One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Jamdoc]

Luke refers to days of vengeance / punishment beginning at the temples destruction and their exile. Makes sense to those who were the first recipients of this word who lived through those past events.

Lk 21
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

That's not what Isaiah was about, but the knee jerk to preterism was not unexpected.
Amillennialism after all, is kind of a knee jerk reaction to hedge against unbelief, often times after being disappointed by a date setter.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You talk about how Amillennialism teaches of a strong Jesus weak Satan
but it's always met with downplaying the power of God along the way.
Instead of "no more" it's "a little less, generally speaking"
it makes the promises of God seem weak and ineffectual
It all seems like you live in some gated community and don't notice the crime outside your own community as you rattle off that all is well, peace and safety.

It's not AS bad as the preterists and historicists, but it cuts pretty close at times.

The Old Testament writers predicted that there was a time coming when the Gentiles would accept Christ, glorify His name and trust Him. Now, here is an important question: do all the Gentiles fully and wholly surrender to Jesus? Using the Premil argument on Revelation 20:2 they must. After all, this reading makes a blanket statement they would believe, without qualification. Indeed, did that mean that the majority of Gentiles would do so? Of course not. Did that mean that the majority of Gentile nations would turn to God? Of course not. Did that mean that the majority of Gentiles would turn from heathenism? Of course not. This was talking about the general enlightenment of the Gentiles.

Premil places a meaning on Revelation 20 which is unsustainable if you apply it to countless other simpler passages in Scripture. Their interpretation of Revelation is out of kilter with the various readings above.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In return I would argue like such.

Some things off the top of my head that Amil does not allow for would be some of the following. The reason why is because in my mind these events require that the 2nd coming has to happen first. Thus more time is needed following the 2nd coming in order to fulfill these things.

Isaiah 24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Very few would argue that verse 21 does not involve what is recorded in some of Revelation 19. Most agree that Revelation 19 involves the 2nd coming. That then places the fulfilling of verse 22 above beginning with the 2nd coming. But look what the text states. First they are shut up in a prison, and after many days shall they be visited. There is no conceivable way in the world for anyone to make many days mean 24 hours or less. Per Amil there are no more days after the 2nd coming, though. What do Amils then do with verse 22 above in that case? Pretend it's not there? Also, being shut up in a prison does not equal getting cast into the LOF.

You take the reference to being shut up in prison literally as if they are physically confined there. At the same time you turn "many days" into a thousand years. If it was a reference to the thousand years then why doesn't it say "many years" instead of "many days" if this is all meant to be interpreted literally?

Is it your belief that all the "host of the high ones that are on high", which is likely a reference to fallen angels, and "the kings of the earth" will be cast into the bottomless pit at Christ's second coming? If so, what other scripture do you have to support that view?

How do you interpret the verses that precede that passage?

Isaiah 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. 20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. 22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Isaiah 24:19-20, if taken literally, is talking about the destruction of the entire earth. Do you take these verses as literally as you take verses 21 and 22? If so, how exactly do you have mortals surviving on the earth after it has been "utterly broken down" and "clean dissolved"? If you don't take them literally then why do you take verses 21 and 22 literally?

Anyone being honest about this will acknowledge that it's difficult to reconcile this passage with either premil or amil if we take it all literally because a literal interpretation has the destruction of the earth preceding things that are supposed to happen before the destruction of the earth. Are you willing to acknowledge that? Therefore, it's not a passage that should be used as the foundation of someone's doctrine. We should use more clear and straightforward passages to form the foundation of our doctrines. That's a concept that seems to be lost on you.

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

You already know most of my thinking regarding these verses. So I will just keep it short then. There is no conceivable way in the world for anyone to make shall even go up from year to year to mean 24 hours or less.

There is no conceivable way in the world that it makes any sense to believe that animal sacrifices will be reinstated, which is what you must believe if you see this passage as being fulfilled in the future. I've already showed you before that keeping the feast of tabernacles involves performing animal sacrifices. Zechariah 14:20-21 specifically refers to animal sacrifices as well.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Amil does not allow time for this---in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Amil has all of that being fulfilled within 24 hours or less, apparently.

How exactly do you interpret this verse? What sense does it make to criticize the Amil interpretation of the passage without even knowing what that is?! And you do that without even sharing your own interpretation.

Please share your interpretation of the verse and then we'll talk about it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That's not what Isaiah was about, but the knee jerk to preterism was not unexpected.
Amillennialism after all, is kind of a knee jerk reaction to hedge against unbelief, often times after being disappointed by a date setter.

And the nonsense continues. The only thing you do when debating Amillennialism is make false accusations against it and misrepresent it. That does not help your case at all.

 

[Jamdoc]

And the nonsense continues. The only thing you do when debating Amillennialism is make false accusations against it and misrepresent it. That does not help your case at all.

You don't have an answer for Isaiah 34:8 or Isaiah 63:4 either other than to claim it has nothing to do with the second coming because it conflicts your position.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You don't have an answer for Isaiah 34:8 or Isaiah 63:4 either other than to claim it has nothing to do with the second coming because it conflicts your position.

The answer for interpreting Old Testament prophecies is in the New Testament. The New Testament teaches that on the day Christ returns all unbelievers will be killed and the heavens and earth will be burned up (Matt 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:10-13, 1 Thess 4:13-5:6, 2 Thess 1:7-10, Rev 11:19-21, Rev 20:9). I see no reason to think that will take more than one 24 hour day, do you? I don't think He will be taking His time while He sets fire to the earth.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The answer for interpreting Old Testament prophecies is in the New Testament. The New Testament teaches that on the day Christ returns all unbelievers will be killed and the heavens and earth will be burned up (Matt 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:10-13, 1 Thess 4:13-5:6, 2 Thess 1:7-10, Rev 11:19-21, Rev 20:9). I see no reason to think that will take more than one 24 hour day, do you? I don't think He will be taking His time while He sets fire to the earth.

Correct!

 

[Jamdoc]

The answer for interpreting Old Testament prophecies is in the New Testament. The New Testament teaches that on the day Christ returns all unbelievers will be killed and the heavens and earth will be burned up (Matt 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:10-13, 1 Thess 4:13-5:6, 2 Thess 1:7-10, Rev 11:19-21, Rev 20:9). I see no reason to think that will take more than one 24 hour day, do you? I don't think He will be taking His time while He sets fire to the earth.

He could have made a perfect world at the beginning, but He has decided to make an imperfect world and have it go through all this drama over all this time.
This isn't about what God can do, it's about how He has chosen to do things.

and the fact is He's chosen to drag things out, both in the space of time between the first and second coming, and even post the second coming there is time that passes between it and the GWT.
in Isaiah He uses a day and a year interchangeably, that should give you the idea that neither measure of time is meant literally, but if He repeats a specific measure of time like 3.5 years, that should be taken literally, because the only thing it is used interchangeably with is 1260 days, and 42 months, other measurements for the same period of time.

Honestly, you seem the type of person that if you'd been alive at the time of the Garden, would have been expecting Jesus to actually be one of Eve's first generation sons not conceived of Adam, because you know, why waste almost 4000 years of generations right?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

He could have made a perfect world at the beginning

Didn't He? He said in the beginning that everything He created was good. Everything was fine until sin occurred.

but He has decided to make an imperfect world and have it go through all this drama over all this time.
This isn't about what God can do, it's about how He has chosen to do things.

and the fact is He's chosen to drag things out, both in the space of time between the first and second coming, and even post the second coming there is time that passes between it and the GWT.
in Isaiah He uses a day and a year interchangeably, that should give you the idea that neither measure of time is meant literally, but if He repeats a specific measure of time like 3.5 years, that should be taken literally, because the only thing it is used interchangeably with is 1260 days, and 42 months, other measurements for the same period of time.

Your are completely missing the point here. According to Paul and Peter, who I believe 100% knew what they were talking about, what will happen on the day of the Lord is that the dead in Christ will be resurrected and all believers will caught up to meet the Lord in the air and "sudden destruction" by fire will come down on the entire earth from which "they shall not escape". And Peter mentions judgment taking place at that point as well (2 Peter 3:7). That's it. They don't mention anything else as happening on that day. How long do you think the catching up of believers and the destruction of unbelievers will list that they described?

You are trying to bring other things into the day of the Lord, but scripture does not do that. The 1260 days and the thousand years, literal or not, are not part of the day of the Lord that Peter and Paul wrote about which is what I'm talking about when I talk about the day of the Lord.

Honestly, you seem the type of person that if you'd been alive at the time of the Garden, would have been expecting Jesus to actually be one of Eve's first generation sons not conceived of Adam, because you know, why waste almost 4000 years of generations right?

You seem the type of person who likes to speak a lot of nonsense.

 

[keras]

and the fact is He's chosen to drag things out, both in the space of time between the first and second coming, and even post the second coming there is time that passes between it and the GWT.

It isn't a case of 'dragging things out', but the working out of God's 7000 year Plan. A succession of stages of 6000 years of mans rule, that culminate in the last 1000 years of King Jesus' rule.
The end result is a group of people who have freely chosen to believe in and obey God, who will receive immortality and live with God forever.

 

[DavidPT]

You take the reference to being shut up in prison literally as if they are physically confined there. At the same time you turn "many days" into a thousand years. If it was a reference to the thousand years then why doesn't it say "many years" instead of "many days" if this is all meant to be interpreted literally?

That is irrelevant per the point I was making. Even if it was meaning 30 days or 40 days, as an example, per Amil there are no 30 or 40 days post the 2nd coming, though. Per Amil 30 or 40 days later, using this example, all of the lost would be in the LOF. No one would be being visited. And BTW, don't Amils take visited to mean the same thing it sometimes means in other passages involving prophetic events, as in, involving judgment? But I'm not suggesting that visited can only be understood in that way, but that in some cases it can and does.

Is it your belief that all the "host of the high ones that are on high", which is likely a reference to fallen angels, and "the kings of the earth" will be cast into the bottomless pit at Christ's second coming? If so, what other scripture do you have to support that view?

As to the kings of the earth in question, we have to go by what Revelation 19:21 indicates happens to them at the time. It says they are killed not gathered into a prison instead. We also have to go by what Revelation 19:20 indicates happens to the beast and false prophet at the time. They are cast into the LOF not cast into a prison instead. That leaves satan and his angels being the only ones that Revelation 19 does not inform us as to what happens to them at the time. That's probably the reason for Revelation 20. That is when we are informed as to what happens to satan and his fallen angels at the time. Even though the text only indicates that the dragon is cast into the prison, Revelation 20:10 only mentions satan, the beast and fp, yet we know that his angels join him there as well. The point being, when satan is cast into this prison so are his angels, otherwise what are we to assume happens to them at the time? Revelation 19:20-21 doesn't explain what happens to them at the time, nor does it even explain what happens to satan at the time. Something has to explain what happens to them at the time, though. I propose that Revelation 20:1-3 does exactly that and that in Isaiah 24:22 being cast into the prison is meaning being cast into the bottomless pit, and that after many days shall they be visited, this is referring to satan's little season when they are then visited in Revelation 20:9---and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

Isaiah 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. 20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. 22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Isaiah 24:19-20, if taken literally, is talking about the destruction of the entire earth. Do you take these verses as literally as you take verses 21 and 22? If so, how exactly do you have mortals surviving on the earth after it has been "utterly broken down" and "clean dissolved"? If you don't take them literally then why do you take verses 21 and 22 literally?

Anyone being honest about this will acknowledge that it's difficult to reconcile this passage with either premil or amil if we take it all literally because a literal interpretation has the destruction of the earth preceding things that are supposed to happen before the destruction of the earth. Are you willing to acknowledge that? Therefore, it's not a passage that should be used as the foundation of someone's doctrine. We should use more clear and straightforward passages to form the foundation of our doctrines. That's a concept that seems to be lost on you.

That concept seems to be lost on you as well, because look at how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in light of other passages involving these very same events---Isaiah 34:4---Revelation 6:13-14--to name a few. Do you take these latter passages in the literal sense the same way you take 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense?

I see Isaiah 24:19-22 involving judgment where at times the language being used is not to be taken in the literal sense. But how can verse 22 not be taken in the literal sense, though? Why can't they literally be being cast into somewhere, then many days later, they are then visited? The question is, what explains this many days if meaning at the 2nd coming, if not the thousand years?

How exactly do you interpret this verse? What sense does it make to criticize the Amil interpretation of the passage without even knowing what that is?! And you do that without even sharing your own interpretation.

Please share your interpretation of the verse and then we'll talk about it.

Haven't I shared that numerous times in other threads already? Right now I'm getting ready to eat lunch. If I need to share my interpretation of this again, it will have to be sometime later.

 

[Jamdoc]

It isn't a case of 'dragging things out', but the working out of God's 7000 year Plan. A succession of stages of 6000 years of mans rule, that culminate in the last 1000 years of King Jesus' rule.
The end result is a group of people who have freely chosen to believe in and obey God, who will receive immortality and live with God forever.

Figure of speech, I just mean that things have taken time rather than Eve's first son coming out without even being fertilized by Adam, destroying the serpent and ushering in Eternity
could it have happened? Yes, it still would have fulfilled Genesis 3:15.
But it obviously did not so the plan was more long view.

 

[Jamdoc]

Didn't He? He said in the beginning that everything He created was good. Everything was fine until sin occurred.

It was 'very good'
but not perfect

Your are completely missing the point here. According to Paul and Peter, who I believe 100% knew what they were talking about, what will happen on the day of the Lord is that the dead in Christ will be resurrected and all believers will caught up to meet the Lord in the air and "sudden destruction" by fire will come down on the entire earth from which "they shall not escape". And Peter mentions judgment taking place at that point as well (2 Peter 3:7). That's it. They don't mention anything else as happening on that day. How long do you think the catching up of believers and the destruction of unbelievers will list that they described?

You are trying to bring other things into the day of the Lord, but scripture does not do that. The 1260 days and the thousand years, literal or not, are not part of the day of the Lord that Peter and Paul wrote about which is what I'm talking about when I talk about the day of the Lord.

You seem the type of person who likes to speak a lot of nonsense.

and John had a more clear revelation than either Peter or Paul and John gave us periods of time where events happened over them rather than instant nuke.
Peter and Paul were inspired, John actually witnessed it. I also think Isaiah and Daniel and Ezekiel witnessed these things. Many other prophets maybe felt the Holy Spirit move them, but fell short of actually witnessing end time events.

and ultimately John got the clearest Revelation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

As to the kings of the earth in question, we have to go by what Revelation 19:21 indicates happens to them at the time. It says they are killed not gathered into a prison instead.

Exactly. But, don't you see Isaiah 24:22 as talking about the host of the high ones that are on high and the kings of the earth be cast into the bottomless pit? If so, what other scripture can you point to that would support that idea?

That's probably the reason for Revelation 20. That is when we are informed as to what happens to satan and his fallen angels at the time. Even though the text only indicates that the dragon is cast into the prison, Revelation 20:10 only mentions satan, the beast and fp, yet we know that his angels join him there as well.

I think that's a safe assumption, but the text doesn't say that. But, wait a minute here. Revelation 20:10 has to do with the lake of fire. Are you interpreting the pit/prison of Isaiah 24:22 as referring to the bottomless pit or to the lake of fire?

Revelation 19:20-21 doesn't explain what happens to them at the time, nor does it even explain what happens to satan at the time. Something has to explain what happens to them at the time, though. I propose that Revelation 20:1-3 does exactly that and that in Isaiah 24:22 being cast into the prison is meaning being cast into the bottomless pit, and that after many days shall they be visited, this is referring to satan's little season when they are then visited in Revelation 20:9---and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

Hold on a minute here. You need to read Isaiah 24:21-22 again. It indicates that BOTH the host of the high ones AND the kings of the earth would be gathered and shut up in the pit/prison. Why are you acting like it only says the host of the high ones are gathered and shut up there?

That concept seems to be lost on you as well, because look at how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in light of other passages involving these very same events---Isaiah 34:4---Revelation 6:13-14--to name a few. Do you take these latter passages in the literal sense the same way you take 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense?

No, because they're not written in the literal sense. You seemingly have very little discernment when it comes to determining what is literal and what is figurative.

The context of 2 Peter 3:10-12 is clearly literal because Peter compares that event directly to a previous literal event, which was the flood in Noah's day that destroyed the world with water. After referencing the fact that the world was previously destroyed by the flood waters in 2 Peter 3:6, Peter said in 2 Peter 3:7 that "the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire". He was clearly comparing a literal event to another literal event there. He was not comparing a figurative event to a literal event. That would make no sense. Why can't you acknowledge this?

Jesus also compared the destruction that will occur at His second coming to the flood in Noah's day, so that's even more evidence to show that Peter was speaking literally (Matthew 24:37-39).

I see Isaiah 24:19-22 involving judgment where at times the language being used is not to be taken in the literal sense.

I'm honestly shocked that you would acknowledge this.

But how can verse 22 not be taken in the literal sense, though?

Why can't it be? You just got done acknowledging that the passage at times "is not to be taken in the literal sense". So, what do you think is literal and what do you think is not literal in that passage?

Why can't they literally be being cast into somewhere, then many days later, they are then visited?

Because there is no other scripture we can use to validate that. What other scripture is there that we can point to which says something about the fallen angels and the kings of the earth being cast somewhere and then later visited? The only place that both the fallen angels and kings of the earth will be cast to is the lake of fire. I don't see any scripture anywhere that says anything about humans being cast into the bottomless pit.

The question is, what explains this many days if meaning at the 2nd coming, if not the thousand years?

That's a question you need to answer since you're the only who sees it as speaking of something that happens at the second coming, not me.

Haven't I shared that numerous times in other threads already? Right now I'm getting ready to eat lunch. If I need to share my interpretation of this again, it will have to be sometime later.

This is funny coming from you. You frequently forget things I've told you numerous times before, so I'm not allowed to do that even once? I think your understanding of the verse is that the 12 apostles will somehow rule over people during the thousand years, but can you explain what they would be doing exactly?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It was 'very good'
but not perfect

In this case "very good" means nothing wrong with it at all. It was perfect. What was not perfect about it? We're talking about God here. Did He make any mistakes in what He created? There was no sin.

and John had a more clear revelation than either Peter or Paul

Oh, please. That is complete nonsense. John never even mentioned the day of the Lord specifically, but they did. There is no basis for including everything John wrote as being part of the day of the Lord.

and John gave us periods of time where events happened over them rather than instant nuke.
Peter and Paul were inspired, John actually witnessed it. I also think Isaiah and Daniel and Ezekiel witnessed these things. Many other prophets maybe felt the Holy Spirit move them, but fell short of actually witnessing end time events.

and ultimately John got the clearest Revelation.

Where is your evidence that all those things mentioned in those prophecies should be considered part of "the day of the Lord"? The way you look at things we could include everything that has ever happened in the day of the Lord. You need to learn to back up your claims with scripture. You're not going to convince me of anything with just your words.

 

[Jamdoc]

In this case "very good" means nothing wrong with it at all. It was perfect. What was not perfect about it? We're talking about God here. Did He make any mistakes in what He created? There was no sin.

Oh, please. That is complete nonsense. John never even mentioned the day of the Lord specifically, but they did. There is no basis for including everything John wrote as being part of the day of the Lord.

Where is your evidence that all those things mentioned in those prophecies should be considered part of "the day of the Lord"? The way you look at things we could include everything that has ever happened in the day of the Lord. You need to learn to back up your claims with scripture. You're not going to convince me of anything with just your words.

There are hundreds of references to old testament prophecy in Revelation.
there's references to Daniel 7, 8, and 12, there's references to Zechariah, there's references to Isaiah, Amos, and Joel.

So YES Revelation is referring to the Day of the Lord, just like the old testament prophets and contains events that the Old Testament prophets talked about, and puts them in time and in sequence.

Revelation's 6th seal and 5th trumpet refers back to Joel 2. Compare the armies in both.
Joel 2 refers to as the Day of the Lord

1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
7 They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks:
8 Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded.
9 They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief.
10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
11 And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Revelation 6

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation 9

9 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.

Unlike "the day", a period of time like 5 months, is not a figure of expression.
"the day" "the year" "the hour" "the time" however, ARE figures of expression.

Isaiah 34:8 why do you not ever reference it

8 For it is the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.

It is both a day and a year, interchangeably for the purpose of revenge, payback, etc.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There are hundreds of references to old testament prophecy in Revelation.
there's references to Daniel 7, 8, and 12, there's references to Zechariah, there's references to Isaiah, Amos, and Joel.

So YES Revelation is referring to the Day of the Lord, just like the old testament prophets and contains events that the Old Testament prophets talked about, and puts them in time and in sequence.

Revelation's 6th seal and 5th trumpet refers back to Joel 2. Compare the armies in both.
Joel 2 refers to as the Day of the Lord

Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21 and relates that day of the Lord to what was happening on the day of Pentecost long ago. So, there is more than one sense of understanding references to "the day of the Lord" in scripture.

The day of the Lord that Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 and that Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 is in reference to the actual 24 hour day that Christ will return and what will happen on that day. That is what I'm talking about, but it seems that you'd rather talk about anything but that.

 

[Jamdoc]

Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21 and relates that day of the Lord to what was happening on the day of Pentecost long ago. So, there is more than one sense of understanding references to "the day of the Lord" in scripture.

Oh so the 5th trumpet was on Pentecost? Wild, you'd think such an event would be covered in historical writings extensively.
How crazy that not a word of it is mentioned anywhere, not even in Acts.

The day of the Lord that Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 and that Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 is in reference to the actual 24 hour day that Christ will return and what will happen on that day. That is what I'm talking about, but it seems that you'd rather talk about anything but that.

So now you have a bunch of different "days of the Lord" scattered throughout scripture so you can continue to square peg round hole everything and dismiss John's timings.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Oh so the 5th trumpet was on Pentecost?

Is that the point I was making? Clearly not. Why the childish response?

Wild, you'd think such an event would be covered in historical writings extensively.
How crazy that not a word of it is mentioned anywhere, not even in Acts.

Did I say it was? You brought up Joel 2 and I simply showed how Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 and related it to events occurring on the day of Pentecost. Do you have some kind of problem with that?

So now you have a bunch of different "days of the Lord" scattered throughout scripture so you can continue to square peg round hole everything and dismiss John's timings.

If you want there to be only one day of the Lord then do you acknowledge that it started on the day of Pentecost as Peter indicated in Acts 2:16-21 by quoting Joel 2:28-32 and relating it to the things that were happening that day?

What I'd really like to talk about, instead of arguing over what happens on the day of the Lord or over the duration of the day of the Lord, is what happens on the day Christ returns. If you don't want to see that day as the day of the Lord, fine. Nevermind that then. Are you interested in talking about what will happen on the actual 24 hour day that Christ returns and what scripture teaches about that?

 

[Jamdoc]

Is that the point I was making? Clearly not. Why the childish response?

Did I say it was? You brought up Joel 2 and I simply showed how Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 and related it to events occurring on the day of Pentecost. Do you have some kind of problem with that?

If you want there to be only one day of the Lord then do you acknowledge that it started on the day of Pentecost as Peter indicated in Acts 2:16-21 by quoting Joel 2:28-32 and relating it to the things that were happening that day?

What I'd really like to talk about, instead of arguing over what happens on the day of the Lord or over the duration of the day of the Lord, is what happens on the day Christ returns. If you don't want to see that day as the day of the Lord, fine. Nevermind that then. Are you interested in talking about what will happen on the actual 24 hour day that Christ returns and what scripture teaches about that?

The day that Christ returns is the beginning of the day of the Lord, that is clear in all the "sun and moon darkening" scripture in Amos, Joel, Isaiah, etc. That's the 6th seal.
But what takes place after the 6th seal is events that take time.
It's not shown as an instant nuke in Revelation.
It's shown as events that take time.
There's an appearance in the clouds at the beginning, which has the unrighteous hiding themselves, the wrath of God poured out on them over a period of time, and then a battle on land that Jesus leads, and the unrighteous fight against Him, and then a 1000 year Kingdom, and at the end, there's your instant nuke, and jump to Great White Throne and the 2nd Resurrection.

First they hide from the appearance in the clouds, then when He's on the ground they try to fight.
How you conflate the 2 as being the same instant nuke event, I have no idea.
Because according to you, Revelation should just be Jesus returns the world gets nuked, Amen.
You disregard the 3.5 years
You disregard the 5 month 5th trumpet
You disregard the 1 year, 1 month, 1 day, and 1 hour 6th trumpet
You disregard the 1000 years

All because the word "day" is used
if it had been "the time of the Lord" would you be so hyperliteral about 24 hour day?
Thank the Lord it wasn't referred to as "the hour of the Lord"

What about when John writes 1 John, in 1 John 2:18 in some versions it's translated as

Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.

John wrote that 1900+ years ago, saying it was the last hour.
Surely you understand that as a figure of speech
yet you cannot see "the day of the Lord" as a figure of speech.