One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

DavidPT said:

There are likely unbelieving Jews, for example, that also lack spiritual discernment. What if the person was an unbelieving Jew lacking spiritual discernment, how would showing him or her Revelation 12:9 be helpful?

Click to expand...

Because Revelation 12:9 explains the symbol of the serpent, yes you can get from a spiritual context that the serpent is not really a snake but is Satan, but Revelation 12:9 plainly interprets that symbol for us to confirm it.
No such scripture exists to confirm an interpretation of the Millennial Kingdom as a symbol exists.
Realize everyone prays for the holy spirit to interpret the bible for them when they read it, yet people come to different interpretations anyway. Huh, how funny, it can't be the same holy spirit interpreting the bible in different ways for different people so most viewpoints are deceived. But NOBODY is going to come out and say "I'm the deceived one", pride won't let them.
That's why I say it's irresponsible to have an interpretation that cannot be backed up by other scripture.

Now some things do take a spiritual meaning and not literal, such as John 3, 4, and 6. 3 instances of people taking something Jesus said literally that was wrong because it's obvious the literal interpretation cannot be done and John 6 would be commanding people to actually sin if the literal interpretation is taken (which Catholics do interpret John 6 literally and don't seem to get that that literal interpretation would be accepting that God incarnate told them to sin to receive eternal life. Drinking blood is explicitly sin.)
There is however, no reason to take the thousand years as allegory, they can be literal. The only reason to be allegorical is being hyper literal about something that should NOT be taken hyper literal, the "day of the Lord". People have decided to allegorize a lot of scripture in order to make "the day of the Lord" 1 24 hour day. Which is a fallacy because "the day" or "the hour" or "the time" are common turns of phrase NOT meant to be literal.
Jesus actually uses "the day" and "the year" interchangeably in Isaiah 34, and Isaiah 63.

If interpreting it as a single 24 hour day requires you allegorizing and Tarrantino'ing things out of order to fit, it's probably a bad fit.

Jamdoc said:

God explained his symbol
you don't have to be wise in your own eyes and privately interpret it yourself if God does it for you.

meanwhile no such scripture explaining the thousand years as a symbol exists.
so you are doing a leap of logic to come up with the idea that it is a symbol and not literal.
we're done here unless you can show me scripture that defines the thousand year period as a symbol, and explains what that symbol represents.

anything else, is applying private interpretation to prophecy.

Click to expand...

You've confirmed that Genesis 3:15 cannot be fully and accurately understood literally.

It can only be fully and accurately understood spiritually.

It also establishes a precedent for the spiritual understanding of prophecy as no less legitimate than the literal understanding of prophecy.

Thanks.

jgr said:

You've confirmed that Genesis 3:15 cannot be fully and accurately understood literally.

It can only be fully and accurately understood spiritually.

It also establishes a precedent for the spiritual understanding of prophecy as no less legitimate than the literal understanding of prophecy.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I've established that the bible explains its own symbols, which you've conveniently ignored the reference to Revelation 12:9 multiple times now

it's like you're standing there covering your ears saying "LA LA LA I can't hear you! LA LA LA! I'll continue to make up my own interpretations instead of let the bible interpret itself! LA LA LA!"

grafted branch said:

You make it sound like Jesus was there at the time of creation but he just wasn’t paying that much attention and he doesn’t really know the exact day.

My mother kept all my birth information till the day she died. She could tell me the exact time I was born and she most certainly let me know every year when it was my birthday.

Do you have any scriptural basis for think Jesus didn’t know when creation happened or any basis for him having forgotten that information?

Click to expand...

We are not talking about creation. We are talking about the day and hour of the Second Coming. We could know the year. What we cannot do is go past the time allotted.

Jamdoc said:

Pillar is commonly used as an expression for someone who stands for something and supports something, IE a pillar of the community. That's not a symbol per say. That's more of a turn of phrase.

Click to expand...

Come on. Who are you trying to kid here? He referenced making an overcomer a pillar in the temple of God. We know it's not talking about making someone a literal pillar in a physical temple of God, so of course it's symbolic.

It's not at all the same as claiming that a 1000 year kingdom on earth really is a symbol for a figurative length of time in heaven.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point. The point is that symbolism is sometimes used in scripture without it spelling it out for you that it's symbolism.

Are you going to say the 42 months/1260 days/time time and half a time is also a symbol?

Click to expand...

Actually, yes. I believe all the time periods in the book are symbolic. The point of the book is not to give exact times or dates. Jesus said no one knows the day or hour of His coming (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13) and Paul said that he had no need to talk about dates and times in relation to the second coming of Christ (1 Thess 5:1), so why would the book of Revelation be any different in that respect?

You guys make Jackson Pollock blush with your abstraction of everything.

Click to expand...

Do you think I care about that? Not in the least. Revelation is undeniably a book that contains a great deal of symbolism. So, having your default be to take everything written in it literally unless it slaps you across the face and says otherwise is not a wise approach. You read scripture as if it's a children's book that is very literal and all spelled out for you. Is 1 Corinthians 2 in your Bible? Why do you act as if no spiritual discernment is required to interpret God's Word, especially as it relates to a book like Revelation?

Jamdoc said:

I've established that the bible explains its own symbols, which you've conveniently ignored the reference to Revelation 12:9 multiple times now

it's like you're standing there covering your ears saying "LA LA LA I can't hear you! LA LA LA! I'll continue to make up my own interpretations instead of let the bible interpret itself! LA LA LA!"

Click to expand...

Isaiah 40:1 Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. 2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins. 3 A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. 5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage? Is it speaking of making a literal highway in the desert? Is it speaking of literally every valley literally being raised up and every mountain and hill literally made low? Is it speaking of the rough ground literally becoming level and the rugged places literally being made into a plain?

Jamdoc said:

I've established that the bible explains its own symbols, which you've conveniently ignored the reference to Revelation 12:9 multiple times now

it's like you're standing there covering your ears saying "LA LA LA I can't hear you! LA LA LA! I'll continue to make up my own interpretations instead of let the bible interpret itself! LA LA LA!"

Click to expand...

Explain what I've ignored in Revelation 12:9.

Just The Facts said:

Hello JGR

You are mixing things up here. You are comparing apples and oranges. You can not look at an analogy like the creation story with the same eye as prophecy. Prophecy must be looked at with a different set of rules. For example does the earth go around the sun or the sun around the earth. Because Joshua says the Sun stood still. That was enough for the Church to kill people who disagreed. It is the same a us saying sun rises. the sun does not move it is the earth that moves.

So in the Story of creation it is all metaphoric and because it is such you must look at these things with a metaphoric /symbolic eye.

Prophecy on the other hand is not subject to the same rules so unless you are directed by the prophecy to understand it in a symbolic manor you do not take liberty and literary license with the words.
Second with prophecy you never say this means this and that means that you must show in scripture where God says this means this or that means that.

It is like looking at the symbols on a map ...you can ask a thousand Tom Dick or Harrys what the symbols mean and you will get a thousand answers. (and I mean literal thousand so all you amills understand lol) That is why there is thousands of understandings of prophecy. What you must do is ignore all of them and go to the map itself there you will find the clear explanation of what the symbol means. If you trust any Tom Dick or Harry you will just get lost.

Click to expand...

I've interpreted Genesis 3:15 completely literally in post 99.

Any genuine literalist should be ecstatic.

Spiritual Jew said:

Come on. Who are you trying to kid here? He referenced making an overcomer a pillar in the temple of God. We know it's not talking about making someone a literal pillar in a physical temple of God, so of course it's symbolic.

That wasn't the point. The point is that symbolism is sometimes used in scripture without it spelling it out for you that it's symbolism.

Click to expand...

A turn of phrase is not really the same as a symbol, it's literally another meaning of the word. So yes, Revelation 3:12 is saying they will literally be pillars of the temple of God. Where pillar can both mean a structural support, or it can also mean a moral support.

This is the merriam webster definition of the word Pillar

Definition of pillar
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a firm upright support for a superstructure : POST entry 1
b: a usually ornamental column or shaftespecially : one standing alone for a monument
2a: a supporting, integral, or upstanding member or parta pillar of society
b: a fundamental preceptthe five pillars of Islam

Click to expand...

Definition 2a is the one in effect in that verse. The overcomers will be the upstanding members of the temple of God that support it.
So yes, literal.

Actually, yes. I believe all the time periods in the book are symbolic. The point of the book is not to give exact times or dates. Jesus said no one knows the day or hour of His coming (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13) and Paul said that he had no need to talk about dates and times in relation to the second coming of Christ (1 Thess 5:1), so why would the book of Revelation be any different in that respect?

Click to expand...

Because the time period is given as the same time period, in multiple variations that add up to the same 3.5 hebrew year period to the day, to stress the importance.
Satan has an army assembled to fight Jesus in Revelation 19. Satan marked 1260 days after the abomination of Desolation on his calendar. Revelation 19 doesn't come as a thief to him at all, and Satan is not all knowing. what Jesus was referring to that no man knows the day or hour, is not Revelation 19.
Because an Angel and 2 men led an army to meet at the designated place at the designated time, already ready for battle. You can't do that if it's a symbolic time. They either wouldn't be there in time, or their logistics would run out and the army would break up with defectors en masse if they sat arrayed for battle for months with nothing happening. They arrive and are ready for s specific day.
Revelation 6:12-17 is unexpected, Revelation 19 is expected.

Do you think I care about that? Not in the least. Revelation is undeniably a book that contains a great deal of symbolism. So, having your default be to take everything written in it literally unless it slaps you across the face and says otherwise is not a wise approach. You read scripture as if it's a children's book that is very literal and all spelled out for you. Is 1 Corinthians 2 in your Bible? Why do you act as if no spiritual discernment is required to interpret God's Word, especially as it relates to a book like Revelation?

Click to expand...

Because everyone thinks they have the spiritual discernment and everyone comes to their own private interpretations anyway, and nobody will be willing to admit they're leaning on their own understanding.

The primary way that the holy spirit guides you to understand the bible is by reminding you of what else is in the Word of God so you can interpret scripture with scripture.

John 14:26

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Click to expand...

Yes, Revelation does contain a lot of symbols, but they are explained within the context, or are a reference to Old Testament where they are explained.

But if it is not explained in context, or not reference to prior explanation elsewhere in the book, you are making a private interpretation.
and it is particularly destructive when it results in you having to force a square peg through a round hole to make it "fit"

jgr said:

Explain what I've ignored in Revelation 12:9.

Click to expand...

that it can be used to show that Genesis 3:15 is referring to Satan, that God explains his own symbols without your "assistance"
and yet you keep saying "oh you have to interpret Genesis 3:15 spiritually to arrive at the conclusion that the serpent is Satan"
when Revelation 12:9 proves that the bible explains the symbol itself.

Jamdoc said:

that it can be used to show that Genesis 3:15 is referring to Satan, that God explains his own symbols without your "assistance"
and yet you keep saying "oh you have to interpret Genesis 3:15 spiritually to arrive at the conclusion that the serpent is Satan"
when Revelation 12:9 proves that the bible explains the symbol itself.

Click to expand...

It would help if you'd actually read a post before spouting off.

My post:
"...the same literal serpent literally named Satan..."

Revelation 12:9:
"...that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan..."

Are you language-challenged?

jgr said:

It would help if you'd actually read a post before spouting off.

My post:
"...the same literal serpent literally named Satan..."

Revelation 12:9:
"...that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan..."

Are you language-challenged?

Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. Revelation 12:9 names Satan, and equates it with the old serpent. It lines up with Genesis 3.
are you disagreeing with that?

Jamdoc said:

I don't see the problem. Revelation 12:9 names Satan, and equates it with the old serpent. It lines up with Genesis 3.
are you disagreeing with that?

Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing that my post is equivalent to Revelation 12:9?

jgr said:

Are you disagreeing that my post is equivalent to Revelation 12:9?

Click to expand...

Your point was that because the word Satan isn't in Genesis 3 that in order to come to the correct answer that who the serpent in Genesis 3 is that you have to make it all allegory.

Because the symbol is explained elsewhere, you don't have to allegorize everything though, which is what I'm refuting.

Jamdoc said:

Your point was that because the word Satan isn't in Genesis 3 that in order to come to the correct answer that who the serpent in Genesis 3 is that you have to make it all allegory.

Because the symbol is explained elsewhere, you don't have to allegorize everything though, which is what I'm refuting.

Click to expand...

There is not a single allegory in post 99's literal interpretation of Genesis 3:15.

You should be ecstatic.

I presume that you fully agree with it.

DavidPT said:

Not 8000 years. 7000 years. The 8th day he is obviously applying to the eternal age.

My point is how can Barnabas have been an Amil when only Premils and not Amils, place a thousand years after the 2nd coming? Amils need to prove that he placed the thousand years in this age the same way they do. He obviously can't be Amil unless he did that. I don't know how they can prove that if he had the 7th day meaning after the 2nd coming and then an 8th day after that one, though? No Amil would place the thousand years after the 2nd coming since that is Premil not Amil. Where is there proof in his writings that he placed the thousand years in this age? Surely Amils know one can't be Amil unless one places the thousand years in this age prior to the 2nd coming?

If Amils insist on arguing that the 7th and 8th day were the same day to him, then prove it by showing how Jesus rose on both the 7th and 8th day if these 2 days are supposed to be the same day. Good luck proving something illogical.

Click to expand...

Why is the Millennium as 1000 years equal to a day illogical? What are you trying to prove? It is not logical to put 8 as the next created reality. That would be back to 1. If Sunday is day 8, then there is an easy explanation. The first Sabbath was a Sunday. Sunday is the first day. The punishment was from the 2nd Day to the 7th Day. Now the 8th Day is the 2nd Sabbath.

sovereigngrace said:

That is because it is a figurative term. A thousand years is simply a simile for a long period of time. Revelation is full of figurative language. Amils acknowledge the symbolic setting and let other clear and explicit Scripture explain it. Premils explain away the clear and explicit by their faulty understanding of Revelation 20.

Click to expand...

In other words the next Millennium could last between 2000 and 3000 years, because the last Millennium between the Cross and now has been 1991 years.

Jamdoc said:

Your point was that because the word Satan isn't in Genesis 3 that in order to come to the correct answer that who the serpent in Genesis 3 is that you have to make it all allegory.

Because the symbol is explained elsewhere, you don't have to allegorize everything though, which is what I'm refuting.

Click to expand...

jgr said:

There is not a single allegory in post 99's literal interpretation of Genesis 3:15.

You should be ecstatic.

I presume that you fully agree with it.

Click to expand...

Will you be answering the question in post 99?

Timtofly said:

In other words the next Millennium could last between 2000 and 3000 years, because the last Millennium between the Cross and now has been 1991 years.

Click to expand...

Yes. This final period is all about salvation through the Gospel being preached to all peoples.... and then the end to life as we know it will come.

Today is the day of salvation and we have until his appearing again to make ourselves ready.


[ 2Thess 2
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. ]


All the people in the world have the opportunity to share in his glory. The invitations have been sent out.....long before this mysterious pre mill millennium takes place.

Verse 13 above makes it clear that we come to glory of Jesus through sanctification of the received Holy Spirit through our Faith in Jesus Christ and what he accomplished for us.


Any future candidates for the Salvation that God has established from the foundation of the world will never meat the brief once Jesus appears again..