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

Bob_1000

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2021
613
129
53
Mid-West
✟20,776.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not seeing what you two are discussing has to do with this thread, but that aside, I do fully agree with you here.
It started out as a discussion about what Satan is in order to help in understanding Rev 20 but it is way off topic now.
 
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
According to Rom 5:14 Adam's actions were representing something Christ would do for his wife. If you don't agree with what I said then how do you think Adam was foreshadowing something Jesus would do for his wife?
That was Paul's symbolism, not actual history.

I am curious why you take, "bride", "wife", "body of Christ" literally, but the 1000 years in Revelation 20, not literally?

There is no sin in the symbolism of the church. There will literally be no sin in the coming 1000 year reign of Christ. Adam brought sin into the world. Christ the Prince will remove sin from the world. Since the church could not save itself, neither did Eve disobey God. Adam disobeyed, while Christ obeyed. That is the nature of Paul's symbolism.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
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
I'm not seeing what you two are discussing has to do with this thread, but that aside, I do fully agree with you here.
It has everything to do with sin, not being in the 1000 year reign of Christ. Adam and Eve were not sinners nor had a sin nature.

That is the condition of the 1000 year reign of Christ. That is why it is future after the Second Coming, and not in the here and now, present tense. Neither some past tense either.
 
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
How is it misrepresenting Amil if I tend to reason things according to what I think the texts are meaning, then comparing that with what Amils are concluding? I call it an attempt to try and debunk Amil, not misrepresent it.
You are looking at the binding of Satan the way that Premil does instead of how Amil does and making arguments against Amil as if we agreed with the Premil understanding of the nature of Satan's binding and what it entails, but we don't. If you want to try to debunk Amil then you should try to debunk it based on our understanding of the binding of Satan, not based on the Premil understanding of the binding of Satan.

We all know that Amil can't work based on the Premil understanding of the binding of Satan just like Premil can't work based on the Amil understanding of the binding of Satan. So, it's pointless to make arguments from that standpoint.

Instead, you should tell us why our understanding of the binding of Satan can't be correct. Why can't his binding have to do with him being restrained from having the kind of power he had in Old Testament times? During those times he had "the power of death" (Heb 2:14-15) and was able to help make it so that the Gentiles were "without hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:11-13). Did that change during New Testament times? Yes, it most certainly did. But, Premils don't seem to recognize or acknowledge that.

It might be Premils that think that, and for good reason, and that being because it is true. Otherwise, why would the billions that satan sets out to deceive after he is loosed be the same ones that are already deceived during the thousand years? How did they manage to get deceived during the thousand years if the point as to why satan is cast into the pit to begin with, is because he has been deceiving the nations, thus this prevents him from deceiving the nation any longer?
See what you're doing here? You assume that Satan's binding has to do with him being completely incapacitated and unable to deceive or do anything at all. But, that is NOT how Amils understand his binding. So, how are you debunking Amil just by showing that Amil can't work if the Premil understanding of Satan's binding (incapacitation rather than restraint) was true? Can I say I have debunked Premil just because Premil can't work based on the Amil understanding of Satan's binding? No, right?

SG is always saying Premils have a big satan and a little God, when that appears to be true of Amils rather than Premils.
That is absolutely false. Which doctrine has Satan being the victor in the global spiritual battle during New Testament times instead of Christ and His church? That would be Premil, not Amil.

Which doctrine emphasizes what Christ accomplished through His death and resurrection and what the subsequent preaching of the gospel of Christ has accomplished in relation to Satan? That would be Amil, not Premil.

It is Amils that think, unless satan is bound the gospel will fail to get published throughout the world, as if to God satan is so powerful, that if He doesn't bind him in some manner, the gospel might fail to get spread throughout the entire planet. When I would think that the gospel manages to get spread throughout the entire planet regardless what satan and his minions try and do to prevent that from happening. And sometimes there is a price to pay. Some actually get martyred for trying to spread the gospel.
How successful were God's people in getting God's word out to the world in Old Testament times? Not very, right? Do you think Satan had nothing to do with that? If so, then you're disagreeing with what scripture teaches about that.

Can you please tell me how you interpret the following passages? That would be very helpful and might tell me a lot about why you have no understanding of Amil.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Bob_1000

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2021
613
129
53
Mid-West
✟20,776.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That was Paul's symbolism, not actual history.

I am curious why you take, "bride", "wife", "body of Christ" literally, but the 1000 years in Revelation 20, not literally?

There is no sin in the symbolism of the church. There will literally be no sin in the coming 1000 year reign of Christ. Adam brought sin into the world. Christ the Prince will remove sin from the world. Since the church could not save itself, neither did Eve disobey God. Adam disobeyed, while Christ obeyed. That is the nature of Paul's symbolism.
I take everything in the bible literally. The bible is all about 2's, there are two of everything in the bible, an earthly version and a heavenly or spiritual version. The spiritual version is just as real and literal as anything in the earthly realm. The 1000 years is literally 1 day or its 1000 years.

That's what 'rightly dividing the word of truth" is all about, discerning between the earthly and the spiritual.
 
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
You all agree then, your indefinite millennium is over?
Some = all? Once again, your reading comprehension seems to be a bit lacking.

Satan is not loosed until after the 1000 year reign has ended. That is Scripture, not opinion.
Who said otherwise? Not me.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not so. I asked:

1. When did the thousand years commence?
2. What triggered it?
3. What in reality results from it?
4. When does it end?
5. How does it end?



I then asked:

1. When (time-wise) was Satan cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)?
2. When (time-wise) was Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc?
3. When (time-wise) is sin no longer able to draw power from the law?
4. When (time-wise) is Satan crushed?



You have Satan’s little season happening before the thousand year. You relate Gog/Magog/Satan’s little season ... to the crucifixion of Christ and the thousand years to Christ’s resurrection. This is ridiculous.

huh? I believe Satan’s little season comes after the 1,000 years.

I simply believe the rulers and kings and nations assembled against Christ to crucify him. Upon Christ’s resurrection, which was the first, and triumph over authorities, Satan was cast out and warring against the saints. I believe Gog/Magog is simply a reference to Christ’s death and resurrection and persecution of the church.
 
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
huh? I believe Satan’s little season comes after the 1,000 years.

I simply believe the rulers and kings and nations assembled against Christ to crucify him. Upon Christ’s resurrection, which was the first, and triumph over authorities, Satan was cast out and warring against the saints. I believe Gog/Magog is simply a reference to Christ’s death and resurrection and persecution of the church.
When did fire come down from heaven to destroy those that came against the church from "the four quarters of the earth" who numbered "as the sand of the sea" (Rev 20:9)?
 
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
That is absolutely false. Which doctrine has Satan being the victor in the global spiritual battle during New Testament times instead of Christ and His church? That would be Premil, not Amil.
You give Satan too much credit in the OT. That is why you claim such a drastic change in the NT.

What verse in the OT shows Satan prowling around like a lion? No need, he already had power over death as you describe. Seems to me he was sitting back and watching humans deceive themselves.
 
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
I take everything in the bible literally. The bible is all about 2's, there are two of everything in the bible, an earthly version and a heavenly or spiritual version. The spiritual version is just as real and literal as anything in the earthly realm. The 1000 years is literally 1 day or its 1000 years.

That's what 'rightly dividing the word of truth" is all about, discerning between the earthly and the spiritual.
So between the 6th day of creation and when God put Adam in the Garden, you accept there was a 1000 year period on earth, before sin entered the world? That in Genesis 2 the Day of Adonai was a literal 1000 years on earth?
 
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

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You give Satan too much credit in the OT. That is why you claim such a drastic change in the NT.
I completely disagree. My view is based on scripture. Is yours? Can you tell me how you interpret these passages:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

What verse in the OT shows Satan prowling around like a lion? No need, he already had power over death as you describe. Seems to me he was sitting back and watching humans deceive themselves.
Sitting back and watching? Are you for real? You think he wasn't active during OT times? You can't be serious.

Also, he doesn't have the power of death anymore like he did in OT times. What does that tell you?

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
 
Upvote 0

Bob_1000

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2021
613
129
53
Mid-West
✟20,776.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So between the 6th day of creation and when God put Adam in the Garden, you accept there was a 1000 year period on earth, before sin entered the world? That in Genesis 2 the Day of Adonai was a literal 1000 years on earth?
No I don't believe there was a 1000 year period on earth before sin entered the world. Sin entered the world the very instant Adam sinned. When I was talking about the 1000 years, that had nothing to do with Adam's story I was just saying that 1000 years has two meanings in the bible. The earthly version of it would be 1000 literal earth years but the heavenly or spiritual version of 1000 years would be 1 literal earth day.
 
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
You are looking at the binding of Satan the way that Premil does instead of how Amil does and making arguments against Amil as if we agreed with the Premil understanding of the nature of Satan's binding and what it entails, but we don't. If you want to try to debunk Amil then you should try to debunk it based on our understanding of the binding of Satan, not based on the Premil understanding of the binding of Satan.

I'm trying to see if it can be debunked in order for me to try and determine whether that position can actually work or not. Maybe that sounds strange, yet that is basically how I go about things a lot of the time. It's not that I'm anti Amil so much, it's that I have to be convinced it can work. If it can be debunked it can't work. If it can't be debunked it can work. That aside.

Suppose that 2 ppl were debating what 2+2=. One person is concluding it equals 4, the other person is concluding it equals 5. Using the logic you are using above, this would mean that the person who is concluding it equals 4 is only looking at it the way they understand it to mean that instead of how the one concluding it equals 5 is understanding it to mean that, and then making arguments against the one understanding it to mean 5 as if he agreed with how the one concluding 4 understands it, but doesn't. If the person concluding it equals 4 wants to debunk what the person is concluding who thinks it is meaning 5, that person should then try to debunk it based on how the person insisting it is meaning 5 understands it, not based on how the one who concludes it means 4 understands it.
 
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'm trying to see if it can be debunked in order for me to try and determine whether that position can actually work or not.

Anyway, I don't think you're getting my point. It can't work if Satan's binding means he is incapacitated. We all know that. It's a waste of time to make that argument, but you spend a lot of time making that argument, anyway.

But, can it work according to how Amils understand Satan's binding? That is what you should be trying to refute. Instead, all you're doing is proving that Amil can't work according to the PREMIL understanding of Satan's binding. Yes, we all know that. There's no need to make that argument. It's just like Premil can't work according to the AMIL understanding of Satan's binding.

Maybe that sounds strange, yet that is basically how I go about things a lot of the time. It's not that I'm anti Amil so much, it's that I have to be convinced it can work. If it can be debunked it can't work. If it can't be debunked it can work.
If you haven't been convinced after all these years that you've debated Amils then you never will be. Would you agree? Can you acknowledge that? What arguments can we make at this point that you haven't already seen? Not many, if any. So, it's clear to me that you can never be convinced. But, you also don't seem to be completely convinced that Premil is true, yet you staunchly support Premil. I'll never understand that.

Suppose that 2 ppl were debating what 2+2=. One person is concluding it equals 4, the other person is concluding it equals 5. Using the logic you are using above, this would mean that the person who is concluding it equals 4 is only looking at it the way they understand it to mean that instead of how the one concluding it equals 5 is understanding it to mean that, and then making arguments against the one understanding it to mean 5 as if he agreed with how the one concluding 4 understands it, but doesn't. If the person concluding it equals 4 wants to debunk what the person is concluding who thinks it is meaning 5, that person should then try to debunk it based on how the person insisting it is meaning 5 understands it, not based on how the one who concludes it means 4 understands it.
I agree, but it doesn't seem like you are doing that. You are trying to debunk my Amil view by how YOU understand Satan's binding, not by how I understand it. Tell me exactly why my understanding of Satan's binding can't be correct. I haven't seen you even attempt to do that up to this point. All I see is you explaining why the Amil view can't be correct according to the Premil understanding of Satan's binding of him being completely incapacitated. But, no one is claiming that Amil can be true according to the Premil understanding of what it means for Satan to be bound.

What would be helpful is for you to take the passages I quoted in post #1524 and explain to me why those don't have anything to do with the binding of Satan. If you want to debunk Amil then tell us how the passages we use to support our view should be interpreted differently than how we interpret them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
huh? I believe Satan’s little season comes after the 1,000 years.

I simply believe the rulers and kings and nations assembled against Christ to crucify him. Upon Christ’s resurrection, which was the first, and triumph over authorities, Satan was cast out and warring against the saints. I believe Gog/Magog is simply a reference to Christ’s death and resurrection and persecution of the church.

You are all over the place. I have lost count how many U-turns you have done on this subject. I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life. This is why Hahnism should be discarded.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
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
Sitting back and watching? Are you for real? You think he wasn't active during OT times? You can't be serious.

Also, he doesn't have the power of death anymore like he did in OT times. What does that tell you?
Yes, I am serious.

Satan no longer has oversight on those souls in Abraham's bosom. They physically came out of their graves and entered Paradise. All who have passed from death into life, now have physical permanent incorruptible bodies in Paradise. Satan can no longer hold the soul captive, nor prevent a physical body.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phero
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Revelation 19 records Christ on a white horse that He exits heaven riding on, and wearing many crowns, where both are obviously not meaning in the literal sense. Revelation 19 records that He had a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself. How does any of that possibly connect with what you are trying to connect it with? Why would He need to have a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself, when they were trying to crucify Him? In what way would that be relevant at the time?

Edited to add. Something just crossed my mind.

Speaking of a name no one knows but the person themselves, the following gives a clue as to when that takes place. It takes place after one has overcome first. Therefore, and He had a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself(Revelation 19:12)---is obviously meaning after He overcame first. Not before He overcame instead.


Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it .

interesting points, especially that connection to revelation 2:17. It seems that the “name that known one knows” is bestowed upon the overcoming one at resurrection, which I can absolutely agree. But wouldn’t Christ have been bestowed this 2,000 years ago after the cross when he rose again, which was much earlier than his 2nd coming?

And don’t get me wrong, I do believe the 2nd coming is sprinkled throughout the passage, but again, I would argue we are seeing the 1st and 2nd coming events as one, just as the OT didn’t really differentiate too much between 1st and 2nd comings.

But specifically when it comes to the beast and kings and nations assembling together to battle Christ, it makes most sense, imho, that this is about The cross, but just told in apocalyptic language.

there is no mention of nations, kings, and rulers assembling together against Christ at his 2nd coming in the gospels/epistles. Rather, it is mentioned as occurring at the cross according to the church in acts 4.

However, if this is about the 2nd coming, how could kings, rulers, and nations know when to assemble against Christ, if the day of his coming is unknown?
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When did fire come down from heaven to destroy those that came against the church from "the four quarters of the earth" who numbered "as the sand of the sea" (Rev 20:9)?

When Christ came in judgment upon unbelieving Israel in flaming fire, giving relief to those that had been persecuted, like the Thessalonian believers.

Are the thessalonian believers still waiting for relief from the oppression of the unbelieving Jews?



2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 After all, it is only right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are oppressed and to us as well. This will take place when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in blazing fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are all over the place. I Count how many U-turns you have done on this subject. I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life. This is why Hahnism should be discarded.

Sure, please demonstrate the U-turns I’m making instead of just spouting general statements with no evidence. Otherwise, this is just another straw man.



 
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
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure, please demonstrate the U-turns I’m making instead of just spouting general statements with no evidence. Otherwise, this is just another straw man.



Let's start right here. Read what you previously stated and read what you are saying now.

I asked:

1. When did the thousand years commence?
4. When does it end?
5. How does it end?

1.) Christ’s resurrection (1st resurrection)

4.) the first resurrection was a one time event where Christ rose from the dead 2,000 years. Christ’s resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is not an ongoing event.

5.) when Christ rose from the dead, the first resurrection was fulfilled.

I asked:

1. When (time-wise) was Satan cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)?
2. When (time-wise) was Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc?
3. When (time-wise) is sin no longer able to draw power from the law?
4. When (time-wise) is Satan crushed?

i believe Gog/Magog/Satan’s little season. is related to the crucifixion of Christ, as he is the sacrifice on the mountains whose flesh we eat and blood we drink, and persecution of the church by the unbelieving Jews and gentiles of the Roman world.

There you have it - in your own words!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0