayal of the church witnessing to the world. It is only when the 42 months/1260 days ends that the beast ascends from the pit and, as you should know by now, I believe if the beast is in the pit then Satan has to be in the pit as well since they work together.

I know you won't agree with me on this, but I'm just showing that I, at least, do see the "intra-advent" period described before Revelation 20.

Then there is this:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

The similarities between that passage and the following verse are unmistakable.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 1:5-6 describes Jesus as being "the first begotten of the dead" which means He was the first to rise from the dead, as other scripture indicates as well (Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, 1 Cor 15:20;22). What that means is that He was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality. And then He is described as "the prince of the kings of the earth". And that is portrayed as a current reality. And then it indicates that Jesus "has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father". Again, it portrays that as a current reality.

So, with all of that in mind, why would we interpret Revelation 20:6 as speaking of something that is not yet a current reality? It talks about having part in the first resurrection. Scripture repeatedly teaches that Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection, so it must be talking about having part in His resurrection. That verse also talks about the second death not having power over those who have part in the first resurrection. The Revelation 1:5-6 passage says that Jesus "washed us from our sins in his own blood". Does the second death have power over those who have had their sins washed away by His blood? No. Surely, the second death has no power over the souls that John saw in heaven because their sins were washed away by Christ's blood. Then Revelation 20:6 says "they shall be priests of God and of Christ". Well, Revelation 1:5-6 indicates that believers right now are priests of God and of Christ. So, why interpret Revelation 1:5-6 to be speaking of a different time period than Revelation 20:6? That makes no sense.

Do your neighbors and loved ones realize you are currently ruling over them as their priest? That makes sense to you?

 

[Timtofly]

No, heaven and earth will pass away at the second coming. Now, let's get something clear. When scripture talks about heaven and earth passing away it's not talking about them being completely annihilated and not existing at all anymore. It's talking about them no longer existing in the way we know them now. They will be burned up and renewed which will result in the new heavens and new earth.

So why did that not happen at the Flood? Same exact thing. At the Flood water came down through the stars/angels changing the heavens for all time. The water did not go back up.

At the Second Coming all the stars are coming to earth. That will literal change heaven forever. They may or may not return the same way, after the tribulation.

Sorry, but the NHNE is a totally different reality. There will not even be a sun and moon, because their daily course through the heavens will no longer be necessary.

If you do not literally see heaven and earth ceasing to exist, then your definition of heaven and earth passing away is the same as mine, so why the fuss? Revelation 20:11 does not say they passed away. It says they no longer existed.

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

 

[DavidPT]

Premils cannot take these texts literally, as to do so would totally demolish their doctrine.

Unless you haven't noticed, Revelation 19 also involves the 2nd coming. When are any of you ever going to point out in that chapter where it depicts anything involving your hyper literal interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3? There is zero in Revelation 19 that gives the impression the universe and the earth are literally engulfed in flames at the time, thus literally burning up babies, children, adults, and all animals, at the time.

I sure hope that no Amil that interprets 2 Peter 3 hyper literally like that thinks there will be literal animals on the new earth. How would they get there if they are all burned to death during the 2nd coming because the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Interesting this logic. You actually are claiming that the Cross was the only resurrection. These verses say that is the one and only resurrection, in your interpretative opinion. We already know there has been 1991 years between the Cross and an alledged future resurrection. But yet you claim there can be no other resurrection except the Cross. Do you care to re-examine this opinion?

There's no need. It's what scripture clearly teaches. I've showed you several times before that Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 that Christ was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality and at His second coming those who belong to Christ will be resurrected unto bodily immortality. Very simple. But, since you're completely lacking in spiritual discernment you can't even discern the simple truth that Paul taught there.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

My toes are not even getting wet in your puddle actually.

No, it's quite clear to me that you are in way over your head here. You've embarrassed yourself multiple times already in this thread.

If you say the 1000 years started in Jesus' day, that means they are over. If you were not saying they were not literal what are you saying? (aside from pretending you said it 20 times already)

I already told you that I believe it figuratively represents the New Testament time period in general with Satan's little season following that. Christ's return is what puts an end to Satan's little season. Why do I have to repeat myself to you so many times? Are you just incapable of understanding any view besides your own? I think you're brainwashed.

Let's get this straight then. The 1000 years do exist, but not as a thousand years!?

Hello? I've already said that I don't know how many times. And you're just now figuring that out?

Just whatever you want it to mean. I see.

So, is this verse referring to a literal one thousand generations or is it figuratively referring to all generations, however many there might be?

Deuteronomy 7:9 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 the following verses referring to a literal one thousand hills or is it figurative for all hills?

Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

If the term "thousand" is used figuratively in verses like these, which it is, then why can't that be the case in Revelation 20 as well?

Yes. Not on earth as in His kingdom. He will take over one day and rule here. That is not today. Does Biden seem like Jesus to you? Jesus referred to Satan as the Prince of this world.

You're saying "Yes" that you are denying that He has reigned since His resurrection? How do you interpret this passage:

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

It does not say that. Show us where you say it says it?

It says in Revelation 19:7 "his wife hath made herself ready". That means the bride of Christ is ready for the marriage supper and not that the marriage supper is already over at that point as you claimed.

No. Look closer. The day of the Lord is a long time and that bit is after the 1000 years. You conflate the period called the day of the lord with a single day. This you were told many times.

But, you do NOTHING to back up your claim with scripture. Where is the scripture which indicates that the day of the Lord is a long period of time? Both 2 Peter 3:10-12 and 1 Thessaonians 5:2-3 refer to the day of the Lord as the day Christ returns.

Ah. So move over God, this poster overrules you! You were wrong to say 1000 years. That millennium is actually anything the poster wants to make it!

You are an immature clown. To interpret something figuratively rather than literally is not a case of making it say what I want it to say. Your hyper-literal approach to interpreting scripture is the reason you interpret everything wrongly. Scripture must be spiritually discerned (read 1 Cor 2:9-16), but you interpret it with your carnal mind.

Not really. Satan is let out to deceive people who surround the camp of the saints. Then they get burned up and the new heavens and earth come. What about it?

You have made statements multiple times as if everything ends when the thousand years ends, which is not the case. That's what about it, you goof.

Not really. You are not the only poster with weird claims here. There was one saying it all happened in that day Jesus returned if I understood his murky nonsense correctly. If you have another story, fine.

No one said that. Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.

I think you waved away the 1000 years as basically not real.

No, I have not. Not even close. Just because I don't see it as being a literal 1000 years doesn't mean I don't believe the 1000 years doesn't exist at all. I see it as being figurative similar to the "thousand generations" referenced in the Old Testament.

You said something about how they started some 2000 years ago!

Yeah, so? It's figurative language. The term "thousand" is used figuratively in scripture several times. You've been given examples of that. Is this too hard for your hyper-literal, carnal mind to understand?

You might aw well claim that the thousand years are actually the wings of a butterfly, or Tinkerbell's slippers!

You're a child. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time with you.

Ah, so one must misunderstand the basic Daniel prophesies also in order to swallow your fairy tales. OK.

Inserting a huge gap between the end of the 69th week and beginning of the 70th week is the biggest fairy tale of all. That is the most ridiculous interpretation of scripture in existence. Attributing verses that speak of what Christ accomplished (Daniel 9:27) to some Antichrist instead is just pathetic.

When the last angels sounds, it is done.

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

That is not saying all will be burned to a crisp! There are kingdoms etc. So that could not be after the 1000 years.

The kingdoms of this world are evil. Are you somehow not aware of what scripture says He will do with the heathen that He inherits? He will break/destroy them! The idea that He would want to rule over His enemies instead of destroying them, as scripture teaches, is another of your fairy tale beliefs.

Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Does this passage give the sense of Him destroying His enemies or ruling over them for a thousand years? Breaking them in pieces like a potter's vessel seems like a description of destruction to me.

I am not going to nit pick over which parts of the wrath of God are the worst. We are not appointed to any of the final wrath.

I agree and have said so. But, what I also believe is that we don't need to be taken off of the earth in order for God to protect us from His wrath until His final wrath comes down on the day Jesus returns.

No. That happen in the day of the Lord. That includes, for the 22nd time, the 1000 years you don't really believe in!

Why are you so immature? When did I say I don't believe in the 1000 years? That's comes across as if you're saying they are fictional and don't ever happen in any way, shape or form. But that isn't true. I do believe it refers to an actual period of time and I never said it's fictional. So, that is a false accusation. Where is your evidence to show that the thousand years is part of the day of the Lord? You have utterly failed to provide any scriptural evidence to back up that claim or any of your other claims.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you are clear that the 1000 year reign does have an end, then your intra-Advent is the end of your reign as well.

What are you talking about? His reign doesn't end when the thousand years ends. Satan is loosed when the thousands years ends, but Christ's reign doesn't end.

If you would at least address the points instead of attacking me, we could get somewhere.

If you would start backing up your points with scripture for once then we could get somewhere.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Easy. All we need to know is how prophesy works. When Jesus read the prophesy about Him coming to set the prisoners at liberty and etc, He stopped mid passage. Remember? Why? Because only that first part of this prophesy applied to His first coming, the rest was about the second coming!

So, for your verses, the thief in the night thing seems to be about the Rapture. Then in Peter, we see it again, the first part about the Rapture. Then it launched forward to a different part of that day of the Lord, the end! When the new heavens and earth come. Seems simple to me.

So, what you're saying is that you think Peter said the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night in reference to the Rapture and then immediately after that he inexplicably starts describing something that happens 1000+ years later? And you think that makes sense? Unbelievable.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Why did Peter tell his readers to think about what type of people they should be in regards to their conversation and being godly in relation to the burning up of the heavens and earth if the heavens and earth wouldn't be burned up until 1000+ years after the Rapture occurs? Why would the burning up of the heavens and earth be of any concern to his readers if it wasn't possible for them to even be around when that happens?

It makes far more sense to see it as Peter warning them about being careful about the type of people they are because he didn't want them to be among those who will be destroyed when God's wrath comes down on the earth at Christ's return.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Unless you haven't noticed, Revelation 19 also involves the 2nd coming. When are any of you ever going to point out in that chapter where it depicts anything involving your hyper literal interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3?

It's so baffling to me that you interpret Revelation 19, contained within a highly symbolic book, literally, but interpret 2 Peter 3, contained within a mostly literal book, symbolically.

I have already pointed out to you more than once before how Revelation 19 lines up with 2 Peter 3. Obviously, with the entire earth being burned up, all unbelievers would be destroyed. Well, that's exactly what Revelation 19 indicates.

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.”

Who is not included among "all people, free and slave, great and small"? Only doctrinal bias would lead someone to conclude that isn't talking about all the people on earth at the time (believers will be "in the air" with Christ). Both 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 19 make it very clear that Christ will destroy all unbelievers when He returns, so how could they be speaking of different events? Clearly, 2 Peter 3 is literal since Peter compares this future fiery event directly to another literal event that occurred in the past, which was the flood. And clearly Revelation 19 is not literal unless you want to believe the ridiculous notion that Christ will slay people with a literal sword that comes out of His mouth.

There is zero in Revelation 19 that gives the impression the universe and the earth are literally engulfed in flames at the time, thus literally burning up babies, children, adults, and all animals, at the time.

That's because it's all figurative language. Figurative or symbolic text does not have to resemble what it is symbolizing in reality. Do you understand that? If you want to believe that there will be a literal sword coming out of Christ's mouth when He returns that He uses to slay all His enemies, then that's up to you. But, it's quite obvious that the text of Revelation 19 is figurative and the text of 2 Peter 3 is literal. Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from seeing something so obvious.

I sure hope that no Amil that interprets 2 Peter 3 hyper literally like that thinks there will be literal animals on the new earth. How would they get there if they are all burned to death during the 2nd coming because the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames?

To think that 2 Peter 3 can't be literal just because of your desire for there to be animals on the new earth is not a valid argument for 2 Peter 3 not being literal.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No one gave an account here.

Have you never actually read Matthew 25:31-46? Yes, they do give an account there. Everyone there has to give an account of how they treated the needy (the hungry, thirsty, sick, homeless, etc.) because Christ says that how they treat "the least of these" is how they treat Him.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Do your neighbors and loved ones realize you are currently ruling over them as their priest? That makes sense to you?

What doesn't make sense to me is your carnal way of looking at things. Where do you get the idea that being a priest of Christ has anything to do with ruling over your neighbors as their priest, whatever that even means? Being a priest of Christ means that we serve Him and sacrifice ourselves for Him.

Are you somehow not aware that we in the body of Christ (the church) are a royal priesthood?

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

John wrote that we are currently "a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father". Do you disagree with that?

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

 

[jeffweedaman]

What doesn't make sense to me is your carnal way of looking at things. Where do you get the idea that being a priest of Christ has anything to do with ruling over your neighbors as their priest, whatever that even means? Being a priest of Christ means that we serve Him and sacrifice ourselves for Him.

Are you somehow not aware that we in the body of Christ (the church) are a royal priesthood?

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

John wrote that we are currently "a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father". Do you disagree with that?

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Winner
Could not be more clear as to when we became priests.
We are to reign in this life where we will do the most good.

 

[jgr]

What doesn't make sense to me is your carnal way of looking at things. Where do you get the idea that being a priest of Christ has anything to do with ruling over your neighbors as their priest, whatever that even means? Being a priest of Christ means that we serve Him and sacrifice ourselves for Him.

Are you somehow not aware that we in the body of Christ (the church) are a royal priesthood?

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

John wrote that we are currently "a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father". Do you disagree with that?

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

"Do your neighbors and loved ones realize you are currently ruling over them as their priest?"

One couldn't ask for a more convincing example of dispen premil abject carnality and spiritual vacuity than is represented by that question.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Unless you haven't noticed, Revelation 19 also involves the 2nd coming. When are any of you ever going to point out in that chapter where it depicts anything involving your hyper literal interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3? There is zero in Revelation 19 that gives the impression the universe and the earth are literally engulfed in flames at the time, thus literally burning up babies, children, adults, and all animals, at the time.

I sure hope that no Amil that interprets 2 Peter 3 hyper literally like that thinks there will be literal animals on the new earth. How would they get there if they are all burned to death during the 2nd coming because the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames?

Not so. Revelation 19 correlates with these other 2 chapters and forbids Premil. And why could God not create animals in the next age? Are you limiting Him again? Not that these animals would be safe from the Premil hords who desire to restart the mass slaughter of numerous innocent animals in the age to come.

Revelation 19 is the end. Verses 11-16 states, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall shepherd them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

A plain reading of the passage before us reveals that Christis coming back with wrath to execute judgment and destroy all those left behind. He is not going to reward men for their rebellion by leading them unto the glorified new earth. Neither is Christ coming to engage in some ill-fated war against evil for a thousand years – that is not remotely in the text. The King of kings and Lord of lords will not have to fight for victory. He already won that decisively at the cross.

Christ is seen pouring out His wrath without mixture upon the nations as He smites them in His fury with “a sharp sword” that comes “out of his mouth.” What is the result of this act? It shall “smite the nations” that have missed the catching away. This is what awaits the nations. They are going to be smitten. The word for “smite” in this text is the Greek word patasso, which means to strike with a weapon or to smite fatally. It means to smite down, cut down, to kill, slay.

Let us be clear: Heis coming to smite down the nations, not corral them into some sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age. It says that “he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” This is not a pretty sight. This is not loose talk by God. This is not something that the nations should look forward to. What awaits the nations that have rejected Christ is utter destruction and devastation. The nations left behind are totally destroyed. Christ destroys them by the very utterance of His mouth.

The two words interpreted “fierceness” and “wrath” here are thumos and orge which are regularly employed in the New Testament to mean ‘fierceness, indignation, wrath and vengeance’. The word orge carries the additional meaning of ‘

 

[sovereigngrace]

It's so baffling to me that you interpret Revelation 19, contained within a highly symbolic book, literally, but interpret 2 Peter 3, contained within a mostly literal book, symbolically.

I have already pointed out to you more than once before how Revelation 19 lines up with 2 Peter 3. Obviously, with the entire earth being burned up, all unbelievers would be destroyed. Well, that's exactly what Revelation 19 indicates.

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.”

Who is not included among "all people, free and slave, great and small"? Only doctrinal bias would lead someone to conclude that isn't talking about all the people on earth at the time (believers will be "in the air" with Christ). Both 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 19 make it very clear that Christ will destroy all unbelievers when He returns, so how could they be speaking of different events? Clearly, 2 Peter 3 is literal since Peter compares this future fiery event directly to another literal event that occurred in the past, which was the flood. And clearly Revelation 19 is not literal unless you want to believe the ridiculous notion that Christ will slay people with a literal sword that comes out of His mouth.

That's because it's all figurative language. Figurative or symbolic text does not have to resemble what it is symbolizing in reality. Do you understand that? If you want to believe that there will be a literal sword coming out of Christ's mouth when He returns that He uses to slay all His enemies, then that's up to you. But, it's quite obvious that the text of Revelation 19 is figurative and the text of 2 Peter 3 is literal. Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from seeing something so obvious.

To think that 2 Peter 3 can't be literal just because of your desire for there to be animals on the new earth is not a valid argument for 2 Peter 3 not being literal.

I think the battle has finally been won as to who the authentic literalists really are and that the Premil boast as to the same is misguided. I think we should take this as a mega complement.

 

[DavidPT]

And why could God not create animals in the next age?

There is not one single Scripture that supports God creates animals all over again. When Noah's flood happened God didn't destroy every single animal on the planet at the time, then recreate some new ones. Why not if that's what He does this time around?

Maybe while He's at it He will create some more babies and children in order to make up for the one's He allegedly burns to death during the 2nd coming? After all, He obviously didn't spare babies and children during Noah's flood. And if this is supposed to be like the flood, but with fire this time rather than water, then neither would He spare babies and children this time around either. That would have to be the logic.

Not that these animals would be safe from the Premil hords who desire to restart the mass slaughter of numerous innocent animals in the age to come.

Even though some Premils might believe that, it doesn't make it true that animal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming. And besides, most Premils tend to think some of Isaiah 65 involves the millennium. Animals are depicted as living in peace in those verses, not being slaughtered by anyone in order to make sacrifices of them. Even that contradicts animals being sacrificed at the time. But even so, there are still going to be Premils that insist animal sacrificing resumes after the 2nd coming. I'm just not one of them.

I can't remotely begin to explain the meaning of those Ezekiel chapters in question, yet I can't agree with Premils who insist it means animal sacrificing will resume when Christ returns either.

 

[DavidPT]

I think the battle has finally been won as to who the authentic literalists really are and that the Premil boast as to the same is misguided. I think we should take this as a mega complement.

I'm not your typical Premil though. I don't recall boasting that everything has to be taken in the literal sense. I can think of numerous things that most Premils take to mean literally, that I don't. And the same in regards to Amils. I do not take 2 Peter 3 in the literal sense, like most Amils do, where it is supposedly meaning like Noah's flood, except it involves literal fire this time rather than literal water.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm not your typical Premil though. I don't recall boasting that everything has to be taken in the literal sense. I can think of numerous things that most Premils take to mean literally, that I don't. And the same in regards to Amils. I do not take 2 Peter 3 in the literal sense, like most Amils do, where it is supposedly meaning like Noah's flood, except it involves literal fire this time rather than literal water.

Amils totally disagree with your inconsistent and contradictory hermeneutics. We take the flood to be real and wholesale and we take the fire at the end to be real and wholesale. All who are not rescued in both are shown to be destroyed, without exception. You literalize that which is symbolic (the book of Revelation) and spiritualize that which is literal (as you do with 2 Peter 3). The opposite is the truth. Sadly, this is what error produces.

 

[sovereigngrace]

There is not one single Scripture that supports God creates animals all over again. When Noah's flood happened God didn't destroy every single animal on the planet at the time, then recreate some new ones. Why not if that's what He does this time around?

Maybe while He's at it He will create some more babies and children in order to make up for the one's He allegedly burns to death during the 2nd coming? After all, He obviously didn't spare babies and children during Noah's flood. And if this is supposed to be like the flood, but with fire this time rather than water, then neither would He spare babies and children this time around either. That would have to be the logic.

It symbolically depicts the peace that Christ has introduced through the new covenant and which will be literally realized in the new heavens and new earth. The one thing it does not speak of is some supposed sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future millennial kingdom.

One could potentially take a literal or a figurative interpretation from this verse; however, it seems likely that the passage is a metaphor indicating the peace that exists within the kingdom of God. It can equally describe the undisturbed nature of the eternal state. It is a fact that many eternal truths are described in a parabolic sense in order to impress the great mystery of eternity to our finite mind.

Even though some Premils might believe that, it doesn't make it true that animal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming. And besides, most Premils tend to think some of Isaiah 65 involves the millennium. Animals are depicted as living in peace in those verses, not being slaughtered by anyone in order to make sacrifices of them. Even that contradicts animals being sacrificed at the time. But even so, there are still going to be Premils that insist animal sacrificing resumes after the 2nd coming. I'm just not one of them.

I can't remotely begin to explain the meaning of those Ezekiel chapters in question, yet I can't agree with Premils who insist it means animal sacrificing will resume when Christ returns either.

Premils are all over the place on all their main tenets. One belief contradicts another. One explanation of a passage contradicts another. Amils just have to watch on as they take each other out of the game with the lunacy of the idea od a rebuilt temple, restored blood sacrifices and a fresh rival priesthood to Christ in a future age. They cannot even agree on when the NHNE arrive. This shows the fragility of the position. Amil is the only position that carries biblical corroboration on these subjects (and many others) and is fully supported by both the OT and the NT. Their consistent hermeneutics trump the adhoc Premil alternative.

 

[Timtofly]

Don't ever ask me a question like this again. Of course I accept the Word. I don't accept some of your interpretations of the Word. Big difference.

I agree that he doesn't deceive the nations anymore during the thousand years and isn't loosed to deceive the nations until the thousand years are over, but I disagree with you about what him deceiving the nations means. Do you understand that?

I've explained my understanding of Satan's binding many times. It differs from your understanding, so you're wasting your time telling me that my view can't work with YOUR understanding of his binding. No kidding. Tell me why my understanding of his binding can't work instead if you won't want to waste your time.

How are the nation's and billions of people's current knowledge of God? I will stick with the Word. Deception is not that hard to define.

 

[DavidPT]

It is the light of the Gospel that removes the darkness. It is not because Satan is bound and cannot deceive. Satan is also powerless to stop that light, as the light is stopped, because Christians have failed, not because Satan is prevented from making them fail.

I wonder why Amils don't appear to know this? They are the ones that are always claiming Premils have a big satan and a small God, though it appears that they have that backwards. It is Amil that has a big satan and a small God. It is Amil that needs satan to be bound in order for the spreading of the gospel not to fail. Premils recognize that the gospel still gets spread regardless what satan and his minions do to try and prevent that from happening.

Amil still think Satan is loosed at the end. The problem is nowhere does the rest of Scripture claim Satan is loosed prior to the Second Coming. No one can even know, not even Jesus, when the Second Coming happens. Would not releasing Satan be a give away or a mentioned sign? Yet releasing Satan now is not going to deceive any one, because deception is already the state of the world. Christians have yet to totally dispell all the spiritual darkness, which proves both amil and post mill wrong.

Yet some more good points you raise. And like I have already pointed out myself, Amil has the masses satan deceives after the thousand years being already deceived before he is even supposed to deceive them. They are obviously already deceived during the thousand years if assuming Amil.

Amil would have all darkness expelled, so nations can be deceived. Post mill would have it all expelled just prior to the Second Coming. Satan is not involved at all during this Coming Millennium. The same cannot be said of the last 1991 years, and even Amil agree that Satan is not literally bound, but somewhat restricted. I agree Satan is restricted, and always has been since he rebelled. Even his rebellion was allowed or Satan would never had gotten what he wanted. But his rebellion is not some future little season. His rebellion started a few years prior to Adam's own disobedience, which brought sin into the world. The differenc is that Premil point out Satan will be totally out of the picture. For the last 1000 years, it will be, "Satan who?". Only after the 1000 years have expired, will Satan again be introduced to the world. That is the context and text of Revelation 20.

Some good points here as well.