• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

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

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
8,607
2,867
MI
✟441,579.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your reading comprehension at times simply annoys me, because one of my pet peeves is being falsely accused of something. If anyone is misrepresenting anyone, it is some of you all misreprenting me by claiming I'm saying things I'm not. I never once said Amils claim that there is little difference between the thousand years and satan's little season.
Maybe it's you not being clear rather than us having a reading comprehension issue. Did you ever consider that. You did say this:

DavidPT said:
IOW, per Amil not much difference between the thousand years and satan's little season, at least in regards to the billions satan deceives after the thousand years.
How are we supposed to understand this? If we're supposed to take this in a literal, straightforward way then you misrepresented Amil. Did you use any symbolic words here?

Amil believes that the falling away that Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2 happens during Satan's little season. Therefore, there are a lot more unsaved people during that time than there were before that time. So, what you're saying doesn't line up with what we believe about Satan's little season.

I'm the one claiming that if Amil is supposed to be true, and that I said, at least in regards to the billions satan deceives after the thousand years. You all, meaning Amils like yourself, seem to do that with some of the Revelation 20 as well, misrepresenting what it is saying by having it meaning something it isn't, IOW twisting it in order to not contradict Amil. But that's not how it's supposed to work.
I don't understand what you said here at all. You sometimes are just not clear whether you acknowledge it or not.

An example---Revelation 20:4---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. This clearly proves that the beast ascends out of the pit, not after the thousand years, but prior to it instead.
No, it doesn't.

Yet, you all insist that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years, thus misrepresenting what Revelation 20:4 records, as if those saints can somehow by martyred for refusing to worsip the beast, and his image, before the beast even ascends out of the pit first, and a 2nd one out of the earth. IOW, in regards to these particular martyrs, let's just ignore Revelation 13 since none of that could possibly be involving why they are martyred to begin with.

Revelation 20:4 and those particular martyrs which had not worshiped the beast, is key to determining where the thousand years fit, since their martyrdom is a result of the 42 month reign of the beast once it ascends out of the pit.
This is all based on your ASSUMPTION that Revelation 20 is only referring to people who are martyred during a literal 42 month period that precedes the return of Christ. I disagree with that interpretation, so you haven't proven anything to me.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We all are dirty rotten vile sinners. Do you listen to Satan to become a dirty rotten vile sinner?

You point out assumed anecdotal imagined reasons. Where in Scripture are they called dirty rotten vile sinners?

On what grounds are they destroyed by God if they are not sinners?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So, in your estimation, it is not sin to turn your heart and mind away from Christ to Satan? Are you serious? Where did you get that from? Who told you that?

1. So, from supposedly submitting to Christ for a thousand years and then rebelling against Him at the drop of a hat when Satan appears is now not sin?
2. So, disobeying Jesus is now not sin?
3. So, conspiring with Satan is now not sin?
4. So, swallowing the lie of the devil and submitting to his rebellious agenda is now not sin?
5. So, resisting Christ and the people of God is now not sin?
The point is not about after the 1,000 years. Neither the here and now. Why do you keep avoiding the actual 1,000 year reign? When you can address the actual 1,000 year reign, you will be having an actual conversation on topic with the thread.

Satan is listned to now. Satan is listened to after the 1,000 years. Satan is not listened to during the 1,000 years. Address the actual 1,000 years, Satan is not listened to. Stop avoiding the point, with excuses outside the parameters of the 1,000 years itself.

Yes, people can change their minds. You changed from premil to amil. You changed your mind. That is not some unheard of impossibility. You could actually change your mind again. Until God removes choices, changing one's mind is going to be a reality. Having choices is not the punishment, and not the ability to sin. Adam had a choice to eat, or not to eat. That is a choice, and was not Adam having no choice at all. That was prior to sin. No one took away Adam's choice, and forced him to eat the fruit against his will and ability to choose.

After the 1,000 years, humanity is not suddenly sinners without a choice, and forced to listen to Satan. They were not sinners bent on disobedience. They were not sinners waiting for Satan to come and be their long lost leader. They literally had a free will to choose Satan or reject Satan just like Eve and Adam had. If you think they were all sinners before Satan arrived, then God created Adam and Eve as sinners before sin entered the world. The Second Coming restored the earth to before Adam's disobedience condition. That is the purpose of the Lord's Day, the Day of the Lord. Revelation 20 is not some human imagined generalization. That is your personal opinion and the personal opinion of many Amil. Still just private opinion, the same as you all claim any interpretation of the chapter is private interpretation.

Revelation 20 is always interpreted by the reader. No interpretation is without that bias. So that argument is a smoke screen and hot air. If you reject the reality of 1,000 years, that is your interpretation. That is not the only interpretation. The Jews of the first century were just as deceived by Satan as the Gentiles were. That excuse does not fly either. The Jews could accept salvation equally, and be equally freed from Satan's bondage.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The point is not about after the 1,000 years. Neither the here and now. Why do you keep avoiding the actual 1,000 year reign? When you can address the actual 1,000 year reign, you will be having an actual conversation on topic with the thread.

Satan is listned to now. Satan is listened to after the 1,000 years. Satan is not listened to during the 1,000 years. Address the actual 1,000 years, Satan is not listened to. Stop avoiding the point, with excuses outside the parameters of the 1,000 years itself.

Yes, people can change their minds. You changed from premil to amil. You changed your mind. That is not some unheard of impossibility. You could actually change your mind again. Until God removes choices, changing one's mind is going to be a reality. Having choices is not the punishment, and not the ability to sin. Adam had a choice to eat, or not to eat. That is a choice, and was not Adam having no choice at all. That was prior to sin. No one took away Adam's choice, and forced him to eat the fruit against his will and ability to choose.

After the 1,000 years, humanity is not suddenly sinners without a choice, and forced to listen to Satan. They were not sinners bent on disobedience. They were not sinners waiting for Satan to come and be their long lost leader. They literally had a free will to choose Satan or reject Satan just like Eve and Adam had. If you think they were all sinners before Satan arrived, then God created Adam and Eve as sinners before sin entered the world. The Second Coming restored the earth to before Adam's disobedience condition. That is the purpose of the Lord's Day, the Day of the Lord. Revelation 20 is not some human imagined generalization. That is your personal opinion and the personal opinion of many Amil. Still just private opinion, the same as you all claim any interpretation of the chapter is private interpretation.

Revelation 20 is always interpreted by the reader. No interpretation is without that bias. So that argument is a smoke screen and hot air. If you reject the reality of 1,000 years, that is your interpretation. That is not the only interpretation. The Jews of the first century were just as deceived by Satan as the Gentiles were. That excuse does not fly either. The Jews could accept salvation equally, and be equally freed from Satan's bondage.

So are you now saying that this 3rd group of humans who are supposedly from "the edge of society" (whatever that means) that are too wicked to be glorified and too righteous to be destroyed sin when Satan is allowed to have his little season?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Amil believes that the falling away that Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2 happens during Satan's little season. Therefore, there are a lot more unsaved people during that time than there were before that time. So, what you're saying doesn't line up with what we believe about Satan's little season.
Is that not a factor of a population explosion and not sin itself. There have always been 100% sinners. A larger population is not the point.

How do you have a large population if you deny procreation in the Millennium?

Satan's little season is not based on more people being born. It is not even based on if those people are saved or not. Satan is released to decieve people period. Lost people are lost because they are deceived. Lost people do not need Satan to rally them against the saints. Obviously in your scenario, they have been killing the saints for 1992 years. The only difference is they are not consumed by fire before they actually kill the saints. Many live happy go lately lives, even after killing the saints. Satan could stay bound in your scenario. The only thing your scenario is missing is the fire.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This is all based on your ASSUMPTION that Revelation 20 is only referring to people who are martyred during a literal 42 month period that precedes the return of Christ. I disagree with that interpretation, so you haven't proven anything to me.
Is it still an assumption to include those beheaded? When do the actual words change from words to interpretation? You seem to be calling the actual words an assumption. John did not assume these words:

"and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands"

Can you prove John was just making an assumption here? There is literally no other time in history that fits this specific description. How is that an assumption. Amil assume it had to happen sometime, no? Premil do no have to assume. There is only one logical explanation. Anything beyond that specific explanation is an assumption. Why complain you are misquoted, misrepresented, and misinterpreted? Do you not assume a different explanation than the one John gave? John is not even posting on these threads as far as any one knows to even defend his words.

Do you think that chapter 13 has no bearing on this verse at all? That would be my guess, if I was betting on an answer. I do not make bets nor guesses, but evidently my interpretation is called into question, and an assumption, along with others who are called Premil.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
On what grounds are they destroyed by God if they are not sinners?
On the grounds that God can give life and take life away without a reason. God is Sovereign and answers to no one.

"And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly."

Job 1:21-22
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The point is not about after the 1,000 years. Neither the here and now. Why do you keep avoiding the actual 1,000 year reign? When you can address the actual 1,000 year reign, you will be having an actual conversation on topic with the thread.

Satan is listned to now. Satan is listened to after the 1,000 years. Satan is not listened to during the 1,000 years. Address the actual 1,000 years, Satan is not listened to. Stop avoiding the point, with excuses outside the parameters of the 1,000 years itself.

Yes, people can change their minds. You changed from premil to amil. You changed your mind. That is not some unheard of impossibility. You could actually change your mind again. Until God removes choices, changing one's mind is going to be a reality. Having choices is not the punishment, and not the ability to sin. Adam had a choice to eat, or not to eat. That is a choice, and was not Adam having no choice at all. That was prior to sin. No one took away Adam's choice, and forced him to eat the fruit against his will and ability to choose.

After the 1,000 years, humanity is not suddenly sinners without a choice, and forced to listen to Satan. They were not sinners bent on disobedience. They were not sinners waiting for Satan to come and be their long lost leader. They literally had a free will to choose Satan or reject Satan just like Eve and Adam had. If you think they were all sinners before Satan arrived, then God created Adam and Eve as sinners before sin entered the world. The Second Coming restored the earth to before Adam's disobedience condition. That is the purpose of the Lord's Day, the Day of the Lord. Revelation 20 is not some human imagined generalization. That is your personal opinion and the personal opinion of many Amil. Still just private opinion, the same as you all claim any interpretation of the chapter is private interpretation.

Revelation 20 is always interpreted by the reader. No interpretation is without that bias. So that argument is a smoke screen and hot air. If you reject the reality of 1,000 years, that is your interpretation. That is not the only interpretation. The Jews of the first century were just as deceived by Satan as the Gentiles were. That excuse does not fly either. The Jews could accept salvation equally, and be equally freed from Satan's bondage.

All I am getting is your speculations. This is totally inadmissible. And please do not accuse me or other Amillennialists of private opinion. That is all we are getting from you at the moment. There is absolutely no biblical basis to your allegations.

So,

1. Where in Revelation 20 does it say that Satan is not listened to during the 1,000 years?
2. Where in Revelation 20 does it say that the Second Coming restores the earth to before Adam's disobedience condition?
3. Where in Revelation 20 does it say that the millennial inhabitants before Satan arrives are sinless, or God created Adam and Eve as sinners before sin entered the world?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
On the grounds that God can give life and take life away without a reason. God is Sovereign and answers to no one.

So, He is destroying billions of sinless humans after Satan's little season? For what reason? On what grounds?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So are you now saying that this 3rd group of humans who are supposedly from "the edge of society" (whatever that means) that are too wicked to be glorified and too righteous to be destroyed sin when Satan is allowed to have his little season?
No third group. Another smoke screen. Can normal human beings not change their minds? Do you place all humans in groups every time their mind changes? Would that currently be about 8 billion groups?

The verse says from the four "corners".

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth."

These gog and magog types are from the very ends and come across the earth. Symbolically they refer to nondescript people, not specific nations. The term was used by Alexander the Great hundreds of years before the first century. They were naked barbarians that Alexander allegedly built a huge wall to prevent them from just walking into his kingdom and disrupting the peace. Modern lingo would be homeless zombies. Yet naked, without any normal human reasoning skills. Symbolically John pointed out some by that time would be susceptible because he called them gog and magog. John could just as easily described them as both "small and great" from all over and from every nation. He did not do that. I doubt he was giving them any legitimacy by giving them a name, because historically by itself that symbolism just shows the outcast of society. I would say it is the same usage in all Scripture. They are just the barbarian rifraff that the named Nations hired to fight their battles, so to not sacrifice their own civilians. If you want to give them legitimacy, maps of the ME in the first century place them in modern day Turkey. And the mountains north of Turkey is where this alledged wall was built by Alexander.

I don't think John was actually drawing from history, just using historical symbolism. Turkey is not the four quarters/corners of the earth. Saying the corners is the actual Greek meaning. Not sure why pointing out these people came from the edges and marched to the center where the camp of saints was, the ME, is hard to understand? They were not specified, not a known nation. They were just normal people who listened to Satan, and the further removed from the central government the larger the numbers of people who changed their minds about that central government.

Is it not logical to state that over the 1,000 years, people kept expanding to the four corners because they ran out of room to build? That the largest population and the most people lived the furthest from the center? They did not build upwards in tall buildings. They built outwards in normal houses with normal people. Isaiah 65 says once they built a house they never left. So obviously the next generation had to build further away, and that happened in all directions.

You claim there is no Scripture and we just make this up: Isaiah 65:21-23

"And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them."


They keep having offspring and keep living in the same houses. This happens for 1,000 years. Every new generation builds their own place, and never moves. Each generation moving out and building further away. Each house producing it's own "farm". So not just buildings but farm land. So the houses are further apart and no local stores. Just houses and farm land.

Take all this symbolically and just make up your own imagination. The literal words do not need any additional imagination. No one is forcing any one to think a certain way.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No third group. Another smoke screen. Can normal human beings not change their minds? Do you place all humans in groups every time their mind changes? Would that currently be about 8 billion groups?

I previously asked you: “are Gog and Magog wicked sinners or righteous saints?” You replied:

They are those at the edges of society. Neither. Your question does not apply until after God judges their hearts.

So, it is you who invented a third group.

The verse says from the four "corners".

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth."

These gog and magog types are from the very ends and come across the earth. Symbolically they refer to nondescript people, not specific nations. The term was used by Alexander the Great hundreds of years before the first century. They were naked barbarians that Alexander allegedly built a huge wall to prevent them from just walking into his kingdom and disrupting the peace. Modern lingo would be homeless zombies. Yet naked, without any normal human reasoning skills. Symbolically John pointed out some by that time would be susceptible because he called them gog and magog. John could just as easily described them as both "small and great" from all over and from every nation. He did not do that. I doubt he was giving them any legitimacy by giving them a name, because historically by itself that symbolism just shows the outcast of society. I would say it is the same usage in all Scripture. They are just the barbarian rifraff that the named Nations hired to fight their battles, so to not sacrifice their own civilians. If you want to give them legitimacy, maps of the ME in the first century place them in modern day Turkey. And the mountains north of Turkey is where this alledged wall was built by Alexander.

I don't think John was actually drawing from history, just using historical symbolism. Turkey is not the four quarters/corners of the earth. Saying the corners is the actual Greek meaning. Not sure why pointing out these people came from the edges and marched to the center where the camp of saints was, the ME, is hard to understand? They were not specified, not a known nation. They were just normal people who listened to Satan, and the further removed from the central government the larger the numbers of people who changed their minds about that central government.

Is it not logical to state that over the 1,000 years, people kept expanding to the four corners because they ran out of room to build? That the largest population and the most people lived the furthest from the center? They did not build upwards in tall buildings. They built outwards in normal houses with normal people. Isaiah 65 says once they built a house they never left. So obviously the next generation had to build further away, and that happened in all directions.

You claim there is no Scripture and we just make this up: Isaiah 65:21-23

"And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them."


They keep having offspring and keep living in the same houses. This happens for 1,000 years. Every new generation builds their own place, and never moves. Each generation moving out and building further away. Each house producing it's own "farm". So not just buildings but farm land. So the houses are further apart and no local stores. Just houses and farm land.

Take all this symbolically and just make up your own imagination. The literal words do not need any additional imagination. No one is forcing any one to think a certain way.

So, this 3rd group that you call "barbarian rifraff" or "homeless zombies" suddenly become sinless? How does that work? How can you say that they are not "wicked sinners" as you previously stated?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
8,607
2,867
MI
✟441,579.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, in your estimation, it is not sin to turn your heart and mind away from Christ to Satan? Are you serious? Where did you get that from? Who told you that?
LOL. It's very hard to believe that this guy is serious about the nonsense he puts out there. I think maybe he's just playing a game and seeing how people react for his entertainment. He posts the most absurd things that anyone can imagine.

1. So, from supposedly submitting to Christ for a thousand years and then rebelling against Him at the drop of a hat when Satan appears is now not sin?
2. So, disobeying Jesus is now not sin?
3. So, conspiring with Satan is now not sin?
4. So, swallowing the lie of the devil and submitting to his rebellious agenda is now not sin?
5. So, resisting Christ and the people of God is now not sin?
If those things are not sin then I don't know what sin is. LOL.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
All I am getting is your speculations. This is totally inadmissible. And please do not accuse me or other Amillennialists of private opinion. That is all we are getting from you at the moment. There is absolutely no biblical basis to your allegations.
What point about the Second Coming is negated by your questions?

Do you yourself reject that the Second Coming brings an end to Adam's flesh and blood? Very inconsistent to say one thing and then question that very fact when someone else agrees on that point. If the Second Coming does not restore the earth, what is the point of a Second Coming to begin with?

Since you have to assume this is after the Second Coming at least assume what happens after the Second Coming does actually happen after the Second Coming even if you have to pretend.

Why would you go out of the way to pretend something false after the Second Coming if the topic does indeed take place after the Second Coming? Some posters here have gone out of their way to pretend there is currently no sin in the here and now to be of the same mind as Amil. That currently no one is deceived so that many can be deceived in Satan's little season. At least pretend that the Second Coming has removed Adam's flesh and blood along with sin in the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

Because the reality is that the Second Coming removes sin and Adam's flesh and blood, regardless of the Amil or Premil viewpoint. Premil have to pretend the Cross did that so they can get on an equal level with Amil. Not sure why you think that is easy or take that for granted? All the return for that effort we get is misquoting, misrepresenting, misinterpreting.

You claim the future millennium is full of sin, because you claim it is the here and now. We claim the future millennium is not, or at least should claim that, because it is after the Second Coming. We have to then pretend for arguments sake the Second Coming is null and void, because you claim Revelation 20 starts at the Cross.

No one is asking you to change the point of the Second Coming. So why do so? Why use that as your only argument? Other than the false accusations and personal attacks. Can you at least pretend we are talking about after the Second Coming and the effects of the Second Coming?

1. Where in Revelation 20 does it say that Satan is not listened to during the 1,000 years?
2. Where in Revelation 20 does it say that the Second Coming restores the earth to before Adam's disobedience condition?
3. Where in Revelation 20 does it say that the millennial inhabitants before Satan arrives are sinless, or God created Adam and Eve as sinners before sin entered the world?

1. Does it have to state the obvious? How could they listen to Satan if he was not around? The point is about being deceived.

So: "that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled"

"shall go out to deceive the nations"

If they are deceived at a certain time, they only listened at a certain time. To be deceived, one has to hear that deception, at least normally.

2. Revelation 20 does not state the Second Coming at all. How do you know Revelation 20 takes place before the Second Coming? If you require the same level of proof, give your proof first.

3. Pretend the Second Coming happened, if you do not see it in your mind. Genesis 1-3 is Scriptural corroboration for the restoration of the Second Coming. Is your corroboration found or even referenced in Revelation 20? Once again a different standard than you give yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So, He is destroying billions of sinless humans after Satan's little season? For what reason? On what grounds?
God does not need any grounds. However the march across the earth clearly told God that these people thought being consumed by fire was better than the life they were living. That is what Satan's deception does to people's minds.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
LOL. It's very hard to believe that this guy is serious about the nonsense he puts out there. I think maybe he's just playing a game and seeing how people react for his entertainment. He posts the most absurd things that anyone can imagine.

If those things are not sin then I don't know what sin is. LOL.

Totally agree! This is more than eschatological error, it relates to the basics of the faith.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What point about the Second Coming is negated by your questions?

Do you yourself reject that the Second Coming brings an end to Adam's flesh and blood? Very inconsistent to say one thing and then question that very fact when someone else agrees on that point. If the Second Coming does not restore the earth, what is the point of a Second Coming to begin with?

Since you have to assume this is after the Second Coming at least assume what happens after the Second Coming does actually happen after the Second Coming even if you have to pretend.

Why would you go out of the way to pretend something false after the Second Coming if the topic does indeed take place after the Second Coming? Some posters here have gone out of their way to pretend there is currently no sin in the here and now to be of the same mind as Amil. That currently no one is deceived so that many can be deceived in Satan's little season. At least pretend that the Second Coming has removed Adam's flesh and blood along with sin in the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

Because the reality is that the Second Coming removes sin and Adam's flesh and blood, regardless of the Amil or Premil viewpoint. Premil have to pretend the Cross did that so they can get on an equal level with Amil. Not sure why you think that is easy or take that for granted? All the return for that effort we get is misquoting, misrepresenting, misinterpreting.

You claim the future millennium is full of sin, because you claim it is the here and now. We claim the future millennium is not, or at least should claim that, because it is after the Second Coming. We have to then pretend for arguments sake the Second Coming is null and void, because you claim Revelation 20 starts at the Cross.

No one is asking you to change the point of the Second Coming. So why do so? Why use that as your only argument? Other than the false accusations and personal attacks. Can you at least pretend we are talking about after the Second Coming and the effects of the Second Coming?



1. Does it have to state the obvious? How could they listen to Satan if he was not around? The point is about being deceived.

So: "that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled"

"shall go out to deceive the nations"

If they are deceived at a certain time, they only listened at a certain time. To be deceived, one has to hear that deception, at least normally.

2. Revelation 20 does not state the Second Coming at all. How do you know Revelation 20 takes place before the Second Coming? If you require the same level of proof, give your proof first.

3. Pretend the Second Coming happened, if you do not see it in your mind. Genesis 1-3 is Scriptural corroboration for the restoration of the Second Coming. Is your corroboration found or even referenced in Revelation 20? Once again a different standard than you give yourself.

Ok, so you have obviously nothing to support your claims. Why not just admit that instead of constantly voicing your own opinions? What you foist upon Revelation 20 is what I disagree with. You plainly have nothing to support your claims.

Your new earth is corrupt and full of corruption. There is no way round that. You have nothing in Revelation 20.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,074
3,469
USA
Visit site
✟225,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not an invention. An historical reason.

This is getting increasingly absurd and far-fetched.

I previously asked you: “are Gog and Magog wicked sinners or righteous saints?” You replied:

They are those at the edges of society. Neither. Your question does not apply until after God judges their hearts.

So, it is you who invented a third group.

The verse says from the four "corners".

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth."

These gog and magog types are from the very ends and come across the earth. Symbolically they refer to nondescript people, not specific nations. The term was used by Alexander the Great hundreds of years before the first century. They were naked barbarians that Alexander allegedly built a huge wall to prevent them from just walking into his kingdom and disrupting the peace. Modern lingo would be homeless zombies. Yet naked, without any normal human reasoning skills. Symbolically John pointed out some by that time would be susceptible because he called them gog and magog. John could just as easily described them as both "small and great" from all over and from every nation. He did not do that. I doubt he was giving them any legitimacy by giving them a name, because historically by itself that symbolism just shows the outcast of society. I would say it is the same usage in all Scripture. They are just the barbarian rifraff that the named Nations hired to fight their battles, so to not sacrifice their own civilians. If you want to give them legitimacy, maps of the ME in the first century place them in modern day Turkey. And the mountains north of Turkey is where this alledged wall was built by Alexander.

I don't think John was actually drawing from history, just using historical symbolism. Turkey is not the four quarters/corners of the earth. Saying the corners is the actual Greek meaning. Not sure why pointing out these people came from the edges and marched to the center where the camp of saints was, the ME, is hard to understand? They were not specified, not a known nation. They were just normal people who listened to Satan, and the further removed from the central government the larger the numbers of people who changed their minds about that central government.

Is it not logical to state that over the 1,000 years, people kept expanding to the four corners because they ran out of room to build? That the largest population and the most people lived the furthest from the center? They did not build upwards in tall buildings. They built outwards in normal houses with normal people. Isaiah 65 says once they built a house they never left. So obviously the next generation had to build further away, and that happened in all directions.

You claim there is no Scripture and we just make this up: Isaiah 65:21-23

"And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them."


They keep having offspring and keep living in the same houses. This happens for 1,000 years. Every new generation builds their own place, and never moves. Each generation moving out and building further away. Each house producing it's own "farm". So not just buildings but farm land. So the houses are further apart and no local stores. Just houses and farm land.

Take all this symbolically and just make up your own imagination. The literal words do not need any additional imagination. No one is forcing any one to think a certain way.

So, this 3rd group that you call "barbarian rifraff" or "homeless zombies" suddenly become sinless? How does that work? How can you say that they are not "wicked sinners" as you previously stated?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Ok, so you have obviously nothing to support your claims. Why not just admit that instead of constantly voicing your own opinions? What you foist upon Revelation 20 is what I disagree with. You plainly have nothing to support your claims.

Your new earth is corrupt and full of corruption. There is no way round that. You have nothing in Revelation 20.
Except you foist all that corruption into the chapter not me. You have nothing in Revelation 20 either. What you are foisting into the chapter is garbage.

What are my claims any way? I pointed out there is a physical resurrection. A resurrection to a permanent incorruptible physical body. No sin means no sin. Daniel 9:24.

"to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

This happens at the 7th Trumpet. After that is the Millennium. So those resurrected are resurrected into a Satan free and sin free environment.

Yet you foist Satan and sin onto these resurrected humans.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,417
575
58
Mount Morris
✟148,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So, this 3rd group that you call "barbarian rifraff" or "homeless zombies" suddenly become sinless? How does that work? How can you say that they are not "wicked sinners" as you previously stated?
I never said they suddenly become sinless.
 
Upvote 0