Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When the Bible says He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, does that mean only 1000 hills? The 1001th hill of cattle aren’t his?
The 1000 means many, not an exact number.
that is the coming of the church in power, the 2C is with the fire of revelation 20:9Plants and animals are not a concern there. This is the army that Satan raises and the entire army is destroyed just like the entire army of the beast and FP was destroyed at the second coming in Rev 19.
that is the coming of the church in power, the 2C is with the fire of revelation 20:9
Not new ones createdHere's a question or two for you. Per the flood not only did every human not aboard the ark die, so did every animal not aboard the ark die. This assuming the flood was global. Assuming it was, well there was an ark for animals to board at the time. There won't be an ark for animals to board prior to the 2nd coming though. So assuming the 2nd coming is like the flood in Noah's time where everyone not on the ark were destroyed, this would indicate the same fate happens to all of the animals on the earth when Christ returns. They too are destroyed with the wicked.
Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
Assuming one agrees this is meaning post the 2nd coming, and that one agrees literal animals in view here. My question then is. If all of the animals were destroyed with all of the wicked at the 2nd coming, the same way they were all destroyed during Noah's day, how then do animals reappear in Isaiah 65? Does God resurrect some of them? Does God create brand new ones? If either of these, where are there any Scriptures supporting this idea? But if these are not reasonable possibilties, wouldn't the only possibility left be that animals survived the 2nd coming? But how, if the entire planet is supposed to be engulfed in flames according to some interpretations of 2 Peter 3? And finally, if animals can survive, thus not be destroyed at the 2nd coming, why can't the same be true of some of the unsaved?
While it might be debatable about the flood, as to whether it was local or global, it shouldn't be debatable about what happened in Lot's day. Clearly that was local, thus not all of the wicked on the planet were also destroyed at the time. So IMO this at least shows that God can deal with some of the wicked without having to deal with all of the wicked at that particular time.
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Interestingly, Jesus used the example of Noah's day and Lot's day to make His point. Verse 29 says--- and destroyed them all. We already know it wasn't meaning every wicked person on the planet at the time. In context then, 'all' is only referring to the wicked in that particular region.
Even though I choose to conclude the flood was global in Noah's day, it then makes me wonder why Jesus would use one example here where all the wicked on the planet were destroyed at that time, assuming the flood was global, then turn right around and use another example where they weren't? This of course makes me wonder if the flood was really global after all? I just don't know for certain, yet I tend to favor it being global as opposed to regional. But it does seem like Jesus is not being constent here if in the former 'all' means all of the wicked at that time, and in the latter 'all' only means some of the wicked at that time.
Hello, it's very hard to see that the flood is local as you read from Gen 6:1-8, states that the human race wickedness was so great...verse 6, God regretted that he made human...verse 7 God said He will wipe the human race from the earth...these statements are all general statements concerning human and their habitat or the earth...thus clearly shows its a global punishment for all the inhabitants of the earth..man, animals, birds etc Gen 6:17 states that everything on earth will perish..Not if the flood wasn't global. Also, there was a very sinful incident by someone on the ark that happened after they landed so it isn't true there wasn't an unrighteous person on the ark. Same for Lot. His wife was secretly unrighteous and left with Lot, but turned around showing what was in her the whole time. And, in that story we know it isn't global so not all unrighteous people were killed. Only some were specifically targeted for death and it will be the same when Christ returns. Some will die, some will live to be ruled over by Christ and his saints.
Hello, looks like Daniel 7:11-12 and Rev 20 is after the 1000yrs reign of Christ and saints...in Daniel 10 tells us that court were seated and the BOOKS were opened...so as in Rev 20:12 ..the dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the Books...Dan 7:11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
Dan 7:12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Also in Daniel 7 the main beast is judged and cast into fire, but other beasts have their lives prolonged...these are unsaved nations who served the 4th beast in Daniel but they aren't killed but allowed to live longer. We see the same in Rev 2 and 20 concerning the unsaved nations who also served the Rev 13 beasts, and both of those beasts are cast into fire just as we see in Daniel 7 and just like we saw there, beast nations or unsaved nations are allowed to survive and live on being ruled with a rod of iron for a thousand years...their lives prolonged. It must be the same nations and people's in Daniel 7 and Rev 2 and 20 who do survive the second coming.
Not new ones created
Hello, it's very hard to see that the flood is local as you read from Gen 6:1-8, states that the human race wickedness was so great...verse 6, God regretted that he made human...verse 7 God said He will wipe the human race from the earth...these statements are all general statements concerning human and their habitat or the earth...thus clearly shows its a global punishment for all the inhabitants of the earth..man, animals, birds etc Gen 6:17 states that everything on earth will perish..
For the case of Sodom and Gomorrah the cities where God destroyed by fire is also entirety in the sense that God did not single out any part or parts of the cities but the entire cities destroyed and people except Lot and his family...So also in the second not part but the entire world..
Hello, looks like Daniel 7:11-12 and Rev 20 is after the 1000yrs reign of Christ and saints...in Daniel7: 10 tells us that court were seated and the BOOKS were opened...so as in Rev 20:12 ..the dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the Books...
So this judgement of the little horn in Daniel 7 and beast in Rev13 occurs after the 1000yrs according to Rev20:7
In Daniel 7:12 that said the beast had been stripped of their authority but we're allowed to live for a period of time...seems to match with Rev20:3 where Satan is locked and sealed in that Abyss until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time...So we can see Satan, beast and the wicked present after the 1000yrs...
I don’t see any difference. The 1000 in this case means uncountable many. Don’t see where hills or years make a difference. I think you just want the 1000 adjective to be different.Hill and years are two different things not to mention Hebrew figures of speech can't be forced upon Greek texts.
A 1000 hills are a 1000 hills. What’s the difference?A thousand years is a thousand years.
Again, you are missing the use of a metaphor and assume all mention of years means 365 days x a number. Raining “cats and dogs” means something real but not an increase of cats and dogs on the earth.The GT is 42 months, or 3.5 years...should we change that to more years to fit personal theologies? I say that's unwise.
I don’t see any difference.
The whole of the Bible is from a different language, culture and time. If everything it says is “forcing” it into English and therefore not valid it has nothing to say to us. You are cutting off the branch you sit upon.So it's fine to force something from one language, culture and time to a different language, culture and time?
So Jesus comes in a hostile forced takeover and rules as a tyrant? By force? That’s what it sounds like and I believed this for decades. Understanding Him ruling through us taking the light of the Gospel and gathering “volunteers” is a lot better, IMHO.No, that is fire from God the Father that destroys Satan's second army. Jesus returned over a thousand years before that incident in Rev 19 destroying Satan's first army, and began ruling with his saints in the first part of Rev 20.
Since the sanctuary/temple is destroyed never to be built, it’s obviously past. It was standing when John wrote it.I agree.
What is your view of the "temple/sanctuary" being measured in Revelation 11:1? Symbolic or literal?
1st century or future? or "other".
That’s what happened. Jerusalem was surrounded, that army left for no known reason and the christians all left to avoid the wrath of God coming. It’s all past.Matthew 24:1
And Jesus coming out, departed from the Temple.
And His Disciples approached Him to show to Him the buildings of the Temple.
Mark 13:1
And He going forth out of the Temple,
one of His Disciples is saying to Him “Teacher! behold! what manner of stones and what manner of buildings”
Luke 21:5
and of some saying concerning the Temple,
that to goodly stones and votive-offerings it has been adorned
Luke 19:43
That shall be arriving<2240> days upon Thee, and thy Enemies shall be casting up a rampart<5482> to Thee,
and shall be encompassing<4033> Thee, and pressing Thee every which place.
Luke 21:
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
24 “And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. [Revelation 13:10]
And Jerusalem will be trampled<3961> by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” [Revelation 11:2]
Revelation 11:
1 And was given to me a reed like-as rod saying "rouse! and measure! the Sanctuary/Temple<3485> of the God and the Altar and those worshiping in it
2 and the Court/fold<833>, without of the Sanctuary, be casting-out!<1544> out-side<1854>, and no it thou should be measuring, that it was given to the nations
and the holy City they shall be trampling<3961> forty two months. [Luke 21:24]
If you read Jesus’ threat to come if they dont shape up, he obviously has different kinds of “coming” in mind. We cannot bring on thee second coming by being naughty. That has not happened because his enemies have not been made a footstool for his feet.So you think the second coming happened in the past no one knows when it happened? That's not the second coming I have read of.
Doesn’t sound like the Kingdom of God or something God would do. I mean how nice is it to rule over the wicked? Who likes those sort of subjects? Who’d be glad to be in charge of such people?Not all the wicked are destroyed by God's wrath. Some are left to be ruled over. Many scriptures show this to be true.
When one hasnt discovered the joys of fulfilled prophesy, the excitement of any day now will suffice.Ok.... So?
But again, since it is unprovable, why do you keep pushing a post 70 argument you can't prove?
Since it can't be proven, that means a pre 70 date is at least possible, and the implications of which can't be summarily dismissed they way you hope they could, and must be dealt with actually on their merits... which is a huge thorn in the side of Futurists, who instead seem to want to hang their entire argument on "but, but, but what if...", Right?
When one hasnt discovered the joys of fulfilled prophesy, the excitement of any day now will suffice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?