Can Amil prove with Scripture that the beast is in the pit during the thousand years?

[DavidPT]

OK then. If I am out of sorts with the PM view, then
maybe you can update me, on how Daniel 9:27 shall be fulfilled, according to your understanding of the PM view.

Like I pointed out, there are Premils that interpret it like most Amils do, but then there are Premils that don't. As to me, I'm one that doesn't. There is a gap in the 70 weeks somewhere, I am as convinced of that as I am convinced that Jesus is God, that's how convinced I am, IOW, I'm 100% convinced. Initially I reasoned that the gap was between the 69th and 70th week, but now I'm reasoning that it is in the middle of the 70th week instead, which would mean Christ is meant in 27a and the beast is meant in 27b, and that 27 b is pertaining to the 42 month reign of the beast in the end of this age, and that 27b should be interpreted in a spiritual sense not a literal sense, therefore none of this will be involving literal rebuilt temples in Jerusalem, nor does 27b involve 70 AD like a lot of interpreters tend to think.

The other Premils that see a gap in the 70 weeks, being between the 69th and 70th week, they disagree with my interpretation, as I do theirs. Their interpretation involves a rebuilt temple, animal sacrificing resuming in it then being stopped again, my interpretation involves none of that.

 

[Earburner]

Amil would make better sense IMO if the great falling away explained the ones satan deceives after the thousand years. Those that fall away from the faith, could their number be of whom is as the sand of the sea? Maybe, maybe not. I guess we won't know until Matthew 24:15-21 starts getting fulfilled. Keep in mind, that is just an opinion, and the reason why it might make better sense is because satan would be deceiving someone no longer deceived, meaning they are not deceived during the thousand years because they got saved during the thousand years, rather than someone already deceived. Then when satan is loosed they are deceived into falling away.

Professing worldly christians don't fall away from faith, unless or until their lifestyle, and the love of self, or their loved ones are threatened and put in jeopardy.

The "MoB" will come in the form of a financial temptation, that will separate the goats from the sheep, aka the tares from the wheat.
Rev.3 [10] Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon ALL the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

2Pet.2[9] The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2 Peter 2:2-9.

2 Thessalonians 1[7] And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
[8] In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
[9] Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
[10] When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

It will be a simultaneous event, in that day!!
See KJV Luke 17:29

 

[Torah Keeper]

It seems to me, if Amil can prove that with Scripture, the debate between Premil vs Amil is over. Premil has the beast in the LOF during the thousand years. But if it is in the pit instead, that obviously contradicts Premil, thus Premil can't work. We know satan is in the pit during the thousand years because the text tells us so. We also know the beast is in the pit at some point if it ascends out of it at some point. Should we assume the pit doesn't even exist until the beginning of the thousand years, or that it does exist before the thousand years, but no one is ever cast into it until the beginning of the thousand years, thus it is empty before the thousand years?

As to the above, it doesn't matter if the pit is literal or not literal, those questions are still relevant even if the pit is not literal.

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

In this passage we see the pit being opened and locusts emerging. It doesn't matter what these locusts might be, the point is, they are ascending out of the pit once it is opened, obviously implying they were imprisoned in the pit at an earlier time. This raises a cpl of questions. When were they initially cast into the pit and why were they? When are they released from the pit? We know it's during the 5th trumpet. But when is the 5th trumpet meaning, in relation to the thousand years? There are only 3 options. Is it meaning before the thousand years? During the thousand years? Or after the thousand years?

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

This is obviously meaning at the beginning of the thousand years. As to these locusts in ch 9, and even the beast as well, where does this text ever show either of those being cast into the pit with satan in the beginning of thousand years? I don't see that in the text anywhere. The text indicates that satan is bound so that he should deceive the nations no more. Assuming the locusts are cast in when satan is, does that mean they too are cast in so that they should deceive the nations no more either? If the beast is cast in when satan is, is that so that it should deceive the nations no more either?

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Does not verse 10 already have the beast and fp in the LOF when satan is loosed? Does any of the above also mention that the beast is loosed from the pit when satan is? Does any of the above also mention that the locusts are loosed when satan is?

Here is my understanding of it:

The bottomless pit is a void in the center of the Earth, although it could be another dimension or somewhere in space. Rebellious angels were imprisoned there during the global flood. They are released during the tribulation, before the 1,000 years. Satan is already loose right now, along with other demons. These demons of the pit, are released for a specific time and purpose, that is, to torment those with the mark of the beast.

It would not make sense for Satan alone to be cast into the pit for 1,000 years, and since this 1,000 years is like a paradise on Earth, it seems that all demons will be imprisoned there during the 1,000 years.

The lake of fire is the final judgment, after the 1,000 years.

 

[DavidPT]

Here is my understanding of it:

The bottomless pit is a void in the center of the Earth, although it could be another dimension or somewhere in space. Rebellious angels were imprisoned there during the global flood. They are released during the tribulation, before the 1,000 years. Satan is already loose right now, along with other demons. These demons of the pit, are released for a specific time and purpose, that is, to torment those with the mark of the beast.

It would not make sense for Satan alone to be cast into the pit for 1,000 years, and since this 1,000 years is like a paradise on Earth, it seems that all demons will be imprisoned there during the 1,000 years.

The lake of fire is the final judgment, after the 1,000 years.

I tend to think the bottomless pit is first mentioned in Genesis 1. That makes it part of the earth. And besides, in Revelation 9 the locusts are seen ascending out of it, which means the pit has to be inside the earth since that scene is taking place on earth.

It's funny, not literally funny, how while those locusts are in the pit, it's as if they don't even exist at the time, but when satan is in the pit, and if assuming Amil, the same is not true of satan, that it is as if he doesn't exist either. Clearly, satan has been active for the past 2000 years, the same 2000 years Amils insist satan has been in the pit, but not meaning a literal pit to them, so not saying they think the pit is literal, and then for these same past 2000 years these locusts have been inactive while they are in the pit. That doesn't add up. Why are these locusts inactive while they are in the pit, but satan is active while he is in the pit?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I tend to think the bottomless pit is first mentioned in Genesis 1. That makes it part of the earth. And besides, in Revelation 9 the locusts are seen ascending out of it, which means the pit has to be inside the earth since that scene is taking place on earth.

Can you explain how figurative locusts can ascend out of a literal place inside the earth?

It's funny, not literally funny, how while those locusts are in the pit, it's as if they don't even exist at the time, but when satan is in the pit, and if assuming Amil, the same is not true of satan, that it is as if he doesn't exist either. Clearly, satan has been active for the past 2000 years, the same 2000 years Amils insist satan has been in the pit, but not meaning a literal pit to them, so not saying they think the pit is literal, and then for these same past 2000 years these locusts have been inactive while they are in the pit. That doesn't add up. Why are these locusts inactive while they are in the pit, but satan is active while he is in the pit?

And, once again, you have misrepresented Amil. When has any Amil ever said that the locusts (demons) are inactive while in the pit? That is not what I believe and I'm not aware of any other Amil who believes that. Why would we believe that Satan's angels are bound in the bottomless pit in a different way than he is? That wouldn't make any sense.

Is there some reason why you can't understand that Amils don't have the same understanding of the bottomless pit as you do? We see the description of the dragon, beast and locusts being bound in the bottomless pit as being a figurative representation of the restraint of wickedness that Paul wrote about in 2nd Thessalonians 2 and of demons (fallen angels including Satan) being restrained from stopping the gospel from being spread throughout the world.

 

[Earburner]

Like I pointed out, there are Premils that interpret it like most Amils do, but then there are Premils that don't. As to me, I'm one that doesn't. There is a gap in the 70 weeks somewhere, I am as convinced of that as I am convinced that Jesus is God, that's how convinced I am, IOW, I'm 100% convinced. Initially I reasoned that the gap was between the 69th and 70th week, but now I'm reasoning that it is in the middle of the 70th week instead, which would mean Christ is meant in 27a and the beast is meant in 27b, and that 27 b is pertaining to the 42 month reign of the beast in the end of this age, and that 27b should be interpreted in a spiritual sense not a literal sense, therefore none of this will be involving literal rebuilt temples in Jerusalem, nor does 27b involve 70 AD like a lot of interpreters tend to think.

The other Premils that see a gap in the 70 weeks, being between the 69th and 70th week, they disagree with my interpretation, as I do theirs. Their interpretation involves a rebuilt temple, animal sacrificing resuming in it then being stopped again, my interpretation involves none of that.

Thanks for sharing your understanding of the PM view.
However, I must say that your view is more of a hybrid, than that of what I had learned, and once did believe.

I find it interesting that you perceive that in KJV Daniel 9:27 there are two separate issues being pointed at. You say: "Christ is meant in 27a and the beast is meant in 27b". I am understanding that you divide the verse in the following way:
[27a] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
[27b] and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In all actuality, I agree. There really are two issues there, but still there is only one "he" that is involved.
Since you have correctly identified Christ as being involved with 27a, by the sacrificial death of Christ on His cross, THAT surely did bring all of the issues of 27a about.
Do you not recall when Jesus was crucified, the temple veil was torn in two, thus symbolizing that access to the "Holy of holies", God the Father Himself, was NOW through the ultimate sacrifice, being that of His Son. From that point, God the Father no longer over shadowed Israel by His care. As a result, their "house was now left unto them desolate", meaning Israel was VOID of God!

27b "and FOR the overspeading of abominations", was that of Israel carrying on with their animal sacrifices and temple services, flying in the face of God, denying the sacrifice of God's own Son for them.
But now, because God had divorced them and their temple, a void/vacuum of God's presence, leaving them, was now left open. Satan then filled that void in 70 AD with his destructive forces of the Roman Titus and his army.

But now, let's go back to that term being used of "one week". It is that week, which is the 70th.
It is in the midst of that week, that Messiah is "cut off/crucified, but not for himself".
The combined earthly ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus was for 3.5 years.
John = 6 months
Jesus = 3 years.

So, what happened to the remaining 3.5 years of that "one week"?
After Jesus Resurrected and Ascended into Heaven, the Day of Pentecost came, and by His Spirit in the midst of that week, He continued to work with the new, early church, thus continuing to confirm the covenant with "many" of His disciples, which is exactly what the latter part of 27b reveals.

The Jewish temple is still in ruination, and shall remain so, "even until the consummation", however
"and that determined shall be poured [out] upon the desolate".
What was it, that was "determined"??
And who are "the desolate"?
See the six works of God in verse 24.
These are the works of God that Jesus came to "finish", of which He said two times that He did.
John 17:4, John 19:30.
And the results of that work of Christ, is being poured out upon the desolate, those who are void of God, ever since Pentecost.
Acts.10[45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Do you now see, that the word "he" in KJV Daniel 9:27 is ALL ABOUT Jesus, and no one else?
Of course it is, because He Himself said so!!
John.5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[garee]

It seems to me, if Amil can prove that with Scripture, the debate between Premil vs Amil is over. Premil has the beast in the LOF during the thousand years. But if it is in the pit instead, that obviously contradicts Premil, thus Premil can't work. We know satan is in the pit during the thousand years because the text tells us so. We also know the beast is in the pit at some point if it ascends out of it at some point. Should we assume the pit doesn't even exist until the beginning of the thousand years, or that it does exist before the thousand years, but no one is ever cast into it until the beginning of the thousand years, thus it is empty before the thousand years?

As to the above, it doesn't matter if the pit is literal or not literal, those questions are still relevant even if the pit is not literal.

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

In this passage we see the pit being opened and locusts emerging. It doesn't matter what these locusts might be, the point is, they are ascending out of the pit once it is opened, obviously implying they were imprisoned in the pit at an earlier time. This raises a cpl of questions. When were they initially cast into the pit and why were they? When are they released from the pit? We know it's during the 5th trumpet. But when is the 5th trumpet meaning, in relation to the thousand years? There are only 3 options. Is it meaning before the thousand years? During the thousand years? Or after the thousand years?

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

This is obviously meaning at the beginning of the thousand years. As to these locusts in ch 9, and even the beast as well, where does this text ever show either of those being cast into the pit with satan in the beginning of thousand years? I don't see that in the text anywhere. The text indicates that satan is bound so that he should deceive the nations no more. Assuming the locusts are cast in when satan is, does that mean they too are cast in so that they should deceive the nations no more either? If the beast is cast in when satan is, is that so that it should deceive the nations no more either?

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Does not verse 10 already have the beast and fp in the LOF when satan is loosed? Does any of the above also mention that the beast is loosed from the pit when satan is? Does any of the above also mention that the locusts are loosed when satan is?

To begin with the opening statement as to the kind of hermeneutics begins, the idea was that not only was Revelation inspired but also signified.

Therefore using the temporal things seen to give us the seen spiritual understanding as things of God. Called hidden manna in chapter 2:17.

Under the fall and the binding. . began at the cross . When the veil was rent there was no Jewish king siting in the Holy of Holies . Satan could no longer deceive all the nation God was a Jewish King a gospel sign to the whole world. It did not mean he stopped deceiving period but again in respect to all the nations.

Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

The metaphor thousands year (a unknown) is used three times before Revelation 20 it set the pattern used as a parable for the use.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

2 Peter 3:8 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.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Can you explain how figurative locusts can ascend out of a literal place inside the earth?

And, once again, you have misrepresented Amil. When has any Amil ever said that the locusts (demons) are inactive while in the pit? That is not what I believe and I'm not aware of any other Amil who believes that. Why would we believe that Satan's angels are bound in the bottomless pit in a different way than he is? That wouldn't make any sense.

Is there some reason why you can't understand that Amils don't have the same understanding of the bottomless pit as you do? We see the description of the dragon, beast and locusts being bound in the bottomless pit as being a figurative representation of the restraint of wickedness that Paul wrote about in 2nd Thessalonians 2 and of demons (fallen angels including Satan) being restrained from stopping the gospel from being spread throughout the world.

Very well put!

He is hyper-literal when it suits Premil and hyper-figurative when it suits Premil. That is the governing rule in his hermeneutics.

David also thinks he has the authority to speak on behalf of Amil, when he has no clue what we believe. What he does is selectively (and conveniently) foist aspects of his Premil views upon Amil beliefs, mix them together and then rubbish his invented concoction because it does not make sense. Well hello! What does he expect?

This is the only way to discredit Amil in my opinion. Present it as something it is not.

When that is exposed by Amillennialists as erroneous and unfair he then ignores the rebuttal and changes subjects. It seems like his aim is to muddy the waters sufficiently to make it questionable.

 

[Earburner]

^ In my most recent post #86, I revealed the truth about Daniel 9:27, of what it says in KJV Daniel 9:[27a] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
[27b] and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Different words in different Bible versions change the meaning, and also one's understanding.
Please compare the KJV quote above, to the ASV bible, and you will see that in the ASV, the denominational meaning is "[inserted]", in order to purposely direct the reader towards their way of understanding.
In the ASV Bible, Daniel 9:27a And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease;
27b. and upon the wing of abominations [shall come] one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall [wrath] be poured out upon the desolate.
Is it any wonder why that there is so much confusion among God's people? God is not the author of confusion, but we do know who is.

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus Greek text.
The ASV is translated from the Wescott & Hort Greek text.
Two different Greek Texts, means two different "schools of thought", and neither the twain shall meet.

 

[DavidPT]

Can you explain how figurative locusts can ascend out of a literal place inside the earth?

Regardless that they are obviously not literal locusts they still have to be something literal, like maybe demons. demons are literal, aren't they? Can demons be held in a literal place? Why not? The LOF is a literal place and eventually they will be cast into there and never escape. How is it possible that the LOF can imprison them but nothing else can?

Luke 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.


How does one explain verse 31 if the abyss is not a literal place where someone, such as a demon, can be imprisoned?

As to the locusts in Revelation 9, while they are in the pit they are obviously 100% inactive at the time and don't become active until they are released from the pit, my opinion not Amil's opinion. The same should be true of satan when he is imprisoned in this pit, except it isn't if one assumes Amil, meaning if someone like me assumes Amil is supposed to be the correct view, then, me seeing satan has clearly been active for the past 2000 years, the same 2000 years Amils insist he is in the pit. If one assumes Premil is the correct position instead, when satan is in the pit there will be zero evidence that he is still active at the time, unlike if one assumes Amil is the correct position, where there is plenty of evidence that he is still active at the time while he's supposed to be in the pit.

Per Premil when satan is in the pit he is just as inactive as the locusts are when they are in the pit. Per Amil when satan is in the pit he is not just as inactive as the locusts are when they are in the pit, he's still active and there is plenty of evidence of his activity to prove it. Where then is there evidence that the locusts are still active while imprisoned in the pit?

IOW, if assuming Amil is the correct position, why does the pit prevent the locusts from being active while imprisoned, after all when is the last time anyone has heard of being tormented by them as if being tormented by a scorpion's tail, thus this proves they are inactive while in the pit, but it doesn't prevent satan from being inactive while imprisoned since there is plenty of proof that he is still active while he is supposed to be in the pit?

And, once again, you have misrepresented Amil. When has any Amil ever said that the locusts (demons) are inactive while in the pit? That is not what I believe and I'm not aware of any other Amil who believes that. Why would we believe that Satan's angels are bound in the bottomless pit in a different way than he is? That wouldn't make any sense.

Is there some reason why you can't understand that Amils don't have the same understanding of the bottomless pit as you do? We see the description of the dragon, beast and locusts being bound in the bottomless pit as being a figurative representation of the restraint of wickedness that Paul wrote about in 2nd Thessalonians 2 and of demons (fallen angels including Satan) being restrained from stopping the gospel from being spread throughout the world.

I'm getting fed up with these false accusations and your sub par reading comprehension in regards to my posts. I never said Amils claimed the locusts are inactive while in the pit. If you can't even read my posts correctly without twisting what I said and what I was meaning, how is one supposed to trust that you are interpreting all Scriptures correctly, thus not twisting any of them either?

 

[DavidPT]

Very well put!

He is hyper-literal when it suits Premil and hyper-figurative when it suits Premil. That is the governing rule in his hermeneutics.

David thinks he has the authority to speak on behalf of Amil, when he has no clue what we believe. What he does is selectively (and conveniently) foist aspects of his Premil views upon Amil beliefs, mix them together and then rubbish his invented concoction because it does not make sense. Well hello! What does he expect?

This is the only way to discredit Amil in my opinion. Present it as something it is not.

When that is exposed by Amillennialists as erroneous and unfair he then ignores the rebuttal and changes subjects. It seems like his aim is to muddy the waters sufficiently to make it questionable.

Let's get something clear if that's even possible with some of you. I'm not speaking on behalf of Amils. I'm not saying what Amils believe or don't believe, I'm saying what I believe if Amil is supposed to be true. If Amil is supposed to be true, then why am I seeing zero evidence of the locust's activity while in the pit and seeing plenty of evidence of satan's activity while he is supposed to be in this same pit when the locusts are? You all don't even remotely understand the majority of my arguments. Instead you twist what I say and mean then insist I'm misrepresenting Amil. That's really being fair to me, isn't it? Since I know what I said and was meaning, but instead I get some of you twisting what I said and was meaning, then acting as if I did something wrong.

 

[DavidPT]

To begin with the opening statement as to the kind of hermeneutics begins, the idea was that not only was Revelation inspired but also signified.

Therefore using the temporal things seen to give us the seen spiritual understanding as things of God. Called hidden manna in chapter 2:17.

Under the fall and the binding. . began at the cross . When the veil was rent there was no Jewish king siting in the Holy of Holies . Satan could no longer deceive all the nation God was a Jewish King a gospel sign to the whole world. It did not mean he stopped deceiving period but again in respect to all the nations.

Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

The metaphor thousands year (a unknown) is used three times before Revelation 20 it set the pattern used as a parable for the use.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

2 Peter 3:8 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.

I don't see any of this explaining the saints that are martyred for not worshiping the beast(Revelation 20:4)before satan is ever loosed. During the thousand years Amil has both the beast and satan in the pit. Are they refusing to worship the beast when satan and the beast are supposed to be in the pit, then being martyred for refusing to worship it? Is this what we should conclude? What I'm asking in regards to the martyrs in Revelation 20:4 who do not not worship the beast, are they martyred while both satan and the beast are in the pit or when they are not in the pit?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Let's get something clear if that's even possible with some of you. I'm not speaking on behalf of Amils. I'm not saying what Amils believe or don't believe, I'm saying what I believe if Amil is supposed to be true. If Amil is supposed to be true, then why am I seeing zero evidence of the locust's activity while in the pit and seeing plenty of evidence of satan's activity while he is supposed to be in this same pit when the locusts are? You all don't even remotely understand the majority of my arguments. Instead you twist what I say and mean then insist I'm misrepresenting Amil. That's really being fair to me, isn't it? Since I know what I said and was meaning, but instead I get some of you twisting what I said and was meaning, then acting as if I did something wrong.

That is not true! You misrepresent Amil in most posts you address it. I therefore stand over what I said. As I have said countless times: you have no grasp of Amil, yet you (like no other Premil) try to constantly talk on its behalf (as if you are some authority) and always end up misrepresenting it.

How about asking questions? You don't because you would discover the truth. Misrepresenting Amil seems to be more appealing to you.

You cannot even address the simple question Eric presented above: Can you explain how figurative locusts can ascend out of a literal geographical place at the center of the earth?

And: can you take ownership for some of your many misrepresentations you asked us to present? Your avoidance is obvious.

You recently wrongly said:

Amils never use both the OT and NT together to prove they are the correct position. They go by what the NT alone says, not by what the OT and the NT together says.

Is this accurate or false?

Apparently, in your mind, if one thing is not literal then neither is anything else that is involved.

Is this accurate or false? When have I ever said this?

I see that as a red flag myself, that one has to first be aware that Revelation 19-20 can be read in another manner other than chronologically, and that maybe not everyone might be aware of that, and that no one could possibly be aware of that via their own reading of the text, thus they have to first be influenced by outside sources.

Is this accurate or false?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I don't see any of this explaining the saints that are martyred for not worshiping the beast(Revelation 20:4)before satan is ever loosed. During the thousand years Amil has both the beast and satan in the pit. Are they refusing to worship the beast when satan and the beast are supposed to be in the pit, then being martyred for refusing to worship it? Is this what we should conclude? What I'm asking in regards to the martyrs in Revelation 20:4 who do not not worship the beast, are they martyred while both satan and the beast are in the pit or when they are not in the pit?

What are the 7 heads the beast possesses and what do they relate to?

 

[DavidPT]

That is not true! You misrepresent Amil in most posts you address it. I therefore stand over what I said. As I have said countless times: you have no grasp of Amil, yet you (like no other Premil) try to constantly talk on its behalf (as if you are some authority) and always end up misrepresenting it.

How about asking questions? You don't because you would discover the truth. Misrepresenting Amil seems to be more appealing to you.

You cannot even address the simple question Eric presented above: Can you explain how figurative locusts can ascend out of a literal geographical place at the center of the earth?

And: can you take ownership for some of your many misrepresentations you asked us to present? Your avoidance is obvious.

You recently wrongly said:



Is this accurate or false?



Is this accurate or false? When have I ever said this?



Is this accurate or false?

A lot of those things are simply my opinion of things. I have a right to my opinions as you all have a right to yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. You could prove me wrong concerning one of those opinions though, where I indicated that unless one is already aware that Revelation 19-20 doesn't have to be read chronologically, they are going to read it chronologically in the meantime, by presenting an example of someone in our day and time that you can prove, who, when they read the Bible and then concluded all on their own that the Bible is teaching Amil, IOW they didn't have a clue at the time that Revelation 19-20 doesn't have to be read chronologically and that they figured that out all by themselves, thus weren't first influenced by outside sources. IOW, they weren't aware of what any early church fathers believed, they weren't aware of any modern day Amil teachings, they simply figured it out on their own.

 

[DavidPT]

That is not true! You misrepresent Amil in most posts you address it. I therefore stand over what I said. As I have said countless times: you have no grasp of Amil, yet you (like no other Premil) try to constantly talk on its behalf (as if you are some authority) and always end up misrepresenting it.

How about asking questions? You don't because you would discover the truth. Misrepresenting Amil seems to be more appealing to you.

You cannot even address the simple question Eric presented above: Can you explain how figurative locusts can ascend out of a literal geographical place at the center of the earth?

And: can you take ownership for some of your many misrepresentations you asked us to present? Your avoidance is obvious.

You recently wrongly said:



Is this accurate or false?



Is this accurate or false? When have I ever said this?



Is this accurate or false?

As to the post you were addressing, in context I was meaning what we have been discussing in regards to the locusts, and that I said I wasn't speaking on behalf of Amils concerning that, and then I explained why I wasn't. Let's at least keep things in context involving that particular post you are addressing here.

 

[DavidPT]

What are the 7 heads the beast possesses and what do they relate to?

That's not an easy question to answer. Not everyone is going to interpret that the same way. Who's interpretation should we assume might be correct if not everyone interprets it the same way?

As to the 7 heads, in Revelation 13:1 it is noted that a beast with 7 heads emerges from the sea. What is meant by the sea? There are numerous interpretations of that as well. And the way I interpret it is by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Revelation 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


This tells us that the beast which hath the seven heads and ten horns, it shall ascend out of the bottomless pit.

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

And here we see a 7 headed beast ascending, it ascending out of the sea. Using Revelation 17:7-8 to interpret Revelation 13:1, I feel it's reasonable to assume the bottomless pit might be meant by sea in Revelation 13:1. And if so, Revelation 13:1 records when the beast ascends out of the pit. The question is, assuming I'm correct here, is Revelation 13:1 involving a time before the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4 are martyred for not worshiping the beast, or is it involving a time post their martyrdom?

 

[sovereigngrace]

That's not an easy question to answer. Not everyone is going to interpret that the same way. Who's interpretation should we assume might be correct if not everyone interprets it the same way?

As to the 7 heads, in Revelation 13:1 it is noted that a beast with 7 heads emerges from the sea. What is meant by the sea? There are numerous interpretations of that as well. And the way I interpret it is by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Revelation 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


This tells us that the beast which hath the seven heads and ten horns, it shall ascend out of the bottomless pit.

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

And here we see a 7 headed beast ascending, it ascending out of the sea. Using Revelation 17:7-8 to interpret Revelation 13:1, I feel it's reasonable to assume the bottomless pit might be meant by sea in Revelation 13:1. And if so, Revelation 13:1 records when the beast ascends out of the pit. The question is, assuming I'm correct here, is Revelation 13:1 involving a time before the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4 are martyred for not worshiping the beast, or is it involving a time post their martyrdom?

Please stop avoiding: what are the 7 heads the beast possesses and what do they relate to? When did the beast start performing his evil?

 

[sovereigngrace]

A lot of those things are simply my opinion of things. I have a right to my opinions as you all have a right to yours. Opinions are just that, opinions. You could prove me wrong concerning one of those opinions though, where I indicated that unless one is already aware that Revelation 19-20 doesn't have to be read chronologically, they are going to read it chronologically in the meantime, by presenting an example of someone in our day and time that you can prove, who, when they read the Bible and then concluded all on their own that the Bible is teaching Amil, IOW they didn't have a clue at the time that Revelation 19-20 doesn't have to be read chronologically and that they figured that out all by themselves, thus weren't first influenced by outside sources. IOW, they weren't aware of what any early church fathers believed, they weren't aware of any modern day Amil teachings, they simply figured it out on their own.

No one has any issue with posters advancing opinions, as long as they support it with hard corroborated Scripture. The issue here is not that. The issue is that you constantly want to talk on behalf of Amils and how you habitually and deliberately misrepresent what they hold despite being corrected for years on each issue. That is what Amils resent.

The sad thing from a Christian perspective is that you know exactly what Amils believe but you choose to deliberately distort their position in order to try and secure some supposed debate advantage.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Regardless that they are obviously not literal locusts they still have to be something literal, like maybe demons. demons are literal, aren't they? Can demons be held in a literal place? Why not?

You're missing the point. It's talking about locusts being in the bottomless pit. John didn't say he saw demons there, he saw locusts in the bottomless pit. But, that figuratively represents something else besides actual locusts being confined in an actual abyss/bottomless pit.

Think about it. It talks about the bottomless pit being opened. If it was a literal place where demons are confined, then how does that work when they are loosed? How big is the opening that they can go through? Do the millions of them have to go through single file or is it a huge cover on the bottomless pit that opens or what?

The LOF is a literal place and eventually they will be cast into there and never escape. How is it possible that the LOF can imprison them but nothing else can?

That is beside the point here. We're talking about a passage that describes locusts being in the bottomless pit and then coming up out of it onto the earth. Why should any of that be taken literally when we know that the locusts are not literal locusts?

Luke 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.


How does one explain verse 31 if the abyss is not a literal place where someone, such as a demon, can be imprisoned?

There isn't much detail there about what exactly the deep/abyss is and what effect it has for them to go there. Since that passage is regarding demons who were possessing a man, it could be that them going to the abyss is simply a description of them not having the ability to possess people anymore. Notice that they are allowed to possess the swine after that. So, the context is in regards to their ability to possess people or animals and not their ability to do anything at all.

But, again, in terms of Revelation 9, it's talking about locusts being in the abyss/bottomless pit, not demons. Yes, the locusts symbolically represent demons, but it's still picturing locusts being in a pit and coming up out of it. That all symbolically represents something and none of it should be taken literally.

As to the locusts in Revelation 9, while they are in the pit they are obviously 100% inactive at the time and don't become active until they are released from the pit, my opinion not Amil's opinion.

It doesn't say they are completely inactive. The only thing we can conclude for certain is that while in the pit they weren't able to do what it describes them as doing when they are loosed. And that was to torment those who don't have the seal of God on their foreheads to the point of them wanting to die. The idea that the locusts/demons were also not able to do anything else is pure speculation and nothing more.

The same should be true of satan when he is imprisoned in this pit, except it isn't if one assumes Amil, meaning if someone like me assumes Amil is supposed to be the correct view, then, me seeing satan has clearly been active for the past 2000 years, the same 2000 years Amils insist he is in the pit. If one assumes Premil is the correct position instead, when satan is in the pit there will be zero evidence that he is still active at the time, unlike if one assumes Amil is the correct position, where there is plenty of evidence that he is still active at the time while he's supposed to be in the pit.

Per Premil when satan is in the pit he is just as inactive as the locusts are when they are in the pit.

This is all obvious and you didn't need to waste your time explaining all that to me.

Per Amil when satan is in the pit he is not just as inactive as the locusts are when they are in the pit, he's still active and there is plenty of evidence of his activity to prove it. Where then is there evidence that the locusts are still active while imprisoned in the pit?

Again, you're always looking for explicit statements about things like this. I could ask you where there is evidence that the locusts aren't active during that time. All you have is the assumption that locusts being imprisoned in a pit equates to demons being in a pit. If that was the case, then what is the point of it talking about locusts being in the pit? Why doesn't it just call them demons if it's all supposed to be understood literally?

Tell me, does Revelation 20 explicitly state that all believers from all-time have part in the first resurrection? No, right? Yet, that's still what you believe, right? So, why are you so selective in the kind of evidence that you need to be convinced of something?

IOW, if assuming Amil is the correct position, why does the pit prevent the locusts from being active while imprisoned, after all when is the last time anyone has heard of being tormented by them as if being tormented by a scorpion's tail, thus this proves they are inactive while in the pit, but it doesn't prevent satan from being inactive while imprisoned since there is plenty of proof that he is still active while he is supposed to be in the pit?

Why do you do this?! Why are you asking a question that doesn't even apply to what Amils believe? We don't believe that the pit prevents the locusts from being active while imprisoned. The locusts represent fallen angels and it's quite clear that they've been active for a long time. But, not in terms of tormenting all people who don't have the seal of God in the way that Revelation 9 is talking about.

I'm getting fed up with these false accusations and your sub par reading comprehension in regards to my posts. I never said Amils claimed the locusts are inactive while in the pit.

Yes, you did! You seem to have subpar reading comprehension of your own posts. Here is what you said:

It's funny, not literally funny, how while those locusts are in the pit, it's as if they don't even exist at the time, but when satan is in the pit, and if assuming Amil, the same is not true of satan, that it is as if he doesn't exist either. Clearly, satan has been active for the past 2000 years, the same 2000 years Amils insist satan has been in the pit, but not meaning a literal pit to them, so not saying they think the pit is literal, and then for these same past 2000 years these locusts have been inactive while they are in the pit. That doesn't add up. Why are these locusts inactive while they are in the pit, but satan is active while he is in the pit?

Were you not saying all of this in relation to the Amil perspective? You said "assuming Amil....". Then you asked "Why are these locusts inactive while they are in the pit, but Satan is active while he is in the pit?". Were you not asking that question in relation to how Amil sees it? That's how it comes across. But, Amil does not believe that the locusts/demons are inactive while in the pit, so that's why I said you are misrepresenting Amil.

If I misread what you were saying then I don't believe it's my fault. I believe it's because of your lack of clear communication rather than poor reading comprehension on my part.

If you can't even read my posts correctly without twisting what I said and what I was meaning, how is one supposed to trust that you are interpreting all Scriptures correctly, thus not twisting any of them either?

I'm not twisting anything you said. Notice how when I accused you of misrepresenting Amil, 3 people responded favorably to my post. So, I'm not the only one who believes you do that.

So, either you are not good at being clear and are mistakenly misrepresenting Amil or you are the one purposely twisting what Amil believes in an effort to make it look bad. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just not good at clearly communicating. Which is something you have admitted multiple times in the past when it comes to communicating on the forum in contrast to communicating in person (you have said you communicate more clearly that way).