Gasp, I'm sort of an Amillennialist!

[Ivan Hlavanda]

You don't decide for me or anyone else what is supposedly clear or not. Spiritual discernment is required, according to Paul, so I will continue to use that approach rather than your man-made literal approach that doesn't work

The literal approach is used by Bible teachers and scholars like David Jeremiah, Charles Swindoll, John Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey and so on. They (and I) all agree that when Revelation 20 says that satan will be bound for thousand years, then satan will be bound for thousand years. When John wrote that Christ will reign on earth for those same thousand years, then Christ will reign on earth for those same thousand years. Why is it so difficult to accept and to understand? Why must there be a hidden meaning? The only reason is to force a theological presupposition into passage that, when taken literally, contradicts what a person has already decided must be true.

Do you take a literal interpretation of the Word of God unless a passage is clearly meant to be taken otherwise based on its context and verbiage? Or do you approach Scripture with an allegorical bent, always on the hunt for the supposed deeper meaning behind the words? Perhaps you believe God did not create everything in six days.
Zechariah 9:9 'your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' Is there a hidden meaning behind this too...oh wait it happened literally.

man-made literal approach that doesn't work.

No...most of the word of God did not happen literally, not at all. Let's allegorize everything. Once you say that Bible's words don't mean what they normally mean, then understanding it becomes a matter of one's own interpretation.

Who decides if a text is clear or not? You decide for everyone? Does your theory of how we should interpret scripture match up with what Paul wrote here:

When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, I am, and most scholars, seek no other sense. We take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, and literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, clearly indicate otherwise. If you want to do so otherwise, be my guest.

Is this a serious statement? Should we take things like a harlot woman sitting on a seven-headed, ten-horned beast on many waters who is drunken with the blood of the saints literally or else our interpretation will fall apart?

Yes, there are some symbols in there, but not everything is symbolic.

Why not?

Because saying the two witnesses are the church makes absolutely no sense when you read Revelation 11.

4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. - In Zechariah, we also have two olive trees in chapter 4. The two olive trees are two literal people, Zerubbabel and Joshua the priest.

5 And if anyone would harm them, fire pours from their mouth and consumes their foes. If anyone would harm them, this is how he is doomed to be killed. - so do Christians pour fire from their mouth when someone is trying to harm them? If anyone harms Christians are they doomed to be killed?

6 They have the power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague, as often as they desire. - do Christians have the power to shut the sky that no rain may fall? Do we have the power to turn water into blood and strike earth with plagues? Which prophet had the power to shut the sky? Elijah. Who had the power to bring plagues? Moses. See how the two witnesses being the Church makes absolutely no sense. Lets' continue.

7 And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that rises from the bottomless pit[a] will make war on them and conquer them and kill them, 8 and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb, 10 and those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth. 11 But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. - did the beast rise from the bottomless pit and killed the Church? Were our bodies lying in the street for 3.5 days, or is this a future event when the Church will lie on the streets for 3.5 days and will people rejoice. And then after 3.5 days will we be resurrected? See what nonsense this is?

The two witnesses will be Moses and Elijah, and here is why: Luke 9 28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. 30 And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure,[a] which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. 33 And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he said.
Moses and Elijah were there with gloried Jesus as two witnesses to testify of Jesus' divinity. How did Peter know it was Moses and Elijah when he never saw them? It is as if the Jews were expecting both Moses and Elijah to come. Btw, the Jews even today are still expecting the literal Elijah, they pray to the Lord at the end of every Sabbath to Him to send Elijah.

 

[parousia70]

The literal approach is used by Bible teachers and scholars like David Jeremiah, Charles Swindoll, John Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey and so on.

Any approach that stretches, twists and elongates "must shortly come to pass... for the time is near" into "2000 + years away and counting" is most certainly NOT a "literal approach" by ANY objective standard.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The literal approach is used by Bible teachers and scholars like David Jeremiah, Charles Swindoll, John Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey and so on. They (and I) all agree that when Revelation 20 says that satan will be bound for thousand years, then satan will be bound for thousand years. When John wrote that Christ will reign on earth for those same thousand years, then Christ will reign on earth for those same thousand years. Why is it so difficult to accept and to understand? Why must there be a hidden meaning? The only reason is to force a theological presupposition into passage that, when taken literally, contradicts what a person has already decided must be true.

Who cares what they think! That proves nothing. There are more solid Protestant theologians since the Reformation that advocate the Amil position. The important issue is: what does the Bible teach and what doe the context prove?

1. Do you believe Satan and his minions are physical beings?
2. Is the dragon in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical dragon?
3. Is the serpent in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical serpent?
4. Do you believe Satan literally has 7 heads and 7 necks?
5. Is the key mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal door key?
6. Is the chain mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal chain?
7. Is the prison mentioned in Revelation 20:7 a literal brick prison?
8. Do you believe demons need to be detained in a literal physical prison with literal metal chains in order to be restrained?
9. Can a prisoner in a prison have great wrath while in chains?
10. Does imprisonment mean immobility?
11. Does it mean a prisoner cannot do harm?
12. Can a dog on a chain walk or roam about?
13. Can a prisoner in a prison walk or roam about?
14. Does a prisoner have the ability to kill, steal, destroy, rape and embezzle in prison?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Most of the church fathers believed in physical millenium. Both disciples of apostle John, Ignatius and Pollycarp, were premellianists, so apostle John himself taught physical 1000 years reign of Christ here on Earth.

Furthermore, years always meant years in the Bible. God said Israel will be 400 years im slavery in Egypt, and they were. He said they will be 70 years in exile in Babylon, and they were. Why would we allergorize 1000 years of all the sudden. And when we allergorize the millenium we have to allergorize many things in the Bible, especially in the book of revelation, but then it falls apart. I can give you some examples if you are interested.

Ofc I could be the one who is wrong, and I know one day I will give account to God on this.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Most of the Early Church Father were Amil.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The clear scripture that proves that Satan is the Prince of this world, is Matthew 4:1-7
Belief in Jesus does give us the strength to resist Satan, thats all.

You are wrong and AMill is confused error.

Speak for yourself. He is not god of my world, Jesus is!

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm somewhere between premil and amil.


One hand, I agree with premillennialism on future of Israel and that Satan is not currently bound. On the other hand, I am not committed to idea that the Milennium must be a literal 1,000 years, and accept it could be a long period of time that is unspecified for length.

Have you ever considered this?

1. Satan is a spiritual being.
2. Spiritual chains restraint spiritual beings in Scripture.
3. Revelation is saturated in figurative language.
4. There is NO other Scripture that corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent then released for a "little season" to deceive the nations, and then destroyed.
5. Scripture teaches that Satan has already fell from heaven and now present in the Abyss (John 12:31-33 and Revelation 12:9-13). Peter 2:4, Jude v 6 and Revelation 9:1-11 shows the demonic world in a current spiritually bound condition in the abyss.
6. Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The literal approach is used by Bible teachers and scholars like David Jeremiah, Charles Swindoll, John Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey and so on.

Is that supposed to be impressive? It's not. Many other Bible teachers and scholars do not use that approach. Study the scriptures for yourself to see if what those people teach is true (Acts 17:10-11).

They (and I) all agree that when Revelation 20 says that satan will be bound for thousand years, then satan will be bound for thousand years.

Yes, because we obviously should take everything in the book of Revelation literally. Right? Even though it is the most highly symbolic book in the Bible and even though the word "thousand" is used symbolically several times in scripture? Hmmm.

When John wrote that Christ will reign on earth for those same thousand years, then Christ will reign on earth for those same thousand years. Why is it so difficult to accept and to understand?

Because that doesn't line up with the rest of scripture. Why is that so difficult to understand? Why do you not see that Christ reigns now?

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Why must there be a hidden meaning?

Why is there any symbolism in the book of Revelation? Whatever your answer is to that question is your answer for this question as well.

Clearly, God was intending to give a message in the book of Revelation that only believers could understand. It's similar to Jesus's parables in that way.

The only reason is to force a theological presupposition into passage that, when taken literally, contradicts what a person has already decided must be true.

Nonsense.

Do you take a literal interpretation of the Word of God unless a passage is clearly meant to be taken otherwise based on its context and verbiage?

No, I don't make any assumptions one way or another about any given verse or passage. Thankfully, you are not the one to decide for me or anyone else which passages are meant to be taken literally and which are not. That must be spiritually discerned.

Or do you approach Scripture with an allegorical bent, always on the hunt for the supposed deeper meaning behind the words?

No, I do not. I approach scripture objectively while understanding that some scripture is literal, some is poetic, some is allegorical (symbolic, figurative, etc.), some is Apocalyptic and some is hyperbolic. I don't make any assumptions about what type of text is in any given verse until after studying it and determining how it fits with the rest of scripture. Sometimes it's obvious what type of text it is, sometimes it's not.

Perhaps you believe God did not create everything in six days.

Perhaps you are being ridiculous. No, I believe He created everything in six days because that is what scripture says. In context. It says each of the days had a morning and an evening, which implies a 24 hour day.

Zechariah 9:9 'your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' Is there a hidden meaning behind this too...oh wait it happened literally.

Are you a child? What is wrong with you? You're talking to me as if I said there is nothing literal in scripture. I said no such thing. Please grow up and address what I actually say instead of imagining me saying something else.

No...most of the word of God did not happen literally, not at all. Let's allegorize everything.

When did I say this? What is the name of the straw man you are wasting your time talking to here?

Once you say that Bible's words don't mean what they normally mean, then understanding it becomes a matter of one's own interpretation.

Who are you to decide for me what the Bible's words should mean? That is not your job. I will allow the Holy Spirit to do that for me and you are not Him.

When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, I am, and most scholars, seek no other sense.

Whatever that even means! Who are you to decide what is plain in scripture or not? Again, you don't decide that for me or anyone else.

We take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, and literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, clearly indicate otherwise. If you want to do so otherwise, be my guest.

I interpret scripture objectively without bringing assumptions or doctrinal bias into it. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you interpret it with bias and with assumptions that it's all literal unless it smacks you in the face and says otherwise. To be clear, the last thing I said there is meant to be taken figuratively. You apparently wouldn't be able to determine that without me telling you that.

Yes, there are some symbols in there, but not everything is symbolic.

I never said everything is symbolic and you know it. You are arguing with a straw man.

Because saying the two witnesses are the church makes absolutely no sense when you read Revelation 11.

4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. - In Zechariah, we also have two olive trees in chapter 4. The two olive trees are two literal people, Zerubbabel and Joshua the priest.

So, we should just ignore Romans 11 that talks about two olive trees as well? If we understand the two witnesses as two olive trees in the sense that Romans 11 talks about two olive trees, then it makes perfect sense. In that sense it's talking about the witness of Jew and Gentile believers together as one body of Christ, the church.

 

[Timtofly]

Matthew 27:51-53

51 At that moment the parokhet in the Temple was ripped in two from top to bottom; and there was an earthquake, with rocks splitting apart. 52 Also the graves were opened, and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life; 53 and after Yeshua rose, they came out of the graves and went into the holy city, where many people saw them.

God wasn't having anything to do with "Earthly Jerusalem" (at this point). The fact that God ripped the Tabernacle Holy of Holies Curtain tells you that the city wasn't considered "Holy" at this point in time.​

​

Yet... AFTER JESUS Rose, "They came out of SHEOL and went into THE HOLY CITY where MANY PEOPLE SAW THEM. ​

​

The Heavenly Jerusalem welcomed Jesus back with all those that BELIEVED IN HIM. 1 Peter 3 is an important read. It's such a tiny passage within it, yet it reveals HOW this was made possible. I recommend the HCSB if you desire to SEARCH. for it​

​

I've been around and know that you will just discount this very specific set of 3 verses, but... they are there and it's a thing you are free to ignore. But... it's in scripture black and white.

Do you not know that we shall be like the very Angels in heaven?

Mark 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.

IN HEAVEN

I am pretty sure all currently in Paradise have a physical body the same as Jesus. Being "like the angels" refers to procreation. They are not making baby angels up there.

Scripture never states we become angels. We become like Christ in Paradise with a physical body like Christ.

 

[Grip Docility]

I am pretty sure all currently in Paradise have a physical body the same as Jesus. Being "like the angels" refers to procreation. They are not making baby angels up there.

Scripture never states we become angels. We become like Christ in Paradise with a physical body like Christ.

I agree. The word “like” is in front of angels. This is the very reason that I left the word “like” in tact.

That said, in all fairness this one goes in the eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard file.

Beyond a few verses here and there, we will only fully understand this when we are face to Face with our magnificent King.