Short post: The blissful ignorance of Amillennialism's lack of End-Times-Tables

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not seeing where anything I said would make that untrue.

You believe that the mass resurrection of believers that will occur at the second coming is the first resurrection, right? That does not line up with the scripture that says Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection. That's my point and I don't think it should be a hard point to understand.

Christ rose first, and He obviously rose in the same type of resurrection the following do---they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life(John 5:29)---and not a resurrection like this instead---they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation(John 5:29). No one could possibly think those are the same type of resurrection. By 'type' I'm meaning what the event pertains to. One event in John 5:29 pertains to waking to life, while the other one pertains to waking to damnation.

Yep.

1 Thessalonians 4 alone already proves the dead in Christ rise first. Why would this not be the first resurrection?

You are taking that completely out of context. You're really showing your lack of discernment here. That is not talking about the dead in Christ rising first before the dead who are not in Christ are resurrected. The resurrection of unbelievers is not even mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, so they have nothing to do with what Paul was talking about there.

When it says the dead in Christ rise first it means that they must first rise from the dead before they join those who are alive and remain in being caught up to meet the Lord in the air. That is what the dead in Christ rising first means.

It couldn't possibly be meaning when the rest of the dead live again after the thousand years, the 2nd resurrection, the final resurrection. Because if it does it means that the dead in Christ never had part in the first resurrection since they can't have part in the first resurrection and also have part in the 2nd resurrection involving the rest of the dead after the thousand years.

Ugh. Did you forget about Christ's resurrection and how scripture says that was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20;22, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5)?

David, can you please tell me how you interpret this verse:

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Do you believe that the second death has no power over anyone who doesn't have part in the first resurrection or do you believe it only doesn't have power over those who have part in the first resurrection? Doesn't this verse give the impression that having part in the first resurrection is a requirement in order for the second death to not have power over you? I believe it does.

For the life of me I can't figure out why Amils would think the most important resurrection of all, besides Christ's, meaning the bodily resurrection of the saints, that John would neglect to even mention this resurrection in Revelation 20?

Do you actually think that this is a valid argument? If it was then I could make a similar argument by saying I can't figure out why Premils would think that the most important resurrection of all, with no exception, that John would neglect to even mention Christ's resurrection in Revelation 20? Would you find that argument to be a convincing one? I doubt it. So, I don't find yours to be convincing, either. Please stop wasting time making arguments like this that prove nothing.

Per Amil the first resurrection isn't meaning that resurrection.

Yeah, we just see it as referring to the most important resurrection that has ever, or will ever, occur. That's all.

John only wrote about two resurrections in ch 20 though, not 3. If the first resurrection in ch 20 isn't the bodily resurrection of the saved, then where in ch 20 is that resurrection mentioned?

If the first resurrection refers to the bodily resurrection of the saved then where is the most important resurrection of all, Christ's resurrection, mentioned?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Let's start with the Scripture you presented here. Next let's add some of the following from a parable in Luke 19.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


It's usually agreed by pretty much everyone except maybe extreme Preterists, that A certain nobleman is meaning Christ. Went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, this is involving His ascension back into heaven where He is currently still in heaven. And that this--and to return--is meaning His bodily return to earth in the end of this age.

If we look at verse 15 we see that He has returned. If we look at verse 17 we see that one of these servants is rewarded with having authority over 10 cities. What is that all about and why would this be something one is rewarded with after He has returned? Per Amil there is no one left after He has returned other than saved saints that have put on bodily immortality. Whatever it means to have authority over ten cities, how could this possibly be relevant unless these cities still consist of mortals?

David, did you forget that it's a parable? It's not talking about a literal nobleman, right? So, why would you think it's talking about literal cities with mortals in them? Come on.

This parable tends to fit Premil and certainly not Amil.

Nonsense. Why should anyone trust your judgment about the parable when you can't even discern that it's speaking of fictional cities being rewarded to fictional servants of a fictional nobleman? Yes, those fictional cities and people represent something in reality, but why are you acting as if the fictional things and people in the parable are the reality?

Could having authority over cities be the same as having power over the nations? I don't know for certain since I'm not entirety sure what is meant by having authority over ten cities, or five cities, etc.

Ah, so you do get that it's not talking about literal cities! You are so hard to follow sometimes. So, if you're not even entirely sure what that means then how can you say that the parable clearly supports Premil over Amil? Ugh. You have to be kidding me here.

What I am certain about is, that He has to bodily return first in order to even give anyone authority over cities.

Uh huh. I don't think anyone disagree with that.

What I'm also certain about, this makes zero sense if everyone are in immortal bodies and no one but the saved are on the earth at the time.

Why is that? You already admitted to not knowing what the cities represent. Now, you're acting as if you know. Can you please make up your mind?

That's not the picture Zechariah 14:16-19 paints, though. The ones who might not come up, thus can be punished for not complying, couldn't possibly be meaning the saved who have put on bodily immortality at the 2nd coming. That seems to fit ruling them with a rod of iron, where the passage you brought up that I started with in this post, that too involves ruling them with a rod of iron, and that this power is also being given to overcomers.

Here you go bringing up Zechariah 14 again. Tell me, David, how do you reconcile the following passages?

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. 11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

When do you think Zechariah 14:10-11 in relation to 2 Peter 3:10-12? If your interpretation of Zechariah 14 is correct then you should be able to answer this question clearly.

How does any of this add up to Amil?

Your false interpretations of this can't ever add up to Amil, but the correct interpretations do.

That I will never figure out since most of it comes off as nonsensical if it's supposed to support Amil somehow, even if literal cities are not meant, though I don't see how they couldn't be since nations do involve cities.

So, I guess when Jesus told a parable about the kingdom of heaven being like a grain of mustard seed, that means heaven must look like a grain of mustard seed? Do you even read your own posts to check if they're making any sense before posting them? Yes, if the parable was talking about literal cities being rewarded to literal servants of a literal nobleman, then Amil wouldn't make sense of it. But, it's not.

Why would immortals need to have authority over cities where other immortals are living?

Here you go again acting as if it's talking about literal cities. Good grief. Did you forget that it's a parable? Is Jesus a literal nobleman, too?

Why would immortals even be living in other cities to begin with? Why wouldn't they be living in the city that comes down from God out of heaven instead? Even Revelation 21-22 shows that there are still nations outside of the new Jerusalem.

What are you trying to say here, that you think there will be mortals living on the new earth where there will be no more death (Rev 21:4)?

 

[claninja]

Let's start with the Scripture you presented here. Next let's add some of the following from a parable in Luke 19.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


It's usually agreed by pretty much everyone except maybe extreme Preterists, that A certain nobleman is meaning Christ. Went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, this is involving His ascension back into heaven where He is currently still in heaven. And that this--and to return--is meaning His bodily return to earth in the end of this age.

If we look at verse 15 we see that He has returned. If we look at verse 17 we see that one of these servants is rewarded with having authority over 10 cities. What is that all about and why would this be something one is rewarded with after He has returned? Per Amil there is no one left after He has returned other than saved saints that have put on bodily immortality. Whatever it means to have authority over ten cities, how could this possibly be relevant unless these cities still consist of mortals?

This parable tends to fit Premil and certainly not Amil. Could having authority over cities be the same as having power over the nations? I don't know for certain since I'm not entirety sure what is meant by having authority over ten cities, or five cities, etc.

What I am certain about is, that He has to bodily return first in order to even give anyone authority over cities. What I'm also certain about, this makes zero sense if everyone are in immortal bodies and no one but the saved are on the earth at the time. That's not the picture Zechariah 14:16-19 paints, though. The ones who might not come up, thus can be punished for not complying, couldn't possibly be meaning the saved who have put on bodily immortality at the 2nd coming. That seems to fit ruling them with a rod of iron, where the passage you brought up that I started with in this post, that too involves ruling them with a rod of iron, and that this power is also being given to overcomers.

How does any of this add up to Amil? That I will never figure out since most of it comes off as nonsensical if it's supposed to support Amil somehow, even if literal cities are not meant, though I don't see how they couldn't be since nations do involve cities. Why would immortals need to have authority over cities where other immortals are living? Why would immortals even be living in other cities to begin with? Why wouldn't they be living in the city that comes down from God out of heaven instead? Even Revelation 21-22 shows that there are still nations outside of the new Jerusalem.

interesting points on Luke 19. When did the nobleman reward the servants for their work with authority? When the nobleman left or when he returned?

Well, the parable states when he returned. Which is consistent with Christ giving the authority over the nations to the saints in association with his coming (revelation 2:25-26).

Definitely another inconsistency with traditional Amil.

 

[claninja]

Welleth, if you couldeth not be as boldeth in your fonteth, maybeth you caneth quoteth a moderner translationeth that mighteth casteth more lighteth?

nah, I’m good. Not interested in debating with someone who uses junior high tactics to nitpick writing styles instead of the content.

 

[DavidPT]

interesting points on Luke 19. When did the nobleman reward the servants for their work with authority? When the nobleman left or when he returned?

Well, the parable states when he returned. Which is consistent with Christ giving the authority over the nations to the saints in association with his coming (revelation 2:25-26).

Definitely another inconsistency with traditional Amil.

The following is how I tend to reason these things.

Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Whatever this means to have authority over cities, it is not something Jesus grants anyone until He bodily returns first.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Amils disagree with Premils that there is a gap between once He comes and when the end meant in verse 24 arrives.

What does it say happens when the end meant arrives? when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. What does that equal? It equals the following.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Per Amil the same day Jesus returns, by the time that 24 hour day is up, 1 Corinthians 15:24 and verse 28 are fulfilled. Why then was Jesus just giving authority over cities that very same day? How can that authority apply to all of eternity if the authority Jesus was given to Him by the Father does not even apply to all of eternity? How can it possibly be reasonable that when Jesus shall have put down all rule and all authority and power, that His servants continue to maintain the authority given them?

Christ reigns forever, yet, there will come a point when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. That's easily explainable without it contradicting Him reigning forever. It's things involving judgment, etc, that He puts down when the end comes. Once the GWTJ comes and goes, there is no reason for Christ to be ruling in that manner any longer, thus what is meant by when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. Also, once the end comes there is no reason for anyone to still have authority over cities, whatever it is that is meant by that.

How is it even reasonable that there is not a gap between when He returns and when the end meant in 1 Corinthians 15:24? How can Amil still work if there is a gap there? Something has to explain the gap. The only thing I can think of that could possibly explain it is the thousand years. If not the thousand years, what does one propose explains the gap? Of course though, Amils, maybe including you or maybe not, at least you are willing to be objective about things, will continue to insist there is no gap there, regardless. There being no gap there defies logic, though.

 

[DavidPT]

David, did you forget that it's a parable? It's not talking about a literal nobleman, right? So, why would you think it's talking about literal cities with mortals in them? Come on.

Let's assume literal cities aren't meant. Are you also going to argue that one shouldn't take 'authority' in the literal sense either? Does not the text say Jesus rewards them with authority over something? Why would they need authority over anything if this very same day in question Christ puts down His authority, since according to Amil, there is no gap between when He comes and when the end meant in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is meaning?

Nonsense. Why should anyone trust your judgment about the parable when you can't even discern that it's speaking of fictional cities being rewarded to fictional servants of a fictional nobleman? Yes, those fictional cities and people represent something in reality, but why are you acting as if the fictional things and people in the parable are the reality?

I tend to look for fits, maybe you don't, and maybe that's part of the problem, in your case. Is having authority over 10 cities compatible with the idea of being given power over the nations? Is being given authority over 10 cities compatible with the idea that that very same day the end comes when Jesus will have put down all rule and authority and power? I assume you would likely say no to the former and yes to the latter, when I instead would say yes to the former and no to the latter.

Here you go bringing up Zechariah 14 again. Tell me, David, how do you reconcile the following passages?

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. 11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

When do you think Zechariah 14:10-11 in relation to 2 Peter 3:10-12? If your interpretation of Zechariah 14 is correct then you should be able to answer this question clearly.

First of all I do not take 2 Peter 3:10-12 in a literal sense like you do. Second of all I take Zechariah 14:10-11 to be involving the new Jerusalem, therefore, I see those verses fitting the time Peter is describing in 2 Peter 3:13---we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. That means I take 2 Peter 3:10-12 to be meaning before Zechariah 14:10-11 is meaning.

BTW, I might be the only Premil on this board who thinks that the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE, but I'm not the only Premil on the planet that thinks that, though. I have Googled this before and then discovered there are other Premils who tend to think along some of these same lines. If I was the only person on the planet interpreting it like that, I would then have enough sense to realize I couldn't possibly be correct if no one but me is interpreting these things in this manner. So, in my mind, it's either a coincidence that there are other Premils thinking along some of the same lines that I am here, or maybe it instead means we could be on to something here.

 

[eclipsenow]

interesting points on Luke 19. When did the nobleman reward the servants for their work with authority? When the nobleman left or when he returned?

Well, the parable states when he returned. Which is consistent with Christ giving the authority over the nations to the saints in association with his coming (revelation 2:25-26).

Definitely another inconsistency with traditional Amil.

Erhem - Amil's believe God gives us ALL the rewards when Jesus returns and judges the world. Judgement Day is going to be Universal, Inescapable, Final and Eternal. Heaven meets earth, the great wedding feast. Literal millennials have this weird half-state where they cannot agree if Christians are eternal or mortal, reigning over the whole world or not, living alongside mortal non-Christians - and the whole things sounds like some sort of half-heaven sideshow circus.


When Amil's read the whole New Testament we see that the Day of the Lord -when Jesus returns - is it. There is no more, no in-between ages, no end-times-table. The Lord suddenly and unpredictably returns and EVERYTHING changes in an instant.

There are two ages in the New Testament - THIS AGE - and the AGE TO COME - and the transition between the two is the Day of the Lord aka Judgement Day aka the Coming of the Son of Man. There's just no separating any of this out! The dead are raised and judged, the heavens and earth melt, the New Heavens and New Earth are installed and believers are saved into their eternal new home. All together - as far as I can tell - in a flash! So read the clearer statements in Scripture first, then try and understand the less clear after that. Let's look at the clear first.

THIS AGE looks like this:-
“homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields — and with them persecutions” (Mk 10:30); “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage” (Lk 20:34); the scholar, philosopher and such wisdom are of this age (1 Cor 1:20); secular and religious rulers dominate (1 Cor 2:6-8); “the god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Cor 4:4); this age is explicitly called “the present evil age” (Gal 1:4); ungodliness and worldly passions are typical of it (Titus 2:12). All of these qualities are temporal, and are certainly destined to pass away with the return of our Lord. “This age” is the age in which we live, and is the age in which we struggle as we long for the coming of Christ and the better things of the age to come.

THE AGE TO COME looks like this:-
it is characterized by eternal life (Mk 10:30; Lk 18:30); is also denoted as a time when there is no marriage or giving in marriage (Lk 20:35); and it is which is characterized by “life that is truly life” (I Tim 6:19). These qualities are all eternal, and are indicative of the state of affairs and quality of life after the return of Christ. In other words, these two ages, the present (“this age”) and the future (the “age to come”) stand in diametrical opposition to one another. One age is temporal; the other is eternal. One age is characterized by unbelief and ends in judgement; the other is the age of the faithful and is home to the redeemed. It is this conception of biblical history that dominates the New Testament.

THE DAY OF THE LORD / LAST DAY looks like this

MATTHEW 13
The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

Jesus expressly states that he will raise believers up on the “last day” (Jn 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24)

“There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day” (John 12:48)

The return of Christ will occur “in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Co. 15:52; cf. 1 Thess 4:16). Notice that there are no gaps of time indicated between the resurrection and the judgement. These texts collectively speak of the resurrection, the judgment, and the return of Christ as distinct aspects of but one event, occurring at precisely the same time (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Premillennialists, who often chide amillennialists for not taking the Bible “literally” and who champion what they call the “literal” interpretation of Scripture, must now insert a thousand-year gap between the Second Coming of Christ (and the resurrection) and the Final Judgment to make room for the supposed future millennial reign of Christ! And this, ironically, when the clear declarations of Scripture do not allow for such gaps.

IT ALL HAPPENS TOGETHER!
2 Thessalonians 1:7-10
and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

2 Peter 3:10-13
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

(Much of the material here adapted from the following source.)
A Present or Future Millennium? by Kim Riddlebarger

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Let's assume literal cities aren't meant. Are you also going to argue that one shouldn't take 'authority' in the literal sense either?

No.

Does not the text say Jesus rewards them with authority over something?

You bet. What that is exactly, none of us know yet and we won't know until it happens.

Why would they need authority over anything if this very same day in question Christ puts down His authority, since according to Amil, there is no gap between when He comes and when the end meant in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is meaning?

David, do you actually carefully read anything I say or do you just quickly skim through it? This is a serious question. Do you purposely misrepresent Amil or can you just not understand what we believe even after being told many times for many years?

I have told you more than once now that I believe He puts down all opposing rule and authority (not literally all rule and authority) between His coming when the dead in Christ are raised and the end. Clearly, He doesn't take vengeance on His enemies until after the dead in Christ are raised first. We are caught up to meet Him in the air after the resurrection of the dead in Christ, too, so that also would happen between 1 Cor 15:23 and the end referenced in verse 24. So, you saying that Amil believes there is no gap between 1 Cor 15:23 which describes Him coming and raising the dead in Christ, and the end in 1 Cor 15:24 is false.

As for your question as to why they need authority over anything at that point when the end comes, that means you're asking why anyone would need any authority after the end comes and eternity is ushered in. Do you not think that there will be any hierarchy among people on the eternal new earth? I see no reason to think not. There is a hierarchy among angels, so why wouldn't that be the case for humans in eternity as well? So, I think God will assign some to be leaders who will lead others to do what God wants them to do.

What do you think life will be like at that point, anyway? Just people doing whatever they please whenever they want without anyone to lead them and without any assigned activities that God wants them to do?

I tend to look for fits, maybe you don't, and maybe that's part of the problem, in your case.

I don't know what you mean by that, but there is no problem in my case. Your problem is that you don't establish your doctrine on clear scripture. You spend all your time debating undeniably difficult to interpret scripture instead. The foundation of your doctrine is on some of the most difficult passages to interpret in all of scripture. That's a shaky foundation for your doctrine.

Your belief in Premil contradicts a great deal of scripture as you've been shown many times. Including a good amount of clear, straightforward scripture. But, you don't want to acknowledge that. You instead want to talk about scripture that no one has a strong handle on, whether Premil or Amil.

Is having authority over 10 cities compatible with the idea of being given power over the nations? Is being given authority over 10 cities compatible with the idea that that very same day the end comes when Jesus will have put down all rule and authority and power? I assume you would likely say no to the former and yes to the latter, when I instead would say yes to the former and no to the latter.

It seems that you think it's talking about Jesus putting down literally all authority at that time, but I believe it's talking about Him putting down all opposing authority at that time when He takes vengeance on His enemies and destroys them.

First of all I do not take 2 Peter 3:10-12 in a literal sense like you do.

Which, honestly, makes no sense whatsoever. You not taking that passage literally tells me that you will do anything to keep your belief in Premil afloat. How exactly do you interpret that passage, anyway?

If you think that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is not speaking of literal physical destruction occurring on the day of the Lord, then what do you make of what Paul said here:

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Do you not think this is referring to physical destruction? If not, then how do you interpret this passage? If you agree that this is referring to literal physical destruction, then why would 2 Peter 3:10-12 not also be referring to physical destruction? It makes sense to me that if the earth is burned up then unbelievers "shall not escape" that.

Second of all I take Zechariah 14:10-11 to be involving the new Jerusalem, therefore, I see those verses fitting the time Peter is describing in 2 Peter 3:13---we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. That means I take 2 Peter 3:10-12 to be meaning before Zechariah 14:10-11 is meaning.

Why are you not Amil then? The new Jerusalem comes down AFTER the thousand years. But, you believe Zechariah 14:10-11 describes something that happens during the thousand years, right? That makes no sense if the new Jerusalem has already come down.

BTW, I might be the only Premil on this board who thinks that the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE, but I'm not the only Premil on the planet that thinks that, though. I have Googled this before and then discovered there are other Premils who tend to think along some of these same lines.

How many others? It can't be many at all who believe something like that. Honestly, that belief is utter nonsense. To the point that I have trouble taking you seriously when I see that you believe things like that. The idea of Satan's little season taking place on the new earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13)? I can't take that belief seriously at all. John couldn't be more clear in Revelation 21:1-4 that once the new heavens and new earth are ushered in there will be no more death after that.

If I was the only person on the planet interpreting it like that, I would then have enough sense to realize I couldn't possibly be correct if no one but me is interpreting these things in this manner.

I'm glad you at least realize that. Maybe you can convince Timtofly, keras and a few others on this forum of that sometime. They have a number of beliefs all to themselves that I'm pretty sure no one agrees with.

So, in my mind, it's either a coincidence that there are other Premils thinking along some of the same lines that I am here, or maybe it instead means we could be on to something here.

How many others that you're aware of interpret it like that? If it's a small number, doesn't that make you think twice about whether it's accurate or not? Does God typically reveal things to only a small number of people? I don't believe so.