2 Peter 3:10-12. Not when but how?

[Spiritual Jew]

How could it mean no survivors in light of the following?

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Where do these survivors come from? How can any of these survivors be meaning any of the eternally saved if they can be punished for things if they refuse to comply?


But then there is still Zechariah 14:16-19 and that it is also meaning after Jesus comes in the end of this age. But let's just ignore that passage, or let's pretend that passage is involving a time period that it isn't. Zechariah 14:16-19 is not applicable to this age in any sense. It is clearly meaning after Zechariah 14:12 has been fulfilled first, and that Zechariah 14:12 has not already been fulfilled in any sense.

No matter what anyone shows you from scripture, including other OT scripture, you'll always resort to bringing up Zechariah 14. It's all you have. In your mind Zechariah 14 trumps everything else in scripture. Maybe you should think about why your interpretation of Zechariah 14 is not supported by any other scripture instead of forcing the rest of scripture to line up with your interpretation of Zechariah 14.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Only to AMill believers, are Zechariah 14 and Revelation 20; challenging and highly debatable.

That is absolutely false. Many Premils would acknowledge the same.

Both passages are contained within highly symbolic books, which is undeniable. They are not written in a clear and straightforward way. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. It makes no sense to not acknowledge that the fact that those passages are within books that undeniably contain a lot of symbolism has to be taken into consideration. And since that is the case it has to be considered whether or not all of the text is literal, all symbolic or a mixture of the two. Those passages are anything but clear and straightforward as you imagine them to be. Interpreting the passages completely literally results in contradicting other scripture.

The rest of us, who reject the untenable notion that we are in the Millennium now, can read and understand those scriptures quite well.

Except that you don't understand them at all. You are completely unable to reconcile your interpretations of those 2 scripture passages with the rest of scripture. But, that isn't important to you, apparently.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In your opinion!
I and many others have proved that the idea we are in the Millennium now, is a crock, unbiblical and simply fails the reality check.

Zechariah 14:1-2 is when the Anti-Christ conquers the holy people, at the mid point of the final 7 years of this age, that is 42 months before Jesus Returns.
Zechariah 14:3-15 describes things to happen at the Return.
Zechariah 14:16-21 is how it will be during the Millennium.

Revelation 20:1-3 is how Satan will be locked away. After the Return of Jesus and Armageddon.
Revelation 20:4-6 says how those people killed for their faith during Satan's 42 month world rule, will be brought back to life. They will be Jesus' Priests and co-rulers for the Millennium.
Revelation 20:7-10 is how Satan will be released after the Millennium and how he will again seduce many people, who will be incinerated by God.
Revelation 20:11-15 describes the final Judgment of everyone who has ever lived. Called from their graves by the Last Trump of God.
Then comes Eternity, as per Rev 21 to 22.

So there is really no comparison, they are simply prophesies describing some end times events.

This is amazing. You actually acknowledged that Zechariah 14 and Revelation 20 aren't comparable.

I wish DavidPT would do the same because Zechariah 14 is all he has to support his interpretation of Revelation 20. He doesn't take a bunch of other scripture out of context like you do to support his view. Zechariah 14 is pretty much all he has. Take that away from him and he has nothing to support his interpretation of Revelation 20. At least, that's how it comes across to me since every time we challenge his view and he has trouble coming up with a response he resorts to bringing up Zechariah 14.

 

[DavidPT]

That is absolutely false. Many Premils would acknowledge the same.

Both passages are contained within highly symbolic books, which is undeniable. They are not written in a clear and straightforward way. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. It makes no sense to not acknowledge that the fact that those passages are within books that undeniably contain a lot of symbolism has to be taken into consideration. And since that is the case it has to be considered whether or not all of the text is literal, all symbolic or a mixture of the two. Those passages are anything but clear and straightforward as you imagine them to be. Interpreting the passages completely literally results in contradicting other scripture.

What I see being a main point involving Zechariah 14, though most Premils are likely going to disagree, that chapter is showing a transition of the church spiritually into that of the new Jerusalem physically. The Jerusalem being surrounded in verse 2 is not even remotely meaning the Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 AD, it is meaning the church, it is meaning during great trib. The Jerusalem in verse 11 is meaning the new Jerusalem physically, after it has come down from God out of heaven.

How can one ignore clues in the text that give us the timing? Such as.

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

How can this verse be true before the following verse is true first?

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

How can Zechariah 14:9 already be true during when the following is true at the time?

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

If Zechariah 14:9 is true when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is true, that equals 2 beings total, not 1 like Zechariah 14:9 indicates.

Then there is this verse below, clearly and undeniably meaning after Zechariah 14:2 has already been fulfilled.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Obviously, as of verse 2 Jerusalem is not being safely inhabited at the time.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Obviously, as of this verse Jerusalem is not being safely inhabited. When will Jerusalem be safely inhabited? That's simple. It will be once the following occurs.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Amils then might argue, and maybe rightfully so, if assuming Premil, what about Revelation 20:7-9 in relation to what is recorded in Zechariah 14:11? If Jerusalem is safely inhabited, why is it then being come against in Revelation 20:7-9?

It does say fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them, which might mean it's still safely inhabited, regardless of the rebellion in the end, because God nips their attack in the bud before it reaches epic proportions.

But even if that is not a reasonable explanation, and maybe it isn't, still Zechariah 14:11 can't be meaning a time prior to the NHNE since there is no Jerusalem safely inhabited during this time, and besides, one can't apply Zechariah 14:11 to the church in a spiritual sense either involving this age because of what the preceding verse records, thus this involves something that is regionally located in the earth.

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.


This part---south of Jerusalem--proves that this is meaning regionally. All of that verse does, actually. The NJ has to be geographically located somewhere since it is not meaning the entire planet , the same way the garden of Eden was not meaning the entire planet and that is it had a geographic location.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't have a problem thinking the DOTL might be involving more than a single day, but I don't know if I could agree it involves everything you have it involving. On your chart it looks like you have the beginning of the DOTL starting with the beginning of the 7 years, which I'm assuming you are meaning the tribulation, except there is no 7 year trib recorded in the Bible that I'm aware of. The trib is only 42 months. But even at the beginning of the 42 months I don't see that being where the beginning of the DOTL begins either. The DOTL involves darkness, etc, whether it's meaning literal darkness that I'm not certain, and that Matthew 24:29 for one records a time of darkness and that it places it after the trib.

The Tribulation is not even Satan's 42 months. Those 42 months split a week of days. The Tribulation or final harvest was supposed to be 3.5 years. But God shortened that time, so no one knows the length of the GT.

Those 42 months allowed in Revelation 13 to Satan and the FP are not part of the Seals, the Trumpets, nor the Thunders. That 42 months may not even happen. Only God knows if the confirmation of the Atonement Covenant deems those 42 months necessary, because some souls will still choose redemption via having their head chopped off. If there is no one left to make that choice at the Second Coming, there is no need for those 42 months. Those beheaded are literally the only reason those 42 months happen. It is not for the benefit of Satan nor some FP. It is solely for the harvest of all the redeemed. It just happens that those who have their heads chopped off are the last of the final harvest.

 

[Timtofly]

Before.

So the fire comes.

Then the restoration.

Then the Second Coming?

 

[Timtofly]

When are you going to figure out that your interpretation of Zechariah 14 doesn't line up with the rest of scripture? It certainly doesn't line up with what is taught in the New Testament.

Jesus was not even the one talking at the ascension.

"And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

If you are waiting for Jesus to declare something, you are going to deny what these two men had to say?

Matthew 17:3

"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him."

There were 2 men at that time also. Obviously Zechariah was not one of them. But Jesus was not even the one who claimed he would return in Acts 1. Perhaps you should not accept the testimony of those two men, if you don't accept the testimony of Zechariah either.

 

[Timtofly]

Okay, I've had enough of your false accusations. I never claimed that all of God's Word is symbolism and you know it. Obviously, some of it is and some isn't and you're not able to discern which is which.

I don't need to put up with your false accusations and nonsense anymore. It's not worth it. You are a waste of my time. You are going to become the only person on my ignore list.

Then why do you keep accusing others they call symbolism literal and literal as symbolism?

Do they not get tired of those false accusations?

How is being comfortable in your symbolism falsly accusing you of taking the whole Bible as symbolic? If you are not comfortable in your symbolism then my statement would be false.

 

[Timtofly]

3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.

Not all Amil claim the earth itself is annihilated.

"the earth also"

Also what?

"the works that are therein shall be burned up"

Peter never declares the earth passes away. Peter did not include the "passes away" part. Is assumption the same thing as speculation?

 

[Timtofly]

Where did Peter say that the day of the Lord is a time period?

"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."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What I see being a main point involving Zechariah 14, though most Premils are likely going to disagree, that chapter is showing a transition of the church spiritually into that of the new Jerusalem physically. The Jerusalem being surrounded in verse 2 is not even remotely meaning the Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 AD, it is meaning the church, it is meaning during great trib. The Jerusalem in verse 11 is meaning the new Jerusalem physically, after it has come down from God out of heaven.

How can one ignore clues in the text that give us the timing? Such as.

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

How can this verse be true before the following verse is true first?

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

How can Zechariah 14:9 already be true during when the following is true at the time?

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

If Zechariah 14:9 is true when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is true, that equals 2 beings total, not 1 like Zechariah 14:9 indicates.

Then there is this verse below, clearly and undeniably meaning after Zechariah 14:2 has already been fulfilled.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Obviously, as of verse 2 Jerusalem is not being safely inhabited at the time.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Obviously, as of this verse Jerusalem is not being safely inhabited. When will Jerusalem be safely inhabited? That's simple. It will be once the following occurs.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Amils then might argue, and maybe rightfully so, if assuming Premil, what about Revelation 20:7-9 in relation to what is recorded in Zechariah 14:11? If Jerusalem is safely inhabited, why is it then being come against in Revelation 20:7-9?

It does say fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them, which might mean it's still safely inhabited, regardless of the rebellion in the end, because God nips their attack in the bud before it reaches epic proportions.

But even if that is not a reasonable explanation, and maybe it isn't, still Zechariah 14:11 can't be meaning a time prior to the NHNE since there is no Jerusalem safely inhabited during this time, and besides, one can't apply Zechariah 14:11 to the church in a spiritual sense either involving this age because of what the preceding verse records, thus this involves something that is regionally located in the earth.

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.


This part---south of Jerusalem--proves that this is meaning regionally. All of that verse does, actually. The NJ has to be geographically located somewhere since it is not meaning the entire planet , the same way the garden of Eden was not meaning the entire planet and that is it had a geographic location.

Thank you for proving my point, which was that Zechariah 14 is not clear and straightforward scripture that someone should use as part of the foundation of their doctrine. You said yourself that other Premils would disagree with you on this, so it's not as if all Premils interpret it the same way.

You're all over the place in this post which shows that the text is not clear and straightforward to you. But, somehow, keras thinks Zechariah 14 is not a challenging and debatable passage of scripture even though it clearly is. He claimed that only Amils find that passage to be challenging and debatable. No, plenty of Premils struggle to reconcile it with the rest of scripture as well. Including you. Your post provides evidence for that with you acknowledging that some of your understanding of it may not be reasonable.

 

[Timtofly]

1. Where is the second coming in Zechariah 14?
2. Where in Zechariah 14 is a thousand years mentioned?
3. Where in Zechariah 14 is the new earth mentioned?
4. Where in Zechariah 14 are the glorified saints mentioned?
5. Where in Zechariah 14 is Jesus shown to be on earth?
6. Where in Zechariah 14 is the binding of Satan?
7. Where in Zechariah 14 are the 2 resurrections/judgments?
8. Where in Zechariah 14 is the release of Satan and an unparalleled global uprising 1,000 years after the second coming?

This was not even the subject.

The subject was how do sinners survive into the Millennium? None of those questions address this point.

The answer is a physical resurrection. But no, Amil avoid that point and bring up a dozen unrelated points.

 

[DavidPT]

This was not even the subject.

The subject was how do sinners survive into the Millennium? None of those questions address this point.

The answer is a physical resurrection. But no, Amil avoid that point and bring up a dozen unrelated points.

Sometimes, especially when involving prophecies, one needs to approach these things like a detective might. But some Amils, such as SG, want everything handed to them on a platter, and unless something plainly mentions something, which was never the case most of the time in the OT to begin with, thus the NT coming later and shedding light on some of these things, one then has to dismiss everything that a Premil might propose because Zechariah 14 doesn't mention a thousand years, doesn't mention the new earth, etc. Yet, there are clues, and when approaching these things like a detective might, that prove Jesus is bodily on the earth in Zechariah 14, thus glorified saints being present as well, unless one wants to propose that when Jesus returns none of the saints are ever glorified at that time.

There are clues that prove some of Zechariah 14 is involving the new earth. There are clues that some of Zechariah 14 is involving the thousand years followed by satan's little season--that being Zechariah 14:16-19 since none of these survivors are meaning glorified saints if they can be punished for refusing to come up. And besides, they are living outside of the city, not inside of it, and if the NJ is in view glorified saints would be living inside the city not outside of it, thus they wouldn't need to come up or no rain for refusing to comply, they would already be there.

 

[Timtofly]

Interpreting the passages completely literally results in contradicting other scripture.

Yet not one proof point to this assessment.

No Scripture is contradictory to Pre-mill.

That point is an opinion that Amil have. Obviously any contradictions have been hashed out dozens of times, and yet still a vague, "I said so" instead of actual literal proof. Name one Scripture that contradicts and claims John is off base in Revelation 20. What Scripture corrects John's eye witness account, that is supposed to be the NT clearer view, "better than" obscure OT prophecies?

Saying even the NT is too obscure is not helping your point. Are Amil the only ones with a handle on interpretation?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Sometimes, especially when involving prophecies, one needs to approach these things like a detective might. But some Amils, such as SG, want everything handed to them on a platter, and unless something plainly mentions something, which was never the case most of the time in the OT to begin with, thus the NT coming later and shedding light on some of these things, one then has to dismiss everything that a Premil might propose because Zechariah 14 doesn't mention a thousand years, doesn't mention the new earth, etc. Yet, there are clues, and when approaching these things like a detective might, that prove Jesus is bodily on the earth in Zechariah 14, thus glorified saints being present as well, unless one wants to propose that when Jesus returns none of the saints are ever glorified at that time.

There are clues that prove some of Zechariah 14 is involving the new earth. There are clues that some of Zechariah 14 is involving the thousand years followed by satan's little season--that being Zechariah 14:16-19 since none of these survivors are meaning glorified saints if they can be punished for refusing to come up. And besides, they are living outside of the city, not inside of it, and if the NJ is in view glorified saints would be living inside the city not outside of it, thus they wouldn't need to come up or no rain for refusing to comply, they would already be there.

If you want your interpretation of Zechariah 14 to be taken seriously then all you need to do is back up your interpretation of Zechariah 14 with other scripture which teaches the same thing that you think Zechariah 14 teaches. Can you do that? I don't think that you can.

By the way, how exactly does Zechariah 14:16-19 say anything about the time period that we call "Satan's little season"? The punishment in Rev 20:7-9 is fire from heaven that destroys unbelievers. The punishment in Zechariah 14:16-19 is no rain. With that in mind why would you try to say that Zechariah 14:16-19 says anything about Satan's little season?

 

[Timtofly]

Sometimes, especially when involving prophecies, one needs to approach these things like a detective might. But some Amils, such as SG, want everything handed to them on a platter, and unless something plainly mentions something, which was never the case most of the time in the OT to begin with, thus the NT coming later and shedding light on some of these things, one then has to dismiss everything that a Premil might propose because Zechariah 14 doesn't mention a thousand years, doesn't mention the new earth, etc. Yet, there are clues, and when approaching these things like a detective might, that prove Jesus is bodily on the earth in Zechariah 14, thus glorified saints being present as well, unless one wants to propose that when Jesus returns none of the saints are ever glorified at that time.

There are clues that prove some of Zechariah 14 is involving the new earth. There are clues that some of Zechariah 14 is involving the thousand years followed by satan's little season--that being Zechariah 14:16-19 since none of these survivors are meaning glorified saints if they can be punished for refusing to come up. And besides, they are living outside of the city, not inside of it, and if the NJ is in view glorified saints would be living inside the city not outside of it, thus they wouldn't need to come up or no rain for refusing to comply, they would already be there.

Zechariah 14 clearly outlines the Second Coming and subsequent Millennium. Zechariah does not declare 2000 years between the first coming/Cross and the Second Coming either, yet here we are 1991 years later.

 

[DavidPT]

Zechariah 14 clearly outlines the Second Coming and subsequent Millennium. Zechariah does not declare 2000 years between the first coming/Cross and the Second Coming either, yet here we are 1991 years later.

I agree except I probably take it a step further than you do since I see some of the chapter involving the new Jerusalem. IOW, the NJ is in view during the thousand years.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree except I probably take it a step further than you do since I see some of the chapter involving the new Jerusalem. IOW, the NJ is in view during the thousand years.

It makes no sense at all to claim that the New Jerusalem comes down at the beginning of or during the thousand years because heaven and earth have to pass away first.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Clearly, the new Jerusalem comes down AFTER the first heaven and first earth pass away. In your view in what sense do the first heaven and first earth pass away before the New Jerusalem comes down?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I agree except I probably take it a step further than you do since I see some of the chapter involving the new Jerusalem. IOW, the NJ is in view during the thousand years.

Stop articulating your opinion in regards to Revelation 20. Where is it mentioned in your millennium?

 

[DavidPT]

Stop articulating your opinion with support in Revelation 20. Where is it mentioned in your millennium?

Let's say that I was someone who didn't have a clue that there is such a thing as Premil or Amil. I would still be concluding from my readings of the texts, that the thousand years are after the 2nd coming and that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming. As to a position such as Amil, no one could possibly become Amil solely on their own, which means they are first influenced by outside sources, IOW, they become aware of this position first then eventually see this position being taught in Scripture.

To prove this point. A plane goes down on an uncharted island. Everyone dies but one person. This person has never read any part of the Bible in their entire life. This person has no opinion one way or the other concerning what is written in the Bible. In this crash a Bible survives having belonged to one of the passagers that died in the crash. This survivor never gets off this island. This survivor never has any contact with the outside world ever again.

This person then reads this Bible from cover to cover, not one time but multiple times. Eventually this person begins to believe what is recorded in the gospels concerning Jesus and decides to believe. This person takes an interest in Revelation 19-20 in particular. What should we assume his readings convince him of? That the thousand years are meaning before the coming recorded in Revelation 19, or after that coming?

Once again, no one could possibly become Amil solely on their own. They first have to be aware of that position, then it's possible to become an Amil after that. When I say solely on their own I'm meaning like the example I provided above involving the plane crash survivor.