One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

SamanthaAnastasia

Just a library lady
Dec 21, 2018
1,272
1,284
Earth
✟168,750.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Hello Samantha



Wow really not one of these is amill unless you ignore what they wrote and select a single line out of context. Some one else showed Barnabas, I will show Clement.

1Clem 42:3
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

Notice they went forth teaching the Kingdom SHOULD COME not has come.

Now onto Dave L

you quote many verses but you are so lost when it comes to their understanding. The kingdom is come because once you have accepted the truth you are Guaranteed to be a sheep not a goat. YOUR REWARD FOLLOWS YOU. Jesus tells Peter why do you worry about those who will kill you this life means nothing they can not take your reward because it follows you.

[13] And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth." "Blessed indeed," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!"

Or this for example.

[27] Then Peter said in reply, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?"[28] Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Your deeds follow you and when Jesus returns you INHERIT the Kingdom

Jesus tells in very plain language when the kingdom comes and when we enter it.

[31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

You are mistaking Scripture saying that you shall have the Kingdom or you have entered it with when you actually get it. Do what is right love your neighbor do good to others and be assured you have entered the Kingdom because your reward follows you and you shall INHERIT the kingdom at Jesus' return.
Archimandrite Cleopa (Ilie). On the Thousand Year Reign (Chiliasm)
The Error of Chiliasm. Fr. Michael Pomazansky
Fr. John Whiteford. If Satan is Alive, Why Not Millennialism?


Early Church Fathers - Not all that Premillenial, it seems - Unsettled Christianity
https://orthochristian.com/86556.html
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml
https://orthochristian.com/86556.html
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/athacreed.html

:bye:
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,496
2,334
43
Helena
✟207,195.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Scripture's first prophecy:

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Was it fulfilled literally?

Not everything is literal, but at the same time you shouldn't jump to making it allegory if it can be fulfilled literally. Obviously pictures of various animals like the serpent are a symbol,
but when Revelation repeats over and over 1000 years, 1000 years, 1000 years, and gives a time of "until the 1000 years is fulfilled" or "until the thousand years is finished" that this is a time period and being that it repeats that time period over and over, that is an actual time period, not a symbol, as it has not been explained as a symbol unlike the other symbols in Revelation which are either explained within Revelation, itself, or are a symbol borrowed from previous scripture most of it in fact being old testament. Either an angel explains the symbol, or it's an old testament reference, like the 2 witnesses being symbolized by 2 olive trees, that's from Zechariah 4 that explains what those Olive Tree symbols mean, and the 2 candlesticks is a symbol from Revelation itself, Jesus explains what they are in chapter 1.

If there's something in the book that is not explained as a symbol, or is not shown to be a symbol in the old testament and that symbol is shown again in Revelation to 'reveal' its purpose, then jumping to making something allegory is irresponsible, and for the most part, is a lack of faith in what God can do.

Just like first coming prophecies were fulfilled literally. You don't have to wonder what the 30 pieces of silver cast at the potter symbolizes.. because.... Judas accepted a prize of 30 pieces of silver, but tried to give them back, and hung himself, and the silver was used to purchase the potter's field
there are also second coming prophecies that will be fulfilled literally, and if something is not explained as a symbol why make the assumption that it is allegory and not really what God will do?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not everything is literal, but at the same time you shouldn't jump to making it allegory if it can be fulfilled literally. Obviously pictures of various animals like the serpent are a symbol,
but when Revelation repeats over and over 1000 years, 1000 years, 1000 years, and gives a time of "until the 1000 years is fulfilled" or "until the thousand years is finished" that this is a time period and being that it repeats that time period over and over, that is an actual time period, not a symbol, as it has not been explained as a symbol unlike the other symbols in Revelation which are either explained within Revelation, itself, or are a symbol borrowed from previous scripture most of it in fact being old testament. Either an angel explains the symbol, or it's an old testament reference, like the 2 witnesses being symbolized by 2 olive trees, that's from Zechariah 4 that explains what those Olive Tree symbols mean, and the 2 candlesticks is a symbol from Revelation itself, Jesus explains what they are in chapter 1.

If there's something in the book that is not explained as a symbol, or is not shown to be a symbol in the old testament and that symbol is shown again in Revelation to 'reveal' its purpose, then jumping to making something allegory is irresponsible, and for the most part, is a lack of faith in what God can do.

Just like first coming prophecies were fulfilled literally. You don't have to wonder what the 30 pieces of silver cast at the potter symbolizes.. because.... Judas accepted a prize of 30 pieces of silver, but tried to give them back, and hung himself, and the silver was used to purchase the potter's field
there are also second coming prophecies that will be fulfilled literally, and if something is not explained as a symbol why make the assumption that it is allegory and not really what God will do?

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

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 21, 2019
1,526
246
47
Washington
✟260,525.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1000 years is the lowest common denominator.

How can you even get a year and a month of precision if 1000 is as precise as given? Then a week, day and hour. While seconds and minutes are more precise than day or hour, the point is not the exact year, day, or hour at the end of one Millennium and the next. This is not a Y2K issue. Even the birth of Jesus and a life of 33.5 years is not precise that Jesus was born on the first day of 0, and killed in April of 33AD. It was more like some time in 4BC and April of 30AD. To put that on scale of a precise 1000, then Adam was placed in the Garden around 4000BC. Adam sinned 3970BC 30 years later. Adam's placement was 4000 years before Christ lived. Adam sinned 4000 years from when Christ was on the Cross.

The placement of Adam, the life of Adam in the Garden, and the time of Adam's disobedience, has to be taken into consideration.

I was taught Adam sinned within 12 or 17 hours from the 6th day. Adam sinned on the Sabbath. As I grew older that never made sense. God did not even plant the Garden, until that day of rest came to an end. The Garden was not on the 6th day. Eve was not even on the 6th day. The Garden and Eve came way, way, way after the 6th day.

You would have to know the exact day and hour Adam sinned. 4000 years later was the Cross. But 2000 years after the Cross, or 6000 years after Adam sinned, if it was the exact same hour and day, just gives us the last day and hour it could be. God could declare the sentence over at any time before the exact end. The probability of it going past that time is slim.

"Indeed, if the length of this time had not been limited, no one would survive; but for the sake of those who have been chosen, its length will be limited."

Jesus says it is going to get worse, way worse than ever before, even Noah's Flood, even 70AD, before it can get better. So, the Second Coming happens in the midst of all this trouble at the end, but even the trouble itself will not pinpoint the day or hour of the Second Coming. It could happen in really bad trouble, but the worse part could still happen after the Second Coming, because no one knows, even if they think they do. No one can even agree on the GT. The GT is not even the last known 42 month period. The Second Coming is not the last second, minute, or even hour, because, sure, one could pinpoint the exact end of 2000 years from April of 30AD. Although many claim 33AD. So even then there is a margin of opinion error of 3 years itself. Not even enough time equal to the 42 months Satan is allowed control over the earth.
You make it sound like Jesus was there at the time of creation but he just wasn’t paying that much attention and he doesn’t really know the exact day.

My mother kept all my birth information till the day she died. She could tell me the exact time I was born and she most certainly let me know every year when it was my birthday.

Do you have any scriptural basis for think Jesus didn’t know when creation happened or any basis for him having forgotten that information?
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not everything is literal, but at the same time you shouldn't jump to making it allegory if it can be fulfilled literally. Obviously pictures of various animals like the serpent are a symbol,
but when Revelation repeats over and over 1000 years, 1000 years, 1000 years, and gives a time of "until the 1000 years is fulfilled" or "until the thousand years is finished" that this is a time period and being that it repeats that time period over and over, that is an actual time period, not a symbol, as it has not been explained as a symbol unlike the other symbols in Revelation which are either explained within Revelation, itself, or are a symbol borrowed from previous scripture most of it in fact being old testament. Either an angel explains the symbol, or it's an old testament reference, like the 2 witnesses being symbolized by 2 olive trees, that's from Zechariah 4 that explains what those Olive Tree symbols mean, and the 2 candlesticks is a symbol from Revelation itself, Jesus explains what they are in chapter 1.

If there's something in the book that is not explained as a symbol, or is not shown to be a symbol in the old testament and that symbol is shown again in Revelation to 'reveal' its purpose, then jumping to making something allegory is irresponsible, and for the most part, is a lack of faith in what God can do.

Just like first coming prophecies were fulfilled literally. You don't have to wonder what the 30 pieces of silver cast at the potter symbolizes.. because.... Judas accepted a prize of 30 pieces of silver, but tried to give them back, and hung himself, and the silver was used to purchase the potter's field
there are also second coming prophecies that will be fulfilled literally, and if something is not explained as a symbol why make the assumption that it is allegory and not really what God will do?

Describe how Genesis 3:15, Scripture's first prophecy, was fulfilled literally.

With supporting Scripture, of course.

But if you agree that this, the very first prophecy of Scripture, is fulfilled spiritually rather than literally, would you not also agree that with this precedent there is other prophecy that is fulfilled spiritually as well?

There is unquestionably much literally fulfilled prophecy. But Genesis 3:15 sets a precedent demonstrating the reality that spiritual fulfillment has no less legitimacy than literal fulfillment.

The challenge is to exercise the requisite wisdom and discernment necessary to determine when each is applicable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He even claims 8 days, 8000 years. Is that not what I posted, and you claimed I was just making it up.

Not 8000 years. 7000 years. The 8th day he is obviously applying to the eternal age.

My point is how can Barnabas have been an Amil when only Premils and not Amils, place a thousand years after the 2nd coming? Amils need to prove that he placed the thousand years in this age the same way they do. He obviously can't be Amil unless he did that. I don't know how they can prove that if he had the 7th day meaning after the 2nd coming and then an 8th day after that one, though? No Amil would place the thousand years after the 2nd coming since that is Premil not Amil. Where is there proof in his writings that he placed the thousand years in this age? Surely Amils know one can't be Amil unless one places the thousand years in this age prior to the 2nd coming?

If Amils insist on arguing that the 7th and 8th day were the same day to him, then prove it by showing how Jesus rose on both the 7th and 8th day if these 2 days are supposed to be the same day. Good luck proving something illogical.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One thing I can’t understand about the 6 days of creation = 6,000 years and the 7th day = the millennium is that Jesus was there when the first 6 days of creation occurred and he could’ve count it out to know the day and hour of his second coming. Also 2 Peter 3:8 is referring to Psalms 90:4, so if 1 day = 1,000 years should we assume Jesus didn’t understand Psalms 90:4 when he says only the Father knows the day and hour in Matthew 24:36?

Am I missing something here or does this all boil down to the idea that only the Father knows the “rapture” date and all the other dates can be known?


As for me, my arguments don't necessarily involve whether Barnabas was correct or not, but whether if he was an Amil or not. Amils believe the thousand years pertain to this age. Is that what Barnabas believed as well, that is the question?
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?


Why do Amils insist on arguing in this manner? Who would ever claim that a thousand always has to be taken literally every single time? If you were truly being fair here, since this involves years, you would be providing Scripture showing that every time a number is followed by years, the amount of years specified don't always mean the literal amount specified every time, that sometimes it means an undetermined amount. Produce one Scripture in all of the Bible where a number is followed by years but that the amount of years are not meaning the literal amount specified? Not including a thousand since that is the number in question. The point being, we are trying to determine from other usages in the Bible where a number is followed by years, how those years should be interpreted so that we can apply the same mode of interpretation to a thousand when it is followed by years. That is being fair and being intellectually honest. Anything else is not.
 
Last edited:
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
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
but when Revelation repeats over and over 1000 years, 1000 years, 1000 years, and gives a time of "until the 1000 years is fulfilled" or "until the thousand years is finished" that this is a time period and being that it repeats that time period over and over, that is an actual time period, not a symbol

Most Amils do have the thousand years representing an actual time period, except that they don't think the time period involved involves a literal thousand years. If they have the thousand years beginning at the cross then ending when satan's season little begins, and let's say that involves 2000 years, that's an actual time period isn't it? I'm just trying to be fair here, regardless that I'm not Amil.
 
Upvote 0

SamanthaAnastasia

Just a library lady
Dec 21, 2018
1,272
1,284
Earth
✟168,750.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Everyone of those links my Browser popped up the following warning for when I clicked on each of them---This Connection is Untrusted---therefore I did not proceed any further, thus never looked at what was said in any of the links.
Idk why. It’s probably because it has a https in front of it.

those warnings are mostly useless anyways. It’ll say that for US .gov websites too. lol
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why do Amils insist on arguing in this manner? Who would ever claim that a thousand always has to be taken literally every single time? If you were truly being fair here, since this involves years, you would be providing Scripture showing that every time a number is followed by years, the amount of years specified doesn't always mean the literal amount specified every time, that sometimes it means an undetermined amount. Produce one Scripture in all of the Bible where a number is followed by years but that the amount of years are not meaning the literal amount specified? Not including a thousand since that is the number in question. The point being, we are trying to determine from other usages in the Bible where a number is followed by years, how those years should be interpreted so that we can apply the same mode of interpretation to a thousand when it is followed by years. That is being fair and being intellectually honest. Anything else is not.

Because of what Scripture teaches. Let us simply take the phrase “a thousand years.” There is a big difference between “a thousand years.” and "one thousand years" as you keep suggesting. The number 'one' is not included in the narrative, you must insert it in. Rather it is the more general thousand.

The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter 3. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage is often advanced by Premillennialists as proof of a literal physical future earthly millennium. Such people confidently advance it in such a way, as if it states, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as tomorrow which is yet to come’. However, a careful reading of this inspired narrative reveals that it rather in stark contrast declares, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” This passage therefore does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium.

The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “we spend our years as a tale that is told” (v 9).

No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12).

In Ecclesiastes 6:3,6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter, however, says in response, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (vv 5-9).

This familiar passage closely parallels the reading that we have just analysed in Psalm 90, indicating the same spiritual truth – that God is not limited to time. Again, notably, the contrast between the number one and a thousand is employed to simply represent an important divine truth.

Some theologians mistakenly attempt to use this passage to argue that one of God’s eternal days represents a literal thousand earthly years and that the commencement occurs at the time of Second Advent. However, they do err in their assumption, in that, this text simply indicates the briefness of time with God. 2 Peter 3 does not in anyway indicate a future earthly millennium kingdom anywhere in this reading. Peter is simply reminding such people that time is absolutely nothing to the King of glory. He ultimately sits outside of time in the realm of eternity. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state.

Christ speaks of the unprepared state of many professing believers, who are exposed for their unpreparedness in Luke 12:45-46, saying, if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”

It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters. Peter says in response, “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Peter thus outlines two distinct yet contrasting time equations in this passage for the sole purpose of expressing a deep spiritual truth. Notwithstanding, and not surprisingly, the Premillennialist are swift to selectively advance the first aspect of this calculation as supposed evidence that one of God’s heavenly days represents a thousand literal temporal earthly years. However, whilst they unquestionably address, and happily literalise, the first part of this calculation they are understandably careful to side step the second part of the sum. Evidently, such is for the reason that it doesn’t fit their flawed hyper-literalist mode of interpretation.

Significantly, this reading in no place suggests the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years. The Premillennialist forces that into the reading. In the above passage it simply indicates “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Those who take the aforementioned verses to support a future 1,000-year millennium of peace are faced with an insurmountable inconsistency when they examine the detail of the remainder of the chapter, and try and get it to fit their paradigm. 2 Peter 3:10-13 continues,the day of the Lord will come (or arrive) as thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall ‘go or pass away, or perish’ with a great noise, and the elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be ‘burned up utterly or consumed wholly’. Seeing then that all these things shall be ‘dissolved, loosened or broke up’ … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be ‘dissolved, melted or loosed’, and the elements shall ‘melt by being set on fire’?” Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

This passage is so clear, final and all-consummating that one wonders how anyone could remotely imagine that creation could survive such an all-consummating fiery event. One also wonders how the Holy Spirit could have possibly advanced more explicit language to indicate the idea of total devastation. Whatever way you look at this chapter there is absolutely no allowance made or possibility for a future post-Second Coming millennial kingdom on this earth. Peter knows of no other coming of Christ other than that which eradicate the heavens, elements and the earth in one stupendous conflagration.

Anyone who contends that this passage supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of these last verses. This vivid account of complete devastation and utter destruction that occurs in this final day totally destroys any credence for the advancement of the Premillennial supposition. If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.

Here is your answer!
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because of what Scripture teaches. Let us simply take the phrase “a thousand years.” There is a big difference between “a thousand years.” and "one thousand years" as you keep suggesting. The number 'one' is not included in the narrative, you must insert it in. Rather it is the more general thousand.


We have had this discussion before, but let's do it again anyway. Since you insist that if a 'one' were in front of thousand rather than an 'a', that this makes a difference, what about a passage such as the following?

Isaiah 30:17 One('echad) thousand('eleph) shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on an hill.

'echad
ekh-awd'
a numeral from ''achad' (258); properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:--a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together,

'eleph
eh'-lef
prop, the same as ''eleph' (504); hence (the ox's head being the first letter of the alphabet, and this eventually used as a numeral) a thousand:--thousand.


Now let's see you argue that verse in the same manner you are arguing about a thousand in Revelation 20. In Isaiah 30:17 it does not have an 'a' in front of that thousand, it has a 'one' in front of it. I guess that means if we apply the logic you are using here to that of Isaiah 30:17, this apparently means this thousand is a literal thousand I guess.

I'll give you a thousand dollars cash for that tv.

I'll give you one thousand dollars cash for that tv.

Applying the logic you are using, I guess this means that the former is not meaning a literal thousand but that the latter is.

If I told you once I told you a thousand times

If I told you once I told you one thousand times

Applying the logic you are using, I guess this means that the former is not meaning a literal thousand but that the latter is.


In the former example involving the tv, both are meaning a literal thousand. In the latter example involving being told something, neither are meaning a literal thousand.

What then makes you convinced you have a strong argument when an 'a' in front of a thousand can mean both a literal and non literal thousand, and that a 'one' in front of a thousand can mean both a literal and non literal thousand as well?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We have had this discussion before, but let's do it again anyway. Since you insist that if a 'one' were in front of thousand rather than an 'a', that this makes a difference, what about a passage such as the following?

Isaiah 30:17 One('echad) thousand('eleph) shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on an hill.

'echad
ekh-awd'
a numeral from ''achad' (258); properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:--a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together,

'eleph
eh'-lef
prop, the same as ''eleph' (504); hence (the ox's head being the first letter of the alphabet, and this eventually used as a numeral) a thousand:--thousand.


Now let's see you argue that verse in the same manner you are arguing about a thousand in Revelation 20. In Isaiah 30:17 it does not have an 'a' in front of that thousand, it has a 'one' in front of it. I guess that means if we apply the logic you are using here to that of Isaiah 30:17, this apparently means this thousand is a literal thousand I guess.

I'll give you a thousand dollars cash for that tv.

I'll give you one thousand dollars cash for that tv.

Applying the logic you are using, I guess this means that the former is not meaning a literal thousand but that the latter is.

If I told you once I told you a thousand times

If I told you once I told you one thousand times

Applying the logic you are using, I guess this means that the former is not meaning a literal thousand but that the latter is.


In the former example involving the tv, both are meaning a literal thousand. In the latter example involving being told something, neither are meaning a literal thousand.

What then makes you convinced you have a strong argument when an 'a' in front of a thousand can mean both a literal and non literal thousand, and that a 'one' in front of a thousand can mean both a literal and non literal thousand as well?

Amils rightly consider the intra-Advent period to be an indefinite period. This is last days period running through to the second coming. It is therefore proper to view Revelation 20 the same. The symbolic usage of numbers in Revelation reinforces that. The genre of Revelation and the symbolism of the book lends itself to this type of understanding. You could also apply that same reasoning to the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes? Of course not! It means a short period of time. A thousand years represents a long period of time.
 
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
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

How then do Amils apply the thousand years in an ongoing future sense if it can never be applied to tommorrow? For example, let's assume the thousand years began at the cross and 2000 years later we are still in this thousand years, how can from the time of the cross to now not involve a whole lot of tommorrows?


In Ecclesiastes 6:3,6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

I see this argument as a joke though I'm certain you never intended it to be. This would be like arguing if a person could live forever twice told. There is no logic to that. Clearly, the thousand years in the passage above is meaning a literal thousand years, because if it were not it would not need to say twice told. How can anyone make sense out of living an unspecified amount twice told? What if this thousand means a million, for example? A person can't even live a million years once, let alone twice told, meaning in this age of course. But if the thousand years are literal, it is indeed a possibility to live 2 thousand years in this age though no one ever has or likely ever will. But at least there is some logic to it if it means a literal thousand years.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How then do Amils apply the thousand years in an ongoing future sense if it can never be applied to tommorrow? For example, let's assume the thousand years began at the cross and 2000 years later we are still in this thousand years, how can from the time of the cross to now not involve a whole lot of tommorrows?




I see this argument as a joke though I'm certain you never intended it to be. This would be like arguing if a person could live forever twice told. There is no logic to that. Clearly, the thousand years in the passage above is meaning a literal thousand years, because if it were not it would not need to say twice told. How can anyone make sense out of living an unspecified amount twice told? What if this thousand means a million, for example? A person can't even live a million years once, let alone twice told, meaning in this age of course. But if the thousand years are literal, it is indeed a possibility to live 2 thousand years in this age though no one ever has or likely ever will. But at least there is some logic to it if it means a literal thousand years.

That is because it is a figurative term. A thousand years is simply a simile for a long period of time. Revelation is full of figurative language. Amils acknowledge the symbolic setting and let other clear and explicit Scripture explain it. Premils explain away the clear and explicit by their faulty understanding of Revelation 20.
 
Upvote 0

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 21, 2019
1,526
246
47
Washington
✟260,525.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As for me, my arguments don't necessarily involve whether Barnabas was correct or not, but whether if he was an Amil or not. Amils believe the thousand years pertain to this age. Is that what Barnabas believed as well, that is the question?
Honestly I haven’t studied Barnabas or the ecf so I’ll just read what others post about their end time views.
 
Upvote 0

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 21, 2019
1,526
246
47
Washington
✟260,525.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Idk why. It’s probably because it has a https in front of it.

those warnings are mostly useless anyways. It’ll say that for US .gov websites too. lol
FYI those links worked for me on my iPhone with no warnings.
 
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
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Amils rightly consider the intra-Advent period to be an indefinite period. This is last days period running through to the second coming. It is therefore proper to view Revelation 20 the same. The symbolic usage of numbers in Revelation reinforces that. The genre of Revelation and the symbolism of the book lends itself to this type of understanding. You could also apply that same reasoning to the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes? Of course not! It means a short period of time. A thousand years represents a long period of time.


It seems to me, and I think I have brought this up before, if the thousand years are meaning in this age there should then be passages prior to chapter 19 describing this period of time when satan would be in the pit unable to deceive the nations. Maybe I missed a passage or two, but I haven't seen anything prior to ch 19 that would fit a period of time when satan is bound in the pit, thus prevented from deceiving the nations. He is always depicted as loosed not bound, meaning in any passages involving him prior to ch 19. Can you point out any passages prior to ch 19 where it fits with him being in the pit at the time, thus prevented from deceiving the nations? Wouldn't something like that prove Amil rather than Premil?
 
Upvote 0