Which passages in particular in Revelation do Amils use to support all of the following?

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let me start with this last part here. I don't think we are too far apart here. I tend to see it similar to what you do here.

Thanks for your response. I am glad we have some common ground. Maybe we can explore this subject further.

At this point I'm not convinced though, that this equates to the beast ascending out of the pit after the thousand years. One reason why is because Revelation 20:4 already proves that the beast has ascended out of the pit before satan is ever loosed from the pit.

The first thing that is important to grasp as we dive into the book of Revelation is that it is not chronological. It is a series of recaps. It presents different camera views of the same game (mainly, the period between Christ's First Advent and His Second Advent). Sometimes when one is watching a sports game, the camera is close in on the action, sometimes it presents a broad panoramic view of the game. Sometimes it is focused on the coaches, sometimes it is focused on the players, other times, it is focused on the fans. The book Revelation is a bit like that.

Secondly, the symbolism of Revelation is lent from literal Old Testament realities, events and people and in turn spiritualized in Revelation to impress New Testament truth. The symbolism is used as a picture-board to give us a glimpse into the invisible realm – something that is hard for the human mind that is focused on the physical, visible and earthly. It is hard to comprehend spiritual mysteries with the human understanding.

The physical calamities that befell Egypt before Israel were rescued and were documented in (Deuteronomy 4:34) mirror the spiritual calamities that will befall the world before the redeemed Church is rescued at the second coming.

Thirdly, we cannot divorce Christ from His body or His elect angels. All reside within the one unitary kingdom and possess the same overall agenda. They also work within the one divine program.

Christ's first advent involved Him coming to overcome every enemy of man. Christ conquered sin, death, Hades and Satan when He came. They are all defeated enemies that have been given a short season to survive during this intra-Advent. They will all finally be eliminated when Jesus comes again to introduce eternal righteousness. Because the kingdom of God is a unitary whole, the fate of all are tied together, Christ being the representative head. Christ's victory now belongs to the elect of God. That is why they have been given power over Satan and his demons. They have been given authority to invade his dark kingdom since the cross with the light of the truth.

Fourthly, the fate of the Satan, demons, the beast (antichrist spirit or the mystery of iniquity) and the wicked are all tied together. Because the kingdom of darkness is a unitary whole, the fate of all are tied together, Satan being the representative head. When Satan was defeated, the kingdom of darkness was defeated. When Satan was banished to the pit, so also was the beast. When Satan is released before the second coming so also is the beast. The 3 1/2 years (whether literal or symbolic) closely correlate with Satan's little season.

As to the first portion of your post involving the 5th trumpet, I'm not asking the following in order to necessarily make this be about Premil vs Amil, I'm asking this because I'm not seeing the logic in the 5th trumpet involving satan coming out of it, even if I were an Amil I would still not be seeing the logic in it. And the following are some of the reasons why.


Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

The first thing to note is, at this point in the text this only shows locusts coming out. It mentions zero about anyone else emerging from the pit as well, keeping in mind that I'm meaning as of at this point in the text. Once these locusts come out, the text indicates---And it was commanded them that they should not hurt--but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. How is it logical that satan would be behind that? The text says---it was commanded them---so who is it that commanded them? Maybe the following perhaps? And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

If this is who commanded them, and that this is meaning satan, why would satan be commanding someone to only hurt those that have not the seal of God in their foreheads? How can anyone that does not have the seal of God in their foreheads not be one of satan's followers? To me it makes more sense that the 5th trumpet is involving something God is doing, not something satan is doing.

Getting back to verse 4 and who is it that is commanding them, the text also indicates---that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree. Why would that be something satan is commanding someone? It seems to me then, that if the one commanding them is meaning the king of them(verse 11), this king can't be meaning satan since what they are being commanded to do or not do doesn't fit what satan would be commanding someone to do or not do.

The main issue Amils have with Premil is that it is a disjointed theological mess. There is no correlation of truth. There are no consistent hermeneutical rules. Premils seem to make it up as they go.

What is more, they are constantly forced to dilute down both the enormity of Christ's victory and the reality of Satan's defeat because of their mistaken teaching. Premil is always exalting the character and power of the enemy in our age, and ignoring or rejecting the character, ability and triumphs of Christ.

A careful observation of the several different parallel cycles in Revelation reveal a short season at the end where God allows the kingdom of darkness to flex its muscles and persecute His elect. It is sometimes symbolically referred to as ‘three and a half years’ or Satan’s little season. Is it literal or symbolic? If symbolic, symbolic of what?

I think most Amils today would view the three and a half years as symbolic. Some believe they symbolically represent the intra-Advent period (being half of seven the number of completeness). They see seven years as symbolically representing all time, half of that the New Testament period from Christ, the other half the Old Testament period. Others correlate the three and a half years with Satan’s little season (although not representing a literal period). I would have held to the former view re the intra-Advent period. So, what have I arrived at? Whilst I don’t believe the three and a half years are literal, I am leaning toward the latter – that they may coincide with Satan’s little season at the end. I normally shied away from that because I felt that would contradict what I believe Revelation 20 teaches, but I have discovered it doesn’t. I thought the beast would have to be restricted to a three and a half years life-span, which would have contradicted many other passages in Revelation showing him to be in existence long before John.

Whether the “forty and two months” are literal or symbolic can be debated. However, that doesn’t exclude a time-period of evil empowerment / persecution of the beast before the Lord's return. This notably fits perfectly with the Amil understanding of Satan’s little season (Revelation 20).

The beast has to be released from the bottomless pit at the end where he has been held since the 1st Advent. The fate of the beast are tied together. When Satan was banished to the pit, so also was the beast. When Satan is released so also is the beast. This therefore correlates with Satan's little season.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let me start with this last part here. I don't think we are too far apart here. I tend to see it similar to what you do here. At this point I'm not convinced though, that this equates to the beast ascending out of the pit after the thousand years. One reason why is because Revelation 20:4 already proves that the beast has ascended out of the pit before satan is ever loosed from the pit.
How exactly does Revelation 20:4 prove that?

As to the first portion of your post involving the 5th trumpet, I'm not asking the following in order to necessarily make this be about Premil vs Amil, I'm asking this because I'm not seeing the logic in the 5th trumpet involving satan coming out of it, even if I were an Amil I would still not be seeing the logic in it. And the following are some of the reasons why.


Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

The first thing to note is, at this point in the text this only shows locusts coming out. It mentions zero about anyone else emerging from the pit as well, keeping in mind that I'm meaning as of at this point in the text.
What is your understanding of the identity of the locusts? Clearly, it's not referring to literal locusts since it says their king is "the angel of the abyss". That makes them angels as well. Fallen angels. Who is the king of the fallen angels? The devil, Satan.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Once these locusts come out, the text indicates---And it was commanded them that they should not hurt--but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. How is it logical that satan would be behind that? The text says---it was commanded them---so who is it that commanded them? Maybe the following perhaps? And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

If this is who commanded them, and that this is meaning satan, why would satan be commanding someone to only hurt those that have not the seal of God in their foreheads? How can anyone that does not have the seal of God in their foreheads not be one of satan's followers? To me it makes more sense that the 5th trumpet is involving something God is doing, not something satan is doing.

Getting back to verse 4 and who is it that is commanding them, the text also indicates---that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree. Why would that be something satan is commanding someone? It seems to me then, that if the one commanding them is meaning the king of them(verse 11), this king can't be meaning satan since what they are being commanded to do or not do doesn't fit what satan would be commanding someone to do or not do.
Amils are not saying that the commands are from Abaddon/Apollyon, who we believe is Satan. It isn't about what they are commanded to do, it's about what God will allow them to do.

And they, of course, will gladly cause as much harm as they are allowed to do, just as God knows they will. It's actually God's will that they harm people without the seal of God because He wants their suffering to lead them to repentance. But, if you keep reading on in Revelation 9, they stubbornly refuse to repent even after the events of the sixth trumpet occur.

Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: 21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,582
7,776
63
Martinez
✟894,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A) and bound him a thousand years(Revelation 20:2)

B) and after that he must be loosed a little season(Revelation 20:3)

C) which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(Revelation 20:4)

D) and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years(Revelation 20:4)


It only stands to reason that if Amils are correct that all of these events precede the 2nd coming, there should be other Scriptures in Revelation involving each of these things.


1) Which passage/s in Revelation do Amils use to show when A) begins?

2) Which passage/s in Revelation do Amils use to show when B) begins?

3) Which passage/s in Revelation do Amils use to show when C) is occurring during?

4) Which passage/s in Revelation do Amils use to show when D) is occurring during?

The reason for this thread is because all of the above has not been entirely clear to me, Amil's position on these things and how Revelation supports what they are concluding.

As to the OP here, I'm not interested as to where Amils find support for some or all of these things outside of Revelation, since most of that is already clear to me for the most part, so that's not what I'm inquiring about in the OP. I'm only interested as to where in Revelation in particular that they find supports all of the above.
Only one. Revelation 1:1. This is the lens in which to read this apocalyptic literature. Who,what,where and when.
Who- to His servants (seven churches)
What- Letters to seven churches specifically speaking of their righteous and unrighteous deeds, fulfilled past prophecies, present persecutions and their future end of the age, the destruction of the Temple.
Where- Major churches in Asia Minor
When- "things which must shortly take place" . Sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD , the end of that age.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only one. Revelation 1:1. This is the lens in which to read this apocalyptic literature. Who,what,where and when.
Who- to His servants (seven churches)
What- Letters to seven churches specifically speaking of their righteous and unrighteous deeds, fulfilled past prophecies, present persecutions and their future end of the age, the destruction of the Temple.
Where- Major churches in Asia Minor
When- "things which must shortly take place" . Sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD , the end of that age.

It is intra-Advent - taking us up to the end of the world when time shall be no more at the last trump.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only one. Revelation 1:1. This is the lens in which to read this apocalyptic literature. Who,what,where and when.
Who- to His servants (seven churches)
What- Letters to seven churches specifically speaking of their righteous and unrighteous deeds, fulfilled past prophecies, present persecutions and their future end of the age, the destruction of the Temple.
Where- Major churches in Asia Minor
When- "things which must shortly take place" . Sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD , the end of that age.
Where is your evidence to show that the book was written before 70 AD?

Why was it addressed to seven Gentile churches in Asia Minor if it all has to do with things that would happen in Jerusalem?

How could 70 AD have been the end of the age when the end of the age will bring about the end of marriage and death (Luke 20:34-36), which did not happen in 70 AD?

I assume you are a preterist and think the end of the age refers to the end of the supposed old covenant age. If so, why do you not accept that the death of Christ was what brought an end to the old covenant (Col 2:14)?
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,582
7,776
63
Martinez
✟894,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where is your evidence to show that the book was written before 70 AD?

Why was it addressed to seven Gentile churches in Asia Minor if it all has to do with things that would happen in Jerusalem?

How could 70 AD have been the end of the age when the end of the age will bring about the end of marriage and death (Luke 20:34-36), which did not happen in 70 AD?

I assume you are a preterist and think the end of the age refers to the end of the supposed old covenant age. If so, why do you not accept that the death of Christ was what brought an end to the old covenant (Col 2:14)?
I am a partial- Preterist. I belive Jesus Christ of Nazareth will return.

There is much evidence however , many do not want to consider it. I pointed to the very first verse in Revelation that tells us exactly what we need to know. Of course it gets overlooked time and time again. Well I decided not to over look the verse and see Revelation for what it is.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How exactly does Revelation 20:4 prove that?


I have already shown this a number of different times in past posts in past threads. Revelation 20:4 indicates that before satan is ever loosed from the pit, that there have already been saints that have been martyred, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. This martyrdom is not even possible unless the beast has risen out of the pit, and that a 2nd one has risen out of the earth. This martyrdom can't be meaning when the beast is still in the pit, since that makes zero sense. When John was given the visions the beast was still in the pit.

Even though there was a time when the beast was not yet in the pit, the martyrdom involving those recorded in verse 4 can't be meaning during that time either, since there would have been no false prophet in play at the time.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Take this first vial, for instance. It says this---and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. How can that possibly be meaning anyone during a time when the beast was, and is not, that this first vial was poured out on them which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image? Obviously, and I realize I use that word a lot, but when I use it is because it is actually obvious, thus no speculating necessary, when this first vial is poured out it is being poured out after the beast has already ascended out of the pit, and that another beast has already risen out of the earth.

Where then this 2nd beast, meaning the false prophet, saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. The beast meant here is clearly meaning the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live. It says so right in the text(Revelation 13:14). So that's not even debatable. This tells us that ALL of Revelation 13 is involving a time after the beast has ascended out of the pit.

In Revelation 20:4---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands---clearly shows that these saints did not have the mark of the beast, because they did not worship his image like the ones in Revelation 16:2 did. The following is their fate instead, referring to the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4---and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed(Revelation 13:15 ).

There is no image of the beast though, not until the beast ascends out of the pit, and a 2nd one rises out of the earth, and that Revelation 13:14-17 is fulfilled first. No reasonable person would be applying Revelation 16:2 to anyone living during a time when the beast was, and is not, they would be applying that to a time after the beast has ascended out of the pit, so the same should be true of the martyrs recorded in verse 4 of Revelation 20, they shouldn't be applying their martyrdom to a time when the beast was, and is not, but should be applying it to a time after the beast has ascended out of the pit.

The reason why you don't see the logic in what I'm saying here is because you are forcing the texts involved to somehow work with Amil rather than just letting the texts speak for themselves. You are not using Scripture to interpret Scripture in this case if you are unable to see that the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4 involves the beast ascending out of the pit, and another rising out of the earth and fulfilling Revelation 13:14-17, before anyone can even be martyred for refusing to worship the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am a partial- Preterist. I belive Jesus Christ of Nazareth will return.

There is much evidence however , many do not want to consider it. I pointed to the very first verse in Revelation that tells us exactly what we need to know. Of course it gets overlooked time and time again. Well I decided not to over look the verse and see Revelation for what it is.
Do you overlook this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Also, the mention of things soon taking place has more to do with the certainty of them taking place then that they would literally all occur soon. Obviously, the thousand years, even when not taken literally, refers to a long period of time. So, that doesn't all happen soon. Nor Satan's little season that follows it. So, you take Rev 1:1 way too literally.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The reason why you don't see the logic in what I'm saying here is because you are forcing the texts involved to somehow work with Amil rather than just letting the texts speak for themselves.
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement and you know it. You are interpreting the text based on premil assumptions regarding other scripture so I guess that means you are forcing the text to fit premil rather than letting it speak for itself?

Do you let 2 Peter 3:3-13 just speak for itself, assuming that letting the text speak for itself means to interpret it literally? No, you do not. Do you let John 5:28-29 speak for itself? No, you do not. Do you let Matthew 25:31-46 speak for itself? No, you do not. I could go on and on. So, this kind of argument is useless. We all have to discern whether any given passage is meant to be taken figuratively or literally, so it's not about "letting the texts speak for themselves".

The difference is that I take Revelation 20 figuratively and you take it literally. I take passages like 2 Peter 3:3-13, John 5:28-29 and Matthew 25:31-46 literally and you don't.

Also, I'd like to point out that even you don't take Revelation 20 totally literally because you believe that the first resurrection involves the resurrection of all of the dead in Christ from all-time and not just those who are martyred for a brief time period in the future. So, should I say that you are not letting the text speak for itself when that is the case?

You are not using Scripture to interpret Scripture in this case if you are unable to see that the martyrdom recorded in Revelation 20:4 involves the beast ascending out of the pit, and another rising out of the earth and fulfilling Revelation 13:14-17, before anyone can even be martyred for refusing to worship the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
If you can show that the beast ascending from THE SEA is the same thing as the beast ascending from THE PIT then I would take that into consideration, but you have never done that. You have never explained why it says he ascends from the sea instead of the pit. The onus is on you to show that there isn't a difference, but you have not done so convincingly to this point.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement and you know it. You are interpreting the text based on premil assumptions regarding other scripture so I guess that means you are forcing the text to fit premil rather than letting it speak for itself?

Do you let 2 Peter 3:3-13 just speak for itself, assuming that letting the text speak for itself means to interpret it literally? No, you do not. Do you let John 5:28-29 speak for itself? No, you do not. Do you let Matthew 25:31-46 speak for itself? No, you do not. I could go on and on. So, this kind of argument is useless. We all have to discern whether any given passage is meant to be taken figuratively or literally, so it's not about "letting the texts speak for themselves".

The difference is that I take Revelation 20 figuratively and you take it literally. I take passages like 2 Peter 3:3-13, John 5:28-29 and Matthew 25:31-46 literally and you don't.

Also, I'd like to point out that even you don't take Revelation 20 totally literally because you believe that the first resurrection involves the resurrection of all of the dead in Christ from all-time and not just those who are martyred for a brief time period in the future. So, should I say that you are not letting the text speak for itself when that is the case?

If you can show that the beast ascending from THE SEA is the same thing as the beast ascending from THE PIT then I would take that into consideration, but you have never done that. You have never explained why it says he ascends from the sea instead of the pit. The onus is on you to show that there isn't a difference, but you have not done so convincingly to this point.

Yes, and does antichrist literally have "seven heads and ten horns"? David constantly spiritualizes the literal and literalizes the spiritual. This does not add up.

Revelation 13:1: "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 17:3 says, “So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.”

Revelation 17:7 says, “And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Where are you getting the idea that a half hour in heaven equates to 20 years earth time?

It's obviously wrong that Satan will get 2 future times where he is allowed to wreak unrestrained havoc in the world. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he be allowed that?
We are told twice; that to God in heaven, one day is equal to 1000 years earth time. Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8
Therefore a half hour in heaven is 1/48th of 1000 years = 20 years on earth. It is 'about' the time needed to fulfil all that is prophesied before Jesus Returns, from the Sixth Seal.

So you mean the Bible makes no sense to you?
The two future times are plainly told to us in Revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We are told twice; that to God in heaven, one day is equal to 1000 years earth time. Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8
Therefore a half hour in heaven is 1/48th of 1000 years = 20 years on earth. It is 'about' the time needed to fulfil all that is prophesied before Jesus Returns, from the Sixth Seal.
You take everything so literally. It is ridiculous to think of God as if He was confined to time and space, which He is not. Time does not affect God at all. A day is like a million years to Him. The point is that any amount of time is the same to God because He is not affected by time and does not exist within the realm of time that He created.

So you mean the Bible makes no sense to you?
The two future times are plainly told to us in Revelation.
No, your interpretations of the Bible make no sense to me. The Bible itself makes perfect sense, unlike you.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Time does not affect God at all. A day is like a million years to Him. The point is that any amount of time is the same to God because He is not affected by time and does not exist within the realm of time that He created.
Revelation 8:1.... there will be silence for about a half hour in heaven.
Your belief is wrong.
No, your interpretations of the Bible make no sense to me. The Bible itself makes perfect sense, unlike you.
As I said: the Bible tells of two times that Satan is released in the future.
Read the Bible and understand. Have the guts to admit you were wrong!
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Revelation 8:1.... there will be silence for about a half hour in heaven.
Your belief is wrong.
What do you mean? I said God is not confined within the realm of time. This doesn't change that fact. He created time, so why would time affect Him at all? You're not even thinking this through.

As I said: the Bible tells of two times that Satan is released in the future.
Read the Bible and understand. Have the guts to admit you were wrong!
LOL! You can't tell by now that I disagree with you and always will? There is nothing for me to admit except that I disagree with a lot of things that you believe.
 
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,229
4,189
37
US
✟910,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I've been curious about this too because Revelation says that the archangels/angels will engage in battle with Satan, win and then Satan will be cast to Earth. Then, Jesus will come back, resurrect the righteous dead and the righteous dead and the angels will engage in a battle with Satan again and win, then God will bind him for the thousand years we reign with him and then afterwards Satan and his demons will go into the lake of fire and the New Heavens and the New Earth will come.

If these events are backwards or whatever how do they fit in with the book of Revelation? Satan has to be defeated by the angels, then we come in, win and then Satan is bound and later defeated once and for all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you can show that the beast ascending from THE SEA is the same thing as the beast ascending from THE PIT then I would take that into consideration, but you have never done that. You have never explained why it says he ascends from the sea instead of the pit. The onus is on you to show that there isn't a difference, but you have not done so convincingly to this point.

The abyss mean the deep. I would think sea would also mean the deep. Both Revelation 13 and 17 tell us that beast ascends out of something.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up(anabaino) out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

In a real world example, if something rises up out of the sea, this indicates that this something has been submerged under the sea until it rises up out of it. That's what it would have to mean if a literal sea were involved, and that something is then seen rising up out of it. If something was already on the surface of the sea the entire time, it wouldn't make sense that it is said to rise up out of the sea. In a real world situation a ship would not fit this, but a submarine might. A literal sea is likely not even meant in Revelation 13:1 to begin with. I'm only using these real world examples to show what it would mean for something to rise up out of the sea, that it would have to mean that what is rising up has been submerged under the surface in the meantime.

And since both sea and the abyss describe things that are deep and that the deep part would be under the surface, this could mean that sea and the pit are being used interchangeably here. Notice that I said 'could'.


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


But even if sea in Revelation 13:1 is not meaning the BP, and maybe it isn't, why does that even matter, though? You would think that the beast still has to have already ascended out of the pit before Revelation 13:1 can be fulfilled, assuming sea in this context is not meaning the BP. How is one expected to make any sense out of Revelation 13:1 if none of that involves the beast ascending out of the pit, either before this event, or during this event?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I've been curious about this too because Revelation says that the archangels/angels will engage in battle with Satan, win and then Satan will be cast to Earth. Then, Jesus will come back, resurrect the righteous dead and the righteous dead and the angels will engage in a battle with Satan again and win, then God will bind him for the thousand years we reign with him and then afterwards Satan and his demons will go into the lake of fire and the New Heavens and the New Earth will come.

If these events are backwards or whatever how do they fit in with the book of Revelation? Satan has to be defeated by the angels, then we come in, win and then Satan is bound and later defeated once and for all.

Your understanding of these events are backward. There are many New Testament Scriptures that teach that Satan and his demons were cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned in the abyss through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection (Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2).

There are various Scriptures, especially in Revelation that teach that Satan and his demons will be released from their restraint in the abyss prior to the end for a final assault upon the people of God. This is essentially the devils last throw. The fate of Satan, antichrist and the wicked are carefully tied together in their agenda, activity and doom.

At the second coming we see the final downfall of the kingdom of darkness. We see the destruction of this evil confederacy that is united against God and the people of God. Satan, antichrist and their minions will all be destroyed, judged and banished to the Lake of Fire when the Lord returns.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The abyss mean the deep. I would think sea would also mean the deep. Both Revelation 13 and 17 tell us that beast ascends out of something.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up(anabaino) out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

In a real world example, if something rises up out of the sea, this indicates that this something has been submerged under the sea until it rises up out of it. That's what it would have to mean if a literal sea were involved, and that something is then seen rising up out of it. If something was already on the surface of the sea the entire time, it wouldn't make sense that it is said to rise up out of the sea. In a real world situation a ship would not fit this, but a submarine might. A literal sea is likely not even meant in Revelation 13:1 to begin with. I'm only using these real world examples to show what it would mean for something to rise up out of the sea, that it would have to mean that what is rising up has been submerged under the surface in the meantime.

And since both sea and the abyss describe things that are deep and that the deep part would be under the surface, this could mean that sea and the pit are being used interchangeably here. Notice that I said 'could'.


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


But even if sea in Revelation 13:1 is not meaning the BP, and maybe it isn't, why does that even matter, though? You would think that the beast still has to have already ascended out of the pit before Revelation 13:1 can be fulfilled, assuming sea in this context is not meaning the BP. How is one expected to make any sense out of Revelation 13:1 if none of that involves the beast ascending out of the pit, either before this event, or during this event?

I agree with a lot you write here. It all points toward the fact that we are looking at a spiritual abode/condition.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The abyss mean the deep. I would think sea would also mean the deep. Both Revelation 13 and 17 tell us that beast ascends out of something.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up(anabaino) out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

In a real world example, if something rises up out of the sea, this indicates that this something has been submerged under the sea until it rises up out of it. That's what it would have to mean if a literal sea were involved, and that something is then seen rising up out of it. If something was already on the surface of the sea the entire time, it wouldn't make sense that it is said to rise up out of the sea. In a real world situation a ship would not fit this, but a submarine might. A literal sea is likely not even meant in Revelation 13:1 to begin with. I'm only using these real world examples to show what it would mean for something to rise up out of the sea, that it would have to mean that what is rising up has been submerged under the surface in the meantime.

And since both sea and the abyss describe things that are deep and that the deep part would be under the surface, this could mean that sea and the pit are being used interchangeably here. Notice that I said 'could'.


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


But even if sea in Revelation 13:1 is not meaning the BP, and maybe it isn't, why does that even matter, though?
Because then Revelation 13 could be talking of a different time period than when he ascends from the bottomless pit/abyss.

You would think that the beast still has to have already ascended out of the pit before Revelation 13:1 can be fulfilled, assuming sea in this context is not meaning the BP. How is one expected to make any sense out of Revelation 13:1 if none of that involves the beast ascending out of the pit, either before this event, or during this event?
This is what someone says when they are a futurist and sees all of Revelation as referring to the future. I'm not a futurist like you, so I'm not obligated to assume that the beast has to ascend out of the pit before persecuting believers. I also don't believe that the beast (or the dragon) being in the pit means it is completely unable to do anything, so that is a big difference in our perspectives.

Didn't you say you agree that Satan was cast out of heaven long ago when Jesus ascended there? I believe that, too. What does Revelation 12:17 say he does after that? He goes to make war with Christians, right? To persecute them. Did he need to be loosed from the pit to persecute believers? No. Doesn't he always work hand in hand with the beast? So, it seems to me that after he was cast out of heaven he worked hand in hand with the beast to persecute believers and that is what Revelation 13 talks about.

People like us who live in the U.S. don't have any understanding of how much persecution there has been of Christians the past 2,000 years or so. There has been a lot of it and it's going to probably start happening here more as time goes on.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The following just came to mind. With post # 36 in mind, and my use of real world examples and something being submerged, IOW hidden, until it rises to the surface, why isn't anyone interpreting Revelation 13:1 in light of the following in 2 Thessalonians 2?

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The first mistake many make concerning this verse, they are misapplying what 'taken' means according to the Greek. The Greek word is ginomai


a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):--arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.

Notice something here, one of it's defs---arise. This Greek word doesn't mean something is being removed, it means something is coming to be, as in was hidden until it comes out in the open.

And in Revelation 13:1 we see something rising up out of the sea, and in Revelation 17 we are told that this same something rises up out of the BP. Surely all of these things are connected with 2 Thessalonians 2:7, both Revelation 13:1 and Revelation 17.

I would then think---only he who now letteth will let--is being applied while the beast is in the pit---and this part---until he be taken out of the way---is being applied to when the beast emerges from the pit. Even though I'm not Amil, why would Amils choose to disagree with me here? Because I'm Premil, and that no Premil can be correct about anything involving things like this since Premil is not a valid position to begin with? It shouldn't matter that I'm Premil, I'm simply just trying to make sense out of these texts involved, and where ever that leads to, either to Premil or to Amil, is where that leads to.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0