20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We have multiple Scripture that shows Christ reign now in heaven. Premils have nothing.


I'm Premil and don't dispute that Christ is now reigning in heaven. I don't think any Premil disputes that, though I could be wrong about that. What does that have to do with Revelation 20 and the thousand years though, since it could mean that currently He is reigning in heaven, but during the thousand years He will be bodily reigning on the earth? This does not deny that He is currently reigning in heaven.
 
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
Peter points out that after Noah's Flood it was a new heavens and earth. It was not always the same since creation. Those people of Peter's day were already scoffing that God cannot destroy and create as pointed out in God's Word.
Peter said we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in the future (2 Peter 3:13). So, my point is that is the same new heavens and new earth that Isaiah prophesied about in Isaiah 65:17-25. Do you disagree?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Though I do agree no corruptible body can enter heaven, a soul and a body are not the same. For a soul to enter heaven is not the same as a body entering heaven. The only one with an incorruptible body in heaven is Christ. Meaning anyone that is human. Every other human in heaven are depicted as souls, such as what is recorded in Revelation 6 and the 5th seal. The text indicates their souls are seen under the altar in heaven, not their incorruptible bodies instead. Do you deny that there will be a bodily resurrection of those that sleep in Christ, in our future? A bodily resurrection doesn't happen to someone twice, right?
Being asleep in Christ is not a literal term. The soul is not asleep. The soul is not dead either. A dead soul is in sheol.

The Cross changed that. No longer does a soul wait in sheol that is Abraham's bosom. To say a soul is still dead is what you all are literally saying. A soul that is dead does not have a body. That is the literal interpretation of a dead soul. The soul itself is not dead, nor can die. Death is the lack of a body. Or in the case of posters here, the soul is in a dead corruptible body. Being dead is still being dead, period.

You all claim the soul is still dead in Paradise, because death means no body literally. Symbolically being alive is just that, symbolic and not literal. That is why we use the terms "symbolic" and "literal". Paul was using symbolic terms "earthly tent" and "permanent building" the body is literal. You do have a literal body, correct? It is not symbolic. What is symbolic is that it is a tent, worthless, corruptible another symbolic term and a word with a bad literal meaning, corruption. Your body is literally corrupt and temporal, hence a "tent". Symbolism does not negate the literal. Why would a "permanent building" in Paradise negate the literal fact the soul has a body in Paradise? Calling the body on earth a "tent" does not negate a literal body.

The use of the word soul is in connotation of how the body was killed. "The souls of them" John is not literally seeing souls. That is his symbolic way of saying how the corruptible body of that particular soul died. That does not negate what a first (physical) resurrection is. That was Paul's whole point in 1 Corinthians 15. Not that those in Paradise are waiting for a body. The first resurrection is immediate. It was immediate for Lazarus, for Christ, and for all those in Abraham's bosom. It is immediate when this corruptible body dies, and the soul enters the permanent incorruptible body in Paradise. The soul is not dead nor sleeping. Saying the soul is without a body is claiming the soul is still dead without a body, just like those in sheol.

Scripture points out, you can believe anything. Even if it is not true. But believing a theology or ideology does not change facts. A soul in this corruptible body is still dead. It can be quickened by the Holy Spirit, but is still dead. Those souls in Paradise are not dead, but they are not "alive" like we are, thank God. Calling them dead or asleep is from our perspective, and God says we are dead in our sins and this body. Our perspective is what is flawed, not reality. The fact remains, they are more alive with incorruptible bodies in Paradise, than we are in dead corruptible bodies on earth.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Let me clear it up then. There is a distinction between the first resurrection itself and having part in the first resurrection. The first resurrection itself was Christ's (Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, 1 Cor 15:20, Rev 1:5) and it was obviously a bodily resurrection. The way that believers have part in the first resurrection (Christ's bodily resurrection) is spiritually as many passages in scripture illustrate. Such as this one:

Romans 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Before we're saved we're considered to be dead in our sins (Eph 2:1-6), but once we become saved we then become dead to sin and spiritually "alive to God in Christ Jesus". So, that is how we spiritually have part in His resurrection, which is the first resurrection.
This only applies to those in dead corruptible bodies. Why would it apply to Jesus Christ in Paradise? Why would it apply to those in permanent incorruptible bodies in Paradise? Why would a soul be deprived in Paradise?

We all agree the dead corruptible body does not ever go to Paradise at any time. Those in dead corruptible bodies cannot prevent the souls in Paradise from resurrection and keep them depraved and bodiless. We have not prevented Jesus Christ from that fact. Why prevent the church in Paradise from that fact?
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Unsurprisingly, you didn't bother trying to explain how your view lines up with what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 or 2 Corinthians 5:6-8. Again, your view contradicts those passages and you are clearly unable to show otherwise.
It does not, or you would have given an example. Paul says that those who claim no one is resurrected to Paradise in bodily form, are denying the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole chapter is about different bodily physical forms. Not one is pnuema meaning just air and nothing physical. Spirit is pnuema. Otherwise it deals with our spirit which is just as physical as our incorruptible body. See Genesis 1:26-27. The physical and spiritual are equally physical creations. There is no division at that point.
 
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
It does not, or you would have given an example.
An example of what?

Paul says that those who claim no one is resurrected to Paradise in bodily form, are denying the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Where does he say that?

The whole chapter is about different bodily physical forms. Not one is pnuema meaning just air and nothing physical. Spirit is pnuema. Otherwise it deals with our spirit which is just as physical as our incorruptible body. See Genesis 1:26-27. The physical and spiritual are equally physical creations. There is no division at that point.
You have no idea of what you're talking about. If people who are in heaven now had bodies then John clearly would not have said that he saw their souls (Rev 6:9-11, Rev 20:4) since that would be completely ridiculous. How could he even see their souls if they have bodies?
 
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
Why would a soul be deprived in Paradise?

Ummmm...maybe because until the bodily resurrection of the saved happens at the 2nd coming, in the meantime no one has a conceivable way to receive an immortal incorruptible body? Why would they not receive one the same way Jesus did? Did not He have to bodily rise from the dead first, then once He arose, He then received a body like this? When a person dies that is hardly the same thing as what Jesus experienced if they receive an incorruptible body before they rise from the dead. While He was dead He was not already in an incorruptible body during death, that didn't happen until after He rose first.

Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


How can anyone possibly think that the last trump has already sounded? This passage makes it crystal clear, that until the last trump sounds, in the meantime there is not a single person, other than Christ, who has already been changed, and has already put on an incorruptible body.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Peter said we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in the future (2 Peter 3:13). So, my point is that is the same new heavens and new earth that Isaiah prophesied about in Isaiah 65:17-25. Do you disagree?
The earth is taken through the fire just like it was taken through the water. Neither the fire nor the water brought a new reality. There was a new heaven and earth after both. Neither of us can prove otherwise by observation. Peter does not negate 1000 years of waiting.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not certain about the rest of your post, what I did not quote here, but as to this portion, these are excellent points. For Amils to then argue that the first resurrection is meaning Christ's, and then in the next breath deny that the first resurrection even involves 'bodily', but only involves 'spiritually', comes across as very confusing and inconsistent to a lot of us.

Not so. Only in the mind of a closed Premil.

Jesus taught in John 11:25, saying, “I am the resurrection (anastasis Strong’s 0386), and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

Here we have the “first resurrection” mentioned (Christ’s glorious resurrection) that in turn results in a dual resurrection for the believer. To bring a believer from death to life as what we are seeing in this teaching of Christ is resurrection. The physical resurrection of Christ secured both spiritual and physical resurrection for the believer

Two resurrections result for the believer from Christ’s one resurrection. Man need spiritually redeemed and physically redeemed. When one gets saved they are spiritually redeemed. But they are not physically redeemed until resurrection day. His “first resurrection” secured both resurrections for those who will put their faith in Christ.

Jesus presents Himself as the absolute and only cure for the blight of physical and spiritual death. The eternal life He gives is therefore the complete antidote for “the second death” that Revelation 20 discusses.

Christ’s death, burial and resurrection secured two distinct, yet inextricably linked, resurrections for the believer, not one as the Premillennialists repeatedly assert; the first being a spiritual resurrection – the new birth; the second being a physical resurrection of the just. Significantly, there are many passages in Scripture, which support this biblical supposition. We must therefore keep this though very much in our mind as we examine the allegorical passage before us in Revelation 20:6.

Jesus said in John 5:24-29, referring to these two different, yet inextricably linked, resurrections, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (speaking of our spiritual resurrection in Christ). For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life (speaking of the second or physical resurrection); and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

There are clearly two resurrections here:

(1) Spiritual
(2) Physical

The first highlighted part here is clearly referring to the first resurrection, the spiritual resurrection that comes through having our part in Christ (Revelation 20:6). The terminology “the hour is coming, and now is” is used here and in other places to simply indicate – ‘the time is now upon us’ although it would have an immediate reality for every passing generation. The first resurrection outlined here is a spiritual resurrection pertaining solely to the elect: “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live,” it relates to the here-and-now. The second relates to all the dead (saved and unsaved), "the hour is coming, in the which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth." It relates to the all-consummating resurrection day. The physical resurrection is therefore not restricted to the elect alone but to “the dead.” It is they in total that hear Christ’s voice, being raised to two different destinations.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm Premil and don't dispute that Christ is now reigning in heaven. I don't think any Premil disputes that, though I could be wrong about that. What does that have to do with Revelation 20 and the thousand years though, since it could mean that currently He is reigning in heaven, but during the thousand years He will be bodily reigning on the earth? This does not deny that He is currently reigning in heaven.

Many Premils dispute Christ's current sovereign kingship and rule over His enemies. You admit what every Amil has been arguing for years: Premil depends upon their opinion of one text in the most obscure setting in Scripture, which they continually advance for their theory to support a future 1000 years. However, the reality is: it says absolutely nothing to support the grandiose Premil era of Aquarius. There is no regenerated earth, there is no rebuilt temple, no animal sacrifices, no mention of glorified saints, no mention of Jesus reigning on earth in power and glory. Nothing! This is all foisted upon the sacred text.
 
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

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You have no idea of what you're talking about. If people who are in heaven now had bodies then John clearly would not have said that he saw their souls (Rev 6:9-11, Rev 20:4) since that would be completely ridiculous. How could he even see their souls if they have bodies?
It is called symbolic. 1000 is literal, yet you claim it is symbolic. You claim a soul without a body is literal, yet the number 1000 is not? John literally does not say they do not have bodies. That is why it is symbolism. Can you see your soul with or without a body? It is called a figure of speech. Those souls had a corruptible body that died in a certain way. The subject was the way they died, why would John see their dead corruptible bodies? Why would John have to declare in every verse they had a permanent incorruptible body? Paul already covered that in both letters of Corinthians.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is called symbolic. 1000 is literal, yet you claim it is symbolic. You claim a soul without a body is literal, yet the number 1000 is not? John literally does not say they do not have bodies. That is why it is symbolism. Can you see your soul with or without a body? It is called a figure of speech. Those souls had a corruptible body that died in a certain way. The subject was the way they died, why would John see their dead corruptible bodies? Why would John have to declare in every verse they had a permanent incorruptible body. Paul already covered that in both letters of Corinthians.

This is a moot argument.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "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 this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,558
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,689.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
ou said "No it isn't. It is the final Judgment of God of all mankind. Obviously, it takes place on earth.". You didn't specify that it would be on the new earth when you said that.
From the context and how God will from then on; dwell with mankind, it is probable that the GWT Judgment will be on the New Earth.
I also quoted verse 19, which is clearly parallel to Rev 21:1-7 as well. Have you suddenly changed your view? Before, you have said that only Isaiah 65:17 relates to the new heavens and new earth and verses 18-25 relate to a future Millennium.
Careful study of Isaiah 65:17-25 shows it is all prophecy for what will happen after Jesus Returns.
Verses 19-25 are for the Millennium and 17-18 are for after the Millennium, in Eternity.
Also in Isaiah 2:1-5 tells the same story: verses 1-3 - the Millennium, verses 4-5 - the GWT Judgment , then Eternity.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From the context and how God will from then on; dwell with mankind, it is probable that the GWT Judgment will be on the New Earth.

Careful study of Isaiah 65:17-25 shows it is all prophecy for what will happen after Jesus Returns.
Verses 19-25 are for the Millennium and 17-18 are for after the Millennium, in Eternity.
Also in Isaiah 2:1-5 tells the same story: verses 1-3 - the Millennium, verses 4-5 - the GWT Judgment , then Eternity.

There is no millennium mentioned in Isaiah 65. Premils invent 2 new heavens and new earths. Mark 1 is sin-cursed and corrupt, which they equate to their alleged future millennial earth. Mark 2 is perfect and incorrupt, which they equate to 1,000 years+ after this. However, Scripture knows nothing of such a theory.

The first Premil new earth is a bipolar age of justice and injustice, deliverance and bondage, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, perfection and sin, glorification and corruption, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture. Premil puts a question mark over the veracity of God’s words in v 17: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Premil has the old arrangement being done away and then God changing His mind and reintroducing it all again in the Premil millennium. Their millennium is basically more of the same. More sin, more rebellion, more corruption, more death and more war. In it: the former shall be remembered and brought to mind. In fact, the Premil earth descends into anarchy at the end with the wholesale uprising of millennial inheritors changing their allegiance from Christ to Satan at the drop of a hat.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Ummmm...maybe because until the bodily resurrection of the saved happens at the 2nd coming, in the meantime no one has a conceivable way to receive an immortal incorruptible body? Why would they not receive one the same way Jesus did? Did not He have to bodily rise from the dead first, then once He arose, He then received a body like this? When a person dies that is hardly the same thing as what Jesus experienced if they receive an incorruptible body before they rise from the dead. While He was dead He was not already in an incorruptible body during death, that didn't happen until after He rose first.

Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


How can anyone possibly think that the last trump has already sounded? This passage makes it crystal clear, that until the last trump sounds, in the meantime there is not a single person, other than Christ, who has already been changed, and has already put on an incorruptible body.
Explain what the point of the mount of Transfiguration was for. Why not just leave all souls bodiless in Abraham's bosom in sheol? Things changed. If not, then Paul said all are lost. 1 Corinthians 15:13-18.

Adam could not enter Back into the Garden, now Paradise, in a corruptible body. Adam had to wait for the bodily resurrection of Christ, for an incorruptible body. The Cross changed that. If the Cross did not change that, then no soul is in Paradise with Christ. They are all still in sheol with Abraham waiting for this last day resurrection you all deny happened at the Cross.
 
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
Careful study of Isaiah 65:17-25 shows it is all prophecy for what will happen after Jesus Returns.
Verses 19-25 are for the Millennium and 17-18 are for after the Millennium, in Eternity.
Also in Isaiah 2:1-5 tells the same story: verses 1-3 - the Millennium, verses 4-5 - the GWT Judgment , then Eternity.


Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.



Why do you think verse 17 and 18 is after the millennium, but that verse 19 is during the millennium? Doesn't verse 18 indicate---for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy? And what does verse 19 say? Does it not say---And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people? Isn't that the exact same thing that was said in verse 18?

for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy(only meaning after the millennium, according to Keras)----And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people(only meaning during the millennium, according to Keras)


And what about this in verse 19----and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying?

What happens if we compare that with the following in Revelation 21?


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


Both accounts speak of a new heaven and a new earth. Both accounts speak of Jerusalem. Both accounts speak of no more crying occuring in Jerusalem. Yet, you insist Isaiah 65:19 is only meaning during the millenium, while Revelation 21:4 is only meaning after the millennium, even though they are obviously speaking about the same period of time. Isaiah 65:19-25 is meaning during the time of the new heavens and new earth, not before the time of the new heaven and new earth instead.
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This is a moot argument.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "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 this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
This post I quoted is symbolic. I would not take it literally. That is the difference between Revelation 20 and the post I quoted.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This post I quoted is symbolic. I would not take it literally. That is the difference between Revelation 20 and the post I quoted.

A thousand is used through the Scripture and throughout history an indefinite figurative amount.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,558
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,689.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
There is no millennium mentioned in Isaiah 65.
It doesn't need to be. Revelation 20 say six times; there will be a millennium reign of King Jesus.
The first Premil new earth is a bipolar age of justice and injustice, deliverance and bondage, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, perfection and sin, glorification and corruption, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror.
Sheer conjecture, an accusation of belief that I and anyone I know; reject outright.
The Millennium will be a glorious time of peace and right living. Satan is chained up and cannot deceive people. Only at the end, is Satan released and those who buy his idea of attacking Jerusalem, will all die.
the Premil earth descends into anarchy at the end with the wholesale uprising of millennial inheritors changing their allegiance from Christ to Satan at the drop of a hat.
Remember; the ancient Israelites did do that, when Moses was up on the mountain. They experienced the Exodus and saw the power of God, yet it only took 40 days and they started worshipping a golden calf.
you insist Isaiah 65:19 is only meaning during the millenium, while Revelation 21:4 is only meaning after the millennium, even though they are obviously speaking about the same period of time.
OK, OK - Isaiah 65:19 is for the NH, NE time.
Isaiah 65:19-25 is meaning during the time of the new heavens and new earth, not before the time of the new heaven and new earth instead.
But how can Isaiah 65:20-25 be for Eternity?
That prophetic passage says there will be death and they will have children, build and plant, lions and snakes will exist, etc. That time cannot be Eternity, it will be during the Millennium.
A thousand is used through the Scripture and throughout history an indefinite figurative amount.
About the most incredible statement yet made, so obviously wrong that it put everything else you have posted here into question.
 
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

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,982
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,066.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't need to be. Revelation 20 say six times; there will be a millennium reign of King Jesus.

Sheer conjecture, an accusation of belief that I and anyone I know; reject outright.
The Millennium will be a glorious time of peace and right living. Satan is chained up and cannot deceive people. Only at the end, is Satan released and those who buy his idea of attacking Jerusalem, will all die.

Remember; the ancient Israelites did do that, when Moses was up on the mountain. They experienced the Exodus and saw the power of God, yet it only took 40 days and they started worshipping a golden calf.

OK, OK - Isaiah 65:19 is for the NH, NE time.

But how can Isaiah 65:20-25 be for Eternity?
That prophetic passage says there will be death and they will have children, build and plant, lions and snakes will exist, etc. That time cannot be Eternity, it will be during the Millennium.

About the most incredible statement yet made, so obviously wrong that it put everything else you have posted here into question.

I have repeatedly showed you that the original text in Isaiah 65 proves there is no dying and crying in the new heavens and new earth. But you reject that. Premils have to do that in order to sustain their faulty position. You continued avoidance of the issues is testimony to the error of the Premil position.

Revelation 20 refers to the here-and-now, and correlates with multiple climactic passages in the rest of the scared text. There is no mention of some sin-cursed re-run of our age in Isaiah 65. You know that! You have zero grounds to claim anything in Isaiah 65 to support Premil.

The only way your position can be sustained is continually avoiding the rebuttals and queries that forbid your position.

Please address the evidence:

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after


לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.