God`s Prophetic Days.

[Timtofly]

Totally agree though maybe not for some of the same reasons. Once the time of chapter 16 begins to come to pass it means the following has been enirely fulfilled---their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled(Revelation 6:11).

IOW, no more saints being martyred ever again at this point. It is instead the time of God judging and avenging our blood on them that dwell on the earth, referring to the martyrs in Revelation 6:10 and what they initially cried out about with a loud voice at the time.

As to when the saints are being martyred, in order to even be Amil one first has to accept that they are being martyred during the thousand years when satan is depicted as bound in the pit at the time. Saints being martyred during the thousand years makes zero sense to me.

The fact that there have been martyrs nonstop, how does that allow the iron rule of Christ? Is Christ commanding that there be martyrs?

 

[DavidPT]

The fact that there have been martyrs nonstop, how does that allow the iron rule of Christ? Is Christ commanding that there be martyrs?

Why would someone have to be killed if they fail to comply with the iron rule of Christ, when something such as rain being withheld from them if they fail to comply(Zechariah 14:16-19), seems to be sufficient, and that no one has to die that way? And besides, martyrs are meaning saints that have been killed. There is not going to be an iron rule of Christ
against His own saints. That iron rule will be involving those among the nations who were spared God's wrath at the time, and that overcomers will be co ruling with Christ over these nations(Revelation 2:26-27).

 

[Timtofly]

Why would someone have to be killed if they fail to comply with the iron rule of Christ, when something such as rain being withheld from them if they fail to comply(Zechariah 14:16-19), seems to be sufficient, and that no one has to die that way? And besides, martyrs are meaning saints that have been killed. There is not going to be an iron rule of Christ
against His own saints. That iron rule will be involving those among the nations who were spared God's wrath at the time, and that overcomers will be co ruling with Christ over these nations(Revelation 2:26-27).

As a nation yes. As individuals, no. One individual cannot condemn a whole nation. But if a majority agree to not show up one time, the whole nation is still not condemned. Just punished.

 

[DavidPT]

I believe that verse is figurative language, but even if it was meant to be taken literally, it's not describing anyone dying on the new earth. It's only describing looking upon people who are already dead. That passage does not pose a problem for Amil at all.

That still misses the point entirely. The point is not whether that should be taken literally or figuratively, plus, I'm not even suggesting in this case, that it is meaning ppl dying on the new earth, the point is what is depicted in the following---And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me--does not square with the following if both are supposed to be true at the same time---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.


How can this---the men that have transgressed against me---not be something that involved the former(Isaiah 66:15-16, and how can those verses not be pertaining to something that happens on the former earth, not the new earth instead?), the same former earth where the text indicates it shall not be remembered, nor come into mind? It sure looks like that it still came into mind to me if----And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me---is meaning after the following is already true first---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind--thus a contradiction unless one wants to propose that the following doesn't literally mean what it says---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind--even though God Himself said this.

 

[DavidPT]

As a nation yes. As individuals, no. One individual cannot condemn a whole nation. But if a majority agree to not show up one time, the whole nation is still not condemned. Just punished.

There could be such a thing as delegates for nations having to come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, or no rain for that particular nation, and not that every single person living in each nation has to come up or else. How could everyone on the planet, assuming there might still be billions remaining throughout the nations all possibly come up at the same time in a region that couldn't even accommodate that many ppl at one time?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not some long process?

"Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;"

Are we not supposed to wait in patience?

I'm talking about when Christ burns up the heavens and the earth, resulting in the new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). That is not going to be a long process.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That still misses the point entirely. The point is not whether that should be taken literally or figuratively, plus, I'm not even suggesting in this case, that it is meaning ppl dying on the new earth, the point is what is depicted in the following---And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me--does not square with the following if both are supposed to be true at the same time---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.


How can this---the men that have transgressed against me---not be something that involved the former(Isaiah 66:15-16, and how can those verses not be pertaining to something that happens on the former earth, not the new earth instead?), the same former earth where the text indicates it shall not be remembered, nor come into mind? It sure looks like that it still came into mind to me if----And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me---is meaning after the following is already true first---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind--thus a contradiction unless one wants to propose that the following doesn't literally mean what it says---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind--even though God Himself said this.

You missed the point. I'm saying that Isaiah 66:24 is figurative and I don't believe that people will literally be looking upon dead carcasses that are on the new earth. It's figuratively describing the difference between the saved and the lost there. The lost will be in the lake of fire at that point. Do you think the lake of fire is on the new earth or something? How does your understanding of Isaiah 66:24 line up with Revelation 21:1-8?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If fire is not literal, why do the words fire even matter?

What do you mean? Are you saying you think it has to be physical fire in order to matter?

Any punishment is still punishment

Of course. It will be punishment of some kind, regardless of whether it's literal fire or not.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm talking about when Christ burns up the heavens and the earth, resulting in the new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). That is not going to be a long process.

The way it is written that even after the fire, they are still "looking for". You cannot rush time, and make it quicker. You can shorten time. There is still that 42 months that may happen. Most of what we see today, technology wise, will all be gone. By the time the 42 come along, it will only be desolation. No one can rush the process that unfolds in the book of Revelation.

 

[Timtofly]

What do you mean? Are you saying you think it has to be physical fire in order to matter?

Of course. It will be punishment of some kind, regardless of whether it's literal fire or not.

We can pretend what is under the mantle of earth is not a fire like a furnace. What would you substitute instead as literally under the mantle?

 

[DavidPT]

You mean as referring to literal, physical fire? No.

It's symbolic but not of annihilation. It's a place of eternal torment (Rev 20:10).

I don't know where it will be located. That information isn't given. I would think it will be separate from the NHNE.

Why would the fire not be literal in the LOF? Is it because you can't fathom the idea of God torturing ppl forever via literal fire in the LOF, so you then decide to water it down some so that being punished in the LOF doesn't appear to be as bad as it looks, though that is obviously what He is going to do, cast satan, demons, and humans, into literal burning fire, whether you like or not, whether you agree or not. What is in question, is not is the fire literal, because it certainly is, what is in question, is God going to torture sinners in that manner for forever, or will there be an end to the punishment eventually? Where is your proof that the fire is symbolic of something, thus not literal?

 

[jeffweedaman]

Why would the fire not be literal in the LOF? Is it because you can't fathom the idea of God torturing ppl forever via literal fire in the LOF, so you then decide to water it down some so that being punished in the LOF doesn't appear to be as bad as it looks, though that is obviously what He is going to do, cast satan, demons, and humans, into literal burning fire, whether you like or not, whether you agree or not. What is in question, is not is the fire literal, because it certainly is, what is in question, is God going to torture sinners in that manner for forever, or will there be an end to the punishment eventually? Where is your proof that the fire is symbolic of something, thus not literal?

The LOF was initially prepared for the devil and his angels, so its a spiritual fire as they are spirits. Literal fire would probably have no effect on them.

 

[Timtofly]

The LOF was initially prepared for the devil and his angels, so its a spiritual fire as they are spirits. Literal fire would probably have no effect on them.

Angels are not mere spirits. As their jobs are to shine as lights, you are probably right, that fire will not harm them. Perhaps it is a lake of fire, because they are a bunch of stars in one place. Calling them spirits is as meaningless as if they were not created at all. They are physically created beings of a different nature. Yet even humanity are supposed to have a spirit of bright light around us. So heat from this bright light either exists or not. Humans were created as spirits more so than angels. Angels were created as stars. Now if you think the stars are literal physical balls of gas, then claim angels are merely spirits, or air, perhaps being chained in darkness should mean something else than an "empty" pit of air. Are the stars spiritual balls of gas?

 

[DavidPT]

The LOF was initially prepared for the devil and his angels, so its a spiritual fire as they are spirits. Literal fire would probably have no effect on them.

Yet, humans get cast in there as well, and bodily at that, unless you want to propose that humans are not resurrected bodily. I doubt that you want to propose that. So now we have it being spiritual fire in satan's case, since satan is a spirit, while someone that has been raised bodily would not be a spirit once they have been raised bodily. Jesus already proved that point when He was raised bodily, and that He told them, no, I'm not a spirit. Your argument is, literal fire can't affect spirits because they are spirits. My argument is, any humans raised bodily are not spirits and that literal fire would have an affect on them. I don't know if spiritual fire would, though. Whatever spiritual fire is supposed to be meaning. Spiritual fire is supposed to be for spirits, right? Someone cast into the LOF bodily would not be a spirit, though.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Yet, humans get cast in there as well, and bodily at that, unless you want to propose that humans are not resurrected bodily. I doubt that you want to propose that. So now we have it being spiritual fire in satan's case, since satan is a spirit, while someone that has been raised bodily would not be a spirit once they have been raised bodily. Jesus already proved that point when He was raised bodily, and that He told them, no, I'm not a spirit. Your argument is, literal fire can't affect spirits because they are spirits. My argument is, any humans raised bodily are not spirits and that literal fire would have an affect on them. I don't know if spiritual fire would, though. Whatever spiritual fire is supposed to be meaning. Spiritual fire is supposed to be for spirits, right? Someone cast into the LOF bodily would not be a spirit, though.

Hmmm
I am sure many who are in Christ of the past had their bodies cremated when they physically died.
In no time at all there would be nothing left to keep that literal fire burning.

They would be at peace now rather than still suffering the literal flame.

Eternal flames of torment means something else.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why would the fire not be literal in the LOF? Is it because you can't fathom the idea of God torturing ppl forever via literal fire in the LOF, so you then decide to water it down some so that being punished in the LOF doesn't appear to be as bad as it looks, though that is obviously what He is going to do, cast satan, demons, and humans, into literal burning fire, whether you like or not, whether you agree or not.

This is rich coming from you when you don't acknowledge that the fire in 2 Peter 3 is literal.

Why do you continually act as if your OPINIONS are facts? It's very annoying. First, you asked me a question and then, instead of letting me answer for myself, you just made an assumption about why I believe the fire is not literal and then try to act as if it's a proven fact that it's literal, which it is not.

If it's literal, physical fire then explain to me how Satan and demons, who are all spirit beings and not physical beings, can experience torment there? And explain to me how death and hell can be cast into literal, physical fire (Rev 20:14).

The final destination of unbelievers is also described as "outer darkness" (Matt 8:12, Matt 22:13, Matt 25:30). I would assume you also take that literally since you take almost everything literally (except 2 Peter 3, conveniently). If they are going to be cast into physical fire then how can it be called "outer darkness"?

What is in question, is not is the fire literal, because it certainly is, what is in question, is God going to torture sinners in that manner for forever, or will there be an end to the punishment eventually?

No matter what you say, it is a question of whether the fire is literal or not. Again, how can Satan and his demons experience torment in literal, physical fire? If you can't answer that, which you can't, then you can't say there isn't a question of whether it's literal fire or not.

Where is your proof that the fire is symbolic of something, thus not literal?

Why are you asking me this when you are talking as if it's a proven fact that it's literal? If I knew that something was a proven fact, I wouldn't ask someone for evidence to show otherwise. So, maybe you're not as certain about this as you pretend to be?

My evidence is what I said above. It doesn't make sense to see Satan, demons, death and hell cast into literal, physical fire. And it doesn't make sense for a place to be referred to as "outer darkness" if it's a place full of literal, physical fire.

Also, wouldn't everyone's punishment be exactly the same if they were all cast into literal fire? Yet, scripture indicates that the level of punishment will vary.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yet, humans get cast in there as well, and bodily at that, unless you want to propose that humans are not resurrected bodily. I doubt that you want to propose that. So now we have it being spiritual fire in satan's case, since satan is a spirit, while someone that has been raised bodily would not be a spirit once they have been raised bodily. Jesus already proved that point when He was raised bodily, and that He told them, no, I'm not a spirit. Your argument is, literal fire can't affect spirits because they are spirits. My argument is, any humans raised bodily are not spirits and that literal fire would have an affect on them. I don't know if spiritual fire would, though. Whatever spiritual fire is supposed to be meaning. Spiritual fire is supposed to be for spirits, right? Someone cast into the LOF bodily would not be a spirit, though.

You're not making any sense. Revelation 20:10 shows that Satan will experience torment there. He is a spirit being, so it makes no sense that he would experience torment in physical fire. So, what is your argument here exactly? Are you still trying to say that it will be physical fire despite the strong evidence against that?

 

[DavidPT]

This is rich coming from you when you don't acknowledge that the fire in 2 Peter 3 is literal.

Unlike you in this particular case I'm allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Should I conclude that Revelation 19 doesn't involve the 2nd coming since it doesn't depict the planet literally engulfed in flames like you envision 2 Peter 3 to be depicting?

Should I conclude that Jesus will have nowhere to sit upon His throne of glory when He returns because He literally burns up the planet instead?

Should I conclude that even though God declared, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth, He will instead be doing something far more profound, far worse, this time around all flesh will be cut off by engulfing the entire planet in literal flames of fire?

IOW, if you take those things in 2 Peter 3 in an ultra literal sense like you apparently do, it doesn't square with other related Scriptures, it contradicts them instead. I can likely find plenty more Scriptures that your interpretation of 2 Peter 3 contradicts.

 

[DavidPT]

Why do you continually act as if your OPINIONS are facts? It's very annoying. First, you asked me a question and then, instead of letting me answer for myself, you just made an assumption about why I believe the fire is not literal and then try to act as if it's a proven fact that it's literal, which it is not.

I did ask you a question, then I asked you another question in regards to that question. Questions are questions not statements. When someone puts a question mark at the end of a sentence, it usually means that what has crossed their mind, could this be why, thus they inquire about it? The person then has the opportunity to say, yes that is why, or no that is not why. I don't know why you are taking this to mean that I think my opinions are facts when I'm simply asking about something?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Unlike you in this particular case I'm allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Explain what you mean. How am I not doing that and how are you doing that?

Should I conclude that Revelation 19 doesn't involve the 2nd coming since it doesn't depict the planet literally engulfed in flames like you envision 2 Peter 3 to be depicting?

Of course not. As I've pointed out many times, not all passages that speak of the day Christ returns contain all the same details about it.

Should I conclude that Jesus will have nowhere to sit upon His throne of glory when He returns because He literally burns up the planet instead?

If you see it as a literal, physical throne then I would say yes. But, His throne is not a literal, physical throne, so that won't be an issue.

Should I conclude that even though God declared, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth, He will instead be doing something far more profound, far worse, this time around all flesh will be cut off by engulfing the entire planet in literal flames of fire?

How is this argument any different than you accusing me of not seeing the lake of fire as being literal because of supposedly thinking that would be too cruel of a punishment (which is what you said about me, but not something I said)?

So, it's okay for you to conclude that Christ sending fire down upon the earth would be too extreme, but at the same time you don't think it's too extreme to conclude that people will be cast into literal fire for eternity, which is far worse than the temporary suffering caused by fire coming down on the earth? Can you see how you're contradicting yourself?

Do you also not see Revelation 20:9 as referring to literal fire coming down on the earth and killing people? If you do see that as referring to literal fire then what is the problem with seeing 2 Peter 3 that way as well?

Also, who are you to decide what Christ can and can't do to the earth when He returns? I'm pretty sure that isn't up to you. Aren't you willing to accept whatever God chooses to do?

I don't understand the logic behind the argument that destroying the earth with fire this time instead of water is "far more profound" and "far worse". What is the basis for that claim? Either way, it destroys all life on the earth, so what difference does it really make if it's by fire or water? Is drowning somehow more pleasant than being burned? It actually seems worse to me since it seems that drowning would take longer to kill you.

Do you have a problem with God burning up the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Lot's day? Was that too extreme for you?

IOW, if you take those things in 2 Peter 3 in an ultra literal sense like you apparently do, it doesn't square with other related Scriptures, it contradicts them instead.

Such as?

I can likely find plenty more Scriptures that your interpretation of 2 Peter 3 contradicts.

But, you haven't found any scriptures that my interpretation of 2 Peter 3 contradicts so far. You can't find more when you haven't found any in the first place.

Like Peter, Jesus also compared the destruction that will occur at His coming to the flood of Noah's day and He indicated that the flood "destroyed them all" (Matt 24:37-39), which referred to all people except Noah and his family who were the only believers on the earth at the time. That implies that all unbelievers will be destroyed at His second coming as well. If not by fire, then how will they be destroyed exactly?