The rest of the dead live not again

[Spiritual Jew]

To arrive at some of the conclusions you do is to disregard what it just said in verse 6---Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection---and shall reign with him a thousand years.


How do you propose one can still reign with Him a thousand years after the thousand years are in the past? Verse 6 indicates of every single person having part in the first resurrection, they each shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


It can't get any clearer than this, the thousand years end eventually, and once they end, that era of time is entirely in the past to never get repeated again. This alone presents a problem for Amill. Meaning depending on which version of Amill one is considering. Those they have reigning in heaven a thousand years in a disembodied state, they still have them reigning a thousand years even though the thousand years are no longer relevant once they are expired.

Obviously, Amill can't have souls in heaven experiencing satan's little season while they are in heaven, so they then have no choice but to contradict what is recorded in Revelation 20:7, since they apparently see that as the better option. Instead of them agreeing with the text, they deny that the text says the thousand years expire since they have the thousand years continuing in heaven even though it has expired on earth. Nowhere does verse 7 say the thousand years have both expired and not expired. That is a contradiction.

I'm not aware of any Amill who claims that the thousand years never expire, so I have no idea of what you're talking about here.

 

[Timtofly]

For a start, I am Premil and don't but into the theory that the church will be removed before the GT. It is bizarre to claim that the 6th seal is the Second Coming when the seven trumpets only begin from the 7th seal, Rev 8:1-2. If you are to be believed, Jesus will already be on earth when the trumpet call begins???

Jesus is not a prince. He will be a King when he returns and a prince is lower in rank than a king. Trust me, I know because I am English.

Your doctrine is so out of place that I don't know how to help you. Most of your claims are so preposterous and unbelievable. For example, to apply the seed sowed in Matt 13 to the millennium makes no sense.

Adam did not die before he sinned, so why would those in the millennium die if they are not in sin?

Jesus is called Messiah and Prince in Daniel 9. Those are the words used in some translations. If you want to call Jesus: Christ and King or Christ and Lord, fine. It is not me attempting to define words, but using the words found in Scripture. Matthew 25:31, Jesus sits on His throne. Whatever title that is, even Christ sitting on a throne is fine.

Jesus was Christ for 3.5 years at the first coming. Jesus will be a ruler on a throne for some unspecified amount of time at the Second Coming. That time would have been another 3.5 years, but that time will be shortened. So shortened it may be post instead of at the beginning of that 3.5 years. No one will know or understand until it actually happens. Where in Revelation does it say the Seals, Trumpets, and Thunders take exactly 3.5 years and then suddenly Jesus appears at the end when the 7th Trumpet stops? Did Jesus get baptized, dissappear into the clouds and then show up the week of the Cross? Why would the Second Coming be described that way? Why does no one want Jesus on earth in the midst of all God's destruction called the final harvest or GT?

I never said the Second Coming and final harvest extends into the Millennium. The Millennium will start after all the mess and souls are harvested. Pentecost and the NT church did not start at Jesus' baptism. It started days after Jesus had ascended back into heaven. The Millennium will start after Armageddon. The Millennium does not start at the Second Coming. Just like the church did not start at the birth, nor the baptism of Jesus. The Second Coming is a separate event from the Millennium.

Adam was not a sinner before he disobeyed. Why is that a preposterous fact? Adam was not created as a sinner. Adam did not sin, but Adam disobeyed God. Adam was a sinner after he died. God said Adam would die the instant Adam disobeyed God. Adam physically and spiritually died, then in Adam's new dead flesh Adam was a sinner, and started sinning against God. Adam could not sin nor be a sinner until sin entered the world. All Adam could do was disobey God and die. Then in death, Adam was a living sinner. From the moment Adam disobeyed God, he could no longer do anything right, but all he could do is sin.

Since Adam, even doing right or self righteousness is sin to God, and does not measure up to the standard of having a permanent incorruptible physical body. That is why sin is disobedience to God. Only obedience to God accounts for anything.

In the Millennium humans can only obey God. They cannot live in sin. The first offense or act of disobedience is Death. They cease to live, but wait in Death until the GWT. Then they are cast into the LOF.

If pre-mill teach sin will continue on into the Millennium and death and decay, they are as wrong as amil who claim the Millennium is currently filled with sin, death, and decay. The Second Coming brings an end to Adam's reign of sin and disobedience to God. As Isaiah 65 states the Millennium is a new heaven and earth. Not the NHNE that comes after the Millennium. That is a different reality/creation. The Millennium is a return to earth as it was intended before the Flood, and before sin entered the world. Jesus reigns for 1,000 years and then hands creation back to God.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not aware of any Amill who claims that the thousand years never expire, so I have no idea of what you're talking about here.

How can an "indefinite" ever expire? Of course changing a literal 1,000 years removes any expiration date. "Indefinite" puts an expiration date off indefinitely.

We already know the time between the first coming and second coming would be indefinite. In fact for a long time it was "soon". No one ever claimed Jesus would return in 1,000 years. The Millennium was Jesus reigning on earth, after a return. No time frame or reference was ever given for the period of time between the first coming and Second Coming. Jesus said He did not know, and it was left at that. Yes, many said it was soon and the "last hour". They were hopeful, but they never replaced the coming Millennium with waiting for the Second Coming.

 

[Trivalee]

Jesus is called Messiah and Prince in Daniel 9. Those are the words used in some translations. If you want to call Jesus: Christ and King or Christ and Lord, fine. It is not me attempting to define words, but using the words found in Scripture. Matthew 25:31, Jesus sits on His throne. Whatever title that is, even Christ sitting on a throne is fine.

Jesus was Christ for 3.5 years at the first coming. Jesus will be a ruler on a throne for some unspecified amount of time at the Second Coming. That time would have been another 3.5 years, but that time will be shortened. So shortened it may be post instead of at the beginning of that 3.5 years. No one will know or understand until it actually happens. Where in Revelation does it say the Seals, Trumpets, and Thunders take exactly 3.5 years and then suddenly Jesus appears at the end when the 7th Trumpet stops? Did Jesus get baptized, dissappear into the clouds and then show up the week of the Cross? Why would the Second Coming be described that way? Why does no one want Jesus on earth in the midst of all God's destruction called the final harvest or GT?

I never said the Second Coming and final harvest extends into the Millennium. The Millennium will start after all the mess and souls are harvested. Pentecost and the NT church did not start at Jesus' baptism. It started days after Jesus had ascended back into heaven. The Millennium will start after Armageddon. The Millennium does not start at the Second Coming. Just like the church did not start at the birth, nor the baptism of Jesus. The Second Coming is a separate event from the Millennium.

Adam was not a sinner before he disobeyed. Why is that a preposterous fact? Adam was not created as a sinner. Adam did not sin, but Adam disobeyed God. Adam was a sinner after he died. God said Adam would die the instant Adam disobeyed God. Adam physically and spiritually died, then in Adam's new dead flesh Adam was a sinner, and started sinning against God. Adam could not sin nor be a sinner until sin entered the world. All Adam could do was disobey God and die. Then in death, Adam was a living sinner. From the moment Adam disobeyed God, he could no longer do anything right, but all he could do is sin.

Since Adam, even doing right or self righteousness is sin to God, and does not measure up to the standard of having a permanent incorruptible physical body. That is why sin is disobedience to God. Only obedience to God accounts for anything.

In the Millennium humans can only obey God. They cannot live in sin. The first offense or act of disobedience is Death. They cease to live, but wait in Death until the GWT. Then they are cast into the LOF.

If pre-mill teach sin will continue on into the Millennium and death and decay, they are as wrong as amil who claim the Millennium is currently filled with sin, death, and decay. The Second Coming brings an end to Adam's reign of sin and disobedience to God. As Isaiah 65 states the Millennium is a new heaven and earth. Not the NHNE that comes after the Millennium. That is a different reality/creation. The Millennium is a return to earth as it was intended before the Flood, and before sin entered the world. Jesus reigns for 1,000 years and then hands creation back to God.

We are emphatically told that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem during the millennial age (1000 years). So why do you claim he will rule for an unspecified time? You seem to struggle with chronology. You claimed the Lord will return in the 6th seal, right? Common sense requires that you study the events of the 7th seal and then ask yourself whether these events will occur before or after the Lord returns

Apparently, the events of the 7th seal must be fulfilled before the Lord returns.

 

[rwb]

We are emphatically told that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem during the millennial age (1000 years). So why do you claim he will rule for an unspecified time? You seem to struggle with chronology. You claimed the Lord will return in the 6th seal, right? Common sense requires that you study the events of the 7th seal and then ask yourself whether these events will occur before or after the Lord returns

Apparently, the events of the 7th seal must be fulfilled before the Lord returns.

Christ is reigning from Jerusalem during this time symbolized a thousand years. He has been reigning there since He ascended to the Father after His resurrection. We are since He came living in the Day of the Lord.

Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Philippians 3:20-21 (KJV) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Galatians 4:26 (KJV) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Revelation 21:2 (KJV) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:10 (KJV) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

 

[Timtofly]

We are emphatically told that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem during the millennial age (1000 years). So why do you claim he will rule for an unspecified time? You seem to struggle with chronology. You claimed the Lord will return in the 6th seal, right? Common sense requires that you study the events of the 7th seal and then ask yourself whether these events will occur before or after the Lord returns

Apparently, the events of the 7th seal must be fulfilled before the Lord returns.

There was silence in heaven, because Judgment from God is about to fall.

I never said the Millennium is an unspecified amount of time. I said the period it takes to clean up this earth before the Millennium starts is an unspecified amount of time. Many claim some 7 year length of time. It is not 7 years, but unspecified. The Millennium is the full 1,000 years, and does not include Satan's little season. Satan is unbound after the 1,000 years.

Jesus is on earth from the 6th Seal to the 7th Trumpet. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate otherwise.

 

[Trivalee]

Christ is reigning from Jerusalem during this time symbolized a thousand years. He has been reigning there since He ascended to the Father after His resurrection. We are since He came living in the Day of the Lord.

Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Philippians 3:20-21 (KJV) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Galatians 4:26 (KJV) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Revelation 21:2 (KJV) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:10 (KJV) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Amil believes that Jesus is already reigning from Jerusalem. What I'm not sure of is whether they say this in a figurative sense or literal? If they are arguing figuratively, then I have no objection because, in my view, the Lord has been reigning since the creation of Adam. But if, however, you are arguing that he's reigning in a literal sense, then I vehemently reject it.

Zech 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north and half of it toward the south.

The passage above shows when the Lord will physically return to Jerusalem and after defeating the Antichrist's army at Armageddon Rev 19:14-21, he will start reigning for a literal 1000 years. On this account, I reject your claims.

 

[Trivalee]

There was silence in heaven, because Judgment from God is about to fall.

I never said the Millennium is an unspecified amount of time. I said the period it takes to clean up this earth before the Millennium starts is an unspecified amount of time. Many claim some 7 year length of time. It is not 7 years, but unspecified. The Millennium is the full 1,000 years, and does not include Satan's little season. Satan is unbound after the 1,000 years.

Jesus is on earth from the 6th Seal to the 7th Trumpet. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate otherwise.

Maybe it was a typo, but you definitely said the millennium is an unspecified time. But it doesn't matter now since you acknowledge it is a literal 1000 years. I don't know why the cleaning up of the earth should be an issue because the scriptures never suggested it is a problem for God.

Since God has chosen to cleanse and replace this corrupt and polluted earth, I won't bother myself by giving it a 7-year timescale.

 

[rwb]

Amil believes that Jesus is already reigning from Jerusalem. What I'm not sure of is whether they say this in a figurative sense or literal? If they are arguing figuratively, then I have no objection because, in my view, the Lord has been reigning since the creation of Adam. But if, however, you are arguing that he's reigning in a literal sense, then I vehemently reject it.

Zech 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north and half of it toward the south.

The passage above shows when the Lord will physically return to Jerusalem and after defeating the Antichrist's army at Armageddon Rev 19:14-21, he will start reigning for a literal 1000 years. On this account, I reject your claims.

According to Scripture the reign of Christ literally began when He ascended to the Father and received a Kingdom that would have no end.

Zechariah's prophesy was fulfilled when Christ came to earth a man. This prophesy from Zechariah begins with a coming "day of the LORD". As we read Zechariah we understand the day of the LORD that would come was not A Day of the LORD that will come again at the end of this age. Rather the day of the LORD coming from Zechariah's time is an age that we have become to understand is the age/era/time of the Gospel. Or the age of the Messiah who was to come.

Zechariah's prophesy of the day of the LORD is the same day of the LORD Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Malachi and even Lamentations foretell of.

Zechariah 14:1 (KJV) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

The day of the LORD prophesied from old spoke of a time that would come when Messiah would build His Kingdom. What the Jews of Christ's time, and so many Christians today don't realize is that the Kingdom Christ came to build through the message of His Gospel through the churches on earth is NOT a physical Kingdom, but a spiritual one. That's why you read the prophesies through literal sight rather than finding how the prophesies are being fulfilled since Messiah came and will be complete when He comes the second time.

We see through the prophesy of Joel how the Day of the LORD was fulfilled at Pentecost, is being spiritually fulfilled as the Gospel is preached and men of faith enter the Kingdom of heaven via the Spirit in them by grace through faith and will finally be fulfilled when Christ physically comes again on the last day when the seventh trumpet sounds.

 

[DavidPT]

According to Scripture the reign of Christ literally began when He ascended to the Father and received a Kingdom that would have no end.

Zechariah's prophesy was fulfilled when Christ came to earth a man. This prophesy from Zechariah begins with a coming "day of the LORD". As we read Zechariah we understand the day of the LORD that would come was not A Day of the LORD that will come again at the end of this age. Rather the day of the LORD coming from Zechariah's time is an age that we have become to understand is the age/era/time of the Gospel. Or the age of the Messiah who was to come.

Zechariah's prophesy of the day of the LORD is the same day of the LORD Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Malachi and even Lamentations foretell of.

Zechariah 14:1 (KJV) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

The day of the LORD prophesied from old spoke of a time that would come when Messiah would build His Kingdom. What the Jews of Christ's time, and so many Christians today don't realize is that the Kingdom Christ came to build through the message of His Gospel through the churches on earth is NOT a physical Kingdom, but a spiritual one. That's why you read the prophesies through literal sight rather than finding how the prophesies are being fulfilled since Messiah came and will be complete when He comes the second time.

We see through the prophesy of Joel how the Day of the LORD was fulfilled at Pentecost, is being spiritually fulfilled as the Gospel is preached and men of faith enter the Kingdom of heaven via the Spirit in them by grace through faith and will finally be fulfilled when Christ physically comes again on the last day when the seventh trumpet sounds.

If one places Zechariah 14:2, for instance, during the time of what transpired in 70 AD, though that is obviously the wrong place to insert this, even this, though it is wrong, shows that Zechariah 14 speaks of events after Christ has been born, not before He was born, therefore, placing these events in the last days. Since Amills typically insist the NT sheds light on the OT, which I don't necessarily disagree with, how many 'day of the Lord' events do Amills think the NT is revealing? Only one, or more than one?

The following is what the NT records about the day of the Lord.

Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

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.

And this is what is recorded in Zechariah 14:1.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.


If this is not involving the day of the Lord event in the above 3 passages in the NT pertaining to the DOTL, what DOTL events recorded in the NT is it pertaining to then? Does or does not the NT shed light on the OT like Amillls are insisting? Where then is the NT shedding light on Zechariah 14:1 if none of the 3 verses above from the NT are shedding light on it?

Even what is recorded in Acts 2:20, the text clearly says--first The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, which should have anyone familiar with the book of Revelation knowing that this is involving the 6th seal, and that Acts 2:20 indicates the 6th seal precedes that great and notable day of the Lord. And unless I'm mistaken, a lot of Amills agree the 6th seal involves Christ's bodily return in the end of this age.

Therefore, I don't know what it is about Amill at times that makes them want to turn crystal clear chronology into something nonsensical instead, something not even agreeing with the texts involved? Why would anyone need to do that? Is that the way truth in generally determined?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And this is what is recorded in Zechariah 14:1.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Most English translations translate that text as "a day of the Lord" or "a day is coming for the Lord" and things like that instead of "the day of the Lord". What is described in Zechariah 14 simply does not line up with what is described in passages relating to the day of the Lord like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 and 2 Peter 3:3-13. Can we trust Paul and Peter to have known what they were talking about? I'm sure we can. Did their letters contain a good amount of figurative text like the book of Zechariah undeniably does? No. So, we can trust that they were being clear and straightforward. Would they have contradicted Zechariah? Surely not.

So, what do we do then? I'm sure you already know that Amils like myself rely on the NT primarily for understanding of things like this, so I can only conclude that Zechariah 14 is not talking about the same day of the Lord that 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 are talking about. I'm not willing to interpret Zechariah 14 in such a way that contradicts these NT passages and I'm not willing to change what these NT passages clearly teach in order to make them fit what is described in Zechariah 14. But, that doesn't seem to be a problem for you.

If this is not involving the day of the Lord event in the above 3 passages in the NT pertaining to the DOTL, what DOTL events recorded in the NT is it pertaining to then? Does or does not the NT shed light on the OT like Amillls are insisting? Where then is the NT shedding light on Zechariah 14:1 if none of the 3 verses above from the NT are shedding light on it?

They would be shedding light on it if they were talking about the same day of the Lord, but they can't be since the day of the Lord that Paul and Peter wrote about involves the destruction of all unbelievers, while Zechariah 14 talks about mortal people surviving and being required to go up to the mountain to worship and all that.

Even what is recorded in Acts 2:20, the text clearly says--first The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, which should have anyone familiar with the book of Revelation knowing that this is involving the 6th seal, and that Acts 2:20 indicates the 6th seal precedes that great and notable day of the Lord. And unless I'm mistaken, a lot of Amills agree the 6th seal involves Christ's bodily return in the end of this age.

Therefore, I don't know what it is about Amill at times that makes them want to turn crystal clear chronology into something nonsensical instead, something not even agreeing with the texts involved? Why would anyone need to do that? Is that the way truth in generally determined?

Is truth determined by trying to force passages that are clearly not directly related to each other like Zechariah 14 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 to be speaking of the same thing?

 

[rwb]

If one places Zechariah 14:2, for instance, during the time of what transpired in 70 AD, though that is obviously the wrong place to insert this, even this, though it is wrong, shows that Zechariah 14 speaks of events after Christ has been born, not before He was born, therefore, placing these events in the last days. Since Amills typically insist the NT sheds light on the OT, which I don't necessarily disagree with, how many 'day of the Lord' events do Amills think the NT is revealing? Only one, or more than one?

The Day of the Lord did indeed begin with the birth of Christ. The feet of Christ literally stood upon the Mount of Olives in His day/age/time. There is only One Day of the Lord, but what the OT prophets did not know is that the Day of the Lord's coming to earth includes the last day when He comes again after the last trumpet sounds. This ONE day is what the NT records also the Day of the Lord.

The following is what the NT records about the day of the Lord.

Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

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.

And this is what is recorded in Zechariah 14:1.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

If this is not involving the day of the Lord event in the above 3 passages in the NT pertaining to the DOTL, what DOTL events recorded in the NT is it pertaining to then? Does or does not the NT shed light on the OT like Amillls are insisting? Where then is the NT shedding light on Zechariah 14:1 if none of the 3 verses above from the NT are shedding light on it?

The passages from the NT are all of the last day of this time called the day of the Lord, that is symbolized as a thousand years. The verses you quote show us what we can expect when the Lord returns on the last day.

Even Zechariah's reference to dividing the spoil can be speaking of last day when the Lord comes to separate the sheep from the goats. Or it could be referencing to this division taking place throughout the day of the Lord when the Gospel divides wheat from tares according to faith.

Even what is recorded in Acts 2:20, the text clearly says--first The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, which should have anyone familiar with the book of Revelation knowing that this is involving the 6th seal, and that Acts 2:20 indicates the 6th seal precedes that great and notable day of the Lord. And unless I'm mistaken, a lot of Amills agree the 6th seal involves Christ's bodily return in the end of this age.

Therefore, I don't know what it is about Amill at times that makes them want to turn crystal clear chronology into something nonsensical instead, something not even agreeing with the texts involved? Why would anyone need to do that? Is that the way truth in generally determined?

I agree when the sixth seal is broken it would be very hard for anyone to deny John is speaking of all that comes to pass on the final day of this time the Old Covenant prophets call the Day of the LORD.

Revelation 6:17 (KJV) For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

 

[Douggg]

.

Curious, does rwb stand for red white blue ?

 

[rwb]

Curious, does rwb stand for red white blue ?

LOL

 

[DavidPT]

Curious, does rwb stand for red white blue ?

I don't have a clue what the w and b stands for, but I at least know what the r stands for---Roger. Which could mean the w is the first letter of Roger's middle or last name, which could make the b the first letter of his last name if the w is the first letter of his middle name. Just an educated guess, and not that Roger needs to tell us what the w and b stand for since that would be getting a bit too personal, him revealing his entire name, assuming rwb are the initials of his entire name.

As to my username, David is obviously my first name. I then chose P and T to go along with it, since these are the first letters of my middle and last name. Without me revealing my entire name, every name I have is someone famous in the Bible. On another forum an admin on there when we were discussing Bible topics used to address me as Dave rather than David though I told him repeatedly that my mother never named me Dave, she named me David after someone famous in the Bible, and that there is no one in the Bible named Dave. I basically saw it disrespectful on his part since he continued to address me as Dave even after he knew that my mother had recently passed away, and that I told him my mother named me David after someone famous in the Bible, not Dave, someone not even mentioned in the Bible.