Who will populate the earth in the 1000 year Reign

[Josheb]

Here is the sphere of this book/prophecy:

Revelation 1:19 records John being instructed, “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.”

1. The things which thou hast seen - past
2. The things which are - present
3. The things which shall be hereafter – future

And which of them was near? Which of them was approaching, and drawing nigh?

 

[Josheb]

A "brief period of time"? That is totally relative. What, "four hours" or maybe "a day"? Some could argue that 40 years is not "a brief period of time"!!! Are we looking from God's perspective in heaven or from a man's perspective on earth?

No, we are looking from God's perspective as He disclosed it in His revelation to John. That is a very important distinction. Adjust your thinking according to the evidence.

There is nothing in the text indicating the first century reader would or should understand the text to pertain only to the 21st century reader. You most definitely have not made that case.

So exegete the "near" of Revelation 1:3 and 22:10.

 

[sovereigngrace]

No, we are looking from God's perspective as He disclosed it in His revelation to John. That is a very important distinction. Adjust your thinking according to the evidence.

Exactly! It is totally relative to who is speaking - God!

There is nothing in the text indicating the first century reader would or should understand the text to pertain only to the 21st century reader. You most definitely have not made that case.

So exegete the "near" of Revelation 1:3 and 22:10.

You are not going to tell me what to do. Your accusatory attitude does nothing to promote your doctrine, it undermines it.

Preterists make much of phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near.” They try and use them to support their belief that Jesus has already come, the last day has already occurred and that we are now living in the new heavens and new earth. But a basic understanding of "time" and "eternity" will explain what we are looking at in Scripture.

The phrase “at hand” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches” or “draws nigh.” It carries the same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal perspective, not man’s natural perspective. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

2 Peter 3:3-9 powerfully illustrates this: “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming (parousia)? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness.”

Unquestionably, the focus of this message is directed to the end-time-cynics who deny Christ, despise His Word and scorn the likelihood of His return. The near 2,000 years that has already elapsed since our Lord’s first Advent is used as a basis for their mocking. They use this supposed delay as an opportunity to propagate their foolishness. 2 Peter 3 makes clear, those that would consider this as an opportunity for scorn will be swiftly and assuredly caught in their own folly at His coming. Like the wicked locked outside the ark and the iniquitous left behind in Sodom, the end-time scoffers will be caught unexpected when the judgment arrives suddenly. These evildoers will be exposed when Christ returns and pours out His wrath upon them. That is the whole emphasis of this passage – the sudden and unanticipated destruction of the wicked at Christ’s return.

Peter warns these “last days” mockers that such a day will (1) catch them unexpected, and, (2) involve the immediate, complete and final judgment. He cites the total destruction of the unrighteous in Noah’s day as a picture and evidence of what will occur. 2 Peter 3:5-6 confirms: “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” As in Noah’s day, the wicked scoffers will be shocked when the day of the Lord overtakes them as a “thief in the night.” That seems to be the import of Peter’s argument. The fiery indignation described in this reading destroys the unrighteous and their distain at Christ’s appearing. In fact, in order for the folly of the wicked (in regard to their delusion on Christ’s coming) to be exposed and eliminated the Lord must return in fiery judgment and expose their ignorance.

You can imagine these last days cynics mocking, as the end of time approaches: “2000 years ago He said His return was ‘at hand’ or ‘near’.” “He said He was coming ‘quickly’ or ‘shortly’.” “He promised His return was imminent. But alas nothing!” “Where is He?”

Peter is simply reminding the end-time scoffers that time is absolutely nothing to the king of glory; He ultimately sits outside of time in the realm of eternity. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state. God is “from everlasting” (Habakkuk 1:12, Psalms 93:2).

In fact, Psalms 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” He “remainest for ever” (Lamentations 5:19). He “inhabiteth eternity” (Isaiah 57:15). God shall assuredly “endure forever” (Psalms 102:12) because He is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalms 41:13, 90:2). God is “the same” and His “years have no end” (Psalms 102:27), His “years shall not fail” (Hebrews 1:12) “neither can the number of his years be searched out” (Job 36:26). God is not limited to time as man is, His “years are throughout all generations” (Psalms 102:24).

Moses testifies in Psalms 90:3-5, presenting the exact same thought as that offered by Peter in 2 Peter 3:8, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.” We should carefully note, the passage doesn’t say, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as tomorrow which is yet to come’ as our Premillennialist brethren would prefer it to say, but rather, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.”

2 Peter 3:8 is simply telling us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. Moses proceeds on in the same Psalms (Psalms 90) to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told” (v 9). No wonder Moses humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (v 12) We should always bear in mind, the span of our years is as nothing to God. That’s why David declared, “Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee” (Psalms 39:5).

 

[sovereigngrace]

No, we are looking from God's perspective as He disclosed it in His revelation to John. That is a very important distinction. Adjust your thinking according to the evidence.

There is nothing in the text indicating the first century reader would or should understand the text to pertain only to the 21st century reader. You most definitely have not made that case.

So exegete the "near" of Revelation 1:3 and 22:10.

 

[Josheb]

Exactly! It is totally relative to who is speaking - God!

No, it is totally specific to Who is speaking (God). It is also totally specific to who He is speaking to (John). It is also totally specific to whom John is writing (the first centuries ekklesia).

You are not going to tell me what to do.

Nice red herring. No, I will not tell you what to do, but I will tell you what I am going to do. You can post any way you like but if you want to have a conversation then what I receive will be....


a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture,

or I won't be trading posts with you. So do please go ahead and post as you please knowing the consequences and free to choose. I hope you'll start by correctly exegeting the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and Rev. 22:10 because anything and everything else will be ignored.

 

[Josheb]

The phrase “at hand” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches” or “draws nigh.” It carries... 2 Peter 3:3-9 powerfully illustrates.....

Everything in that post relevant to the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 was all already addressed in prior posts. You're repeating content already addressed and doing nothing with what posted in reply. Argumentum ad nauseam wastes everyone's time and does not further the conversation.


Exegete the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and Rev. 22:10.

 

[sovereigngrace]

And which of them was near? Which of them was approaching, and drawing nigh?

No, it is totally specific to Who is speaking (God). It is also totally specific to who He is speaking to (John). It is also totally specific to whom John is writing (the first centuries ekklesia).




Nice red herring. No, I will not tell you what to do, but I will tell you what I am going to do. You can post any way you like but if you want to have a conversation then what I receive will be....


a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture,

or I won't be trading posts with you. So do please go ahead and post as you please knowing the consequences and free to choose. I hope you'll start by correctly exegeting the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and Rev. 22:10 because anything and everything else will be ignored.

When your theology is biblically refuted you sidestep/ignore it. I will take your ongoing continual refusal to address the rebuttals as an admission that your doctrine is unbiblical.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Everything in that post relevant to the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 was all already addressed in prior posts. You're repeating content already addressed and doing nothing with what posted in reply. Argumentum ad nauseam wastes everyone's time and does not further the conversation.


Exegete the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and Rev. 22:10.

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand [Gr. eggizō]: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

What is this talking about?

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand [Gr. eggizō]: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

What is this talking about?

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

 

[Josheb]

When your theology is biblically refuted you sidestep/ignore it. I will take your ongoing continual refusal to address the rebuttals as an admission that your doctrine is unbiblical.

You may take anything I post as you like but the posts speak for themselves. I have answered and addressed all "near"-relevant content, cited the fallacies as they occurred, noted the eisegesis and addressed it exegetically and the posts' contents prove that.

The word "near" means near. The word "engys" means a soon-occurring near. This is how the original readers in the first century would have read and understood what John wrote. The word "near" is always used to mean a soon-occurring near, especially when it is tied to some temporally marking event. There is nothing in either mention that leads us to conclude those two "nears" are not applicable to the original first century reader and 20 centuries of Christians but was intended solely for Christians in the 21st century (or beyond). If and when we read the rest of Revelation within the context of the opening and concluding "near" we understand Revelation completely differently than if we do otherwise.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You may take anything I post as you like but the posts speak for themselves. I have answered and addressed all "near"-relevant content, cited the fallacies as they occurred, noted the eisegesis and addressed it exegetically and the posts' contents prove that.

The word "near" means near. The word "engys" means a soon-occurring near. This is how the original readers in the first century would have read and understood what John wrote. The word "near" is always used to mean a soon-occurring near, especially when it is tied to some temporally marking event. There is nothing in either mention that leads us to conclude those two "nears" are not applicable to the original first century reader and 20 centuries of Christians but was intended solely for Christians in the 21st century (or beyond). If and when we read the rest of Revelation within the context of the opening and concluding "near" we understand Revelation completely differently than if we do otherwise.

Since when is "soon-occurring near" 40 years? That is far off in earthly terms.

 

[Josheb]

Since when is "soon-occurring near" 40 years? That is far off in earthly terms.

The book of Revelation was written just a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Once again you've got some crazy idea that bears no integrity with reality, and certainly no integrity with the scriptures themselves.

It was long thought Revelation was dated much later based on 1) a mention in Irenaeus' writings dating the book and 2) the practice of liberal theologians to assign it to the time of Domitian. Increasing amounts of archeological evidence and literary analysis have incrementally moved the date back to the late 60s. This has been true of NT epistolary and probably at least two of the gospels and the book of Acts. This is why there is no mention of James,' Paul's or Peter's having died. Their deaths would most certainly have been very important to the first century church. Tradition holds Paul preached the gospel in Caesar's courts. There's no actual evidence of this but if true that would certainly have been noteworthy to the apostles. Most importantly, had Jerusalem been destroyed prior to the writing of the history, epistolary and revelation of Revelation it most certainly would have been mentioned.

The book of Revelation was penned and distributed in the late 60s, perhaps two to four years before the destruction of Jerusalem, not forty. Forty years earlier Jesus had told his disciples no one in the generation of his first century audience would know the day or time but it would happen in "this generation." Jesus did not say "that generation;" he said "this generation," and like the "engys" of Rev. 1:3 and 22:1 the conjugation of the "this generation" cannot be made to mean anything other than the generation of his audience to whom he was speaking as he looked them in their faces and answered the three-part question they'd asked. The conjugation of "this generation" is near demonstrative. The near demonstrative conjugation cannot be made to mean "2000 years from now."

Look it up.

Look

it

up.


Don't just look up Matthew 24; look up the near demonstrative conjugation.

The "near" of Revelation 1:3 and Revelation 22:10 was not written with a forty year time frame in mind. It was written with a few years of time in mind.




I'm going to move on because I don't read any evidence what I'm posting is not being given any authentic consideration. Before I do I'd like to leave you with one last thought. Contemporary Dispensational Premillennialists are constantly saying the rapture is near, the tribulation is near, Jesus' return is near. They are constantly being proven incorrect! Their use of near is intended to mean near but it never actually does mean near. Teachers like David Jeremiah, Hal Lindsay, Michael Oxentenko, Jack Hibbs, John Hagee, and others can be heard to say they believe Jesus will return in their lifetime. Hal Lindsay is 90 years old! John Hagee is 79. David Jeremiah is 78. If these men live to be 100 (unlikely) then we can expect to see the Second Coming within the next 10 to thirty years (or sooner).

Do any of you here actually expect all of the event DPism predicts to happen in the next 10 to 30 years? Is that enough time for all of the geopolitical occurrences to happen? For another temple to be built and sacrifices restarted? Possibly. Likely?

So these men are going to die having taught falsely. Their "near" was untrue. They died having taught falsely, no one held them accountable and after they are dead it's too late. No one held Chuck Smith accountable for his false predictions in the late 60s and 70s. No one held John Walvoord, the president of a seminary! accountable for his false predictions. No one held Hal Lindsay or any of the others accountable for their false predictions. The stopped date setting but they did not stop time frame setting.

Dispensational Premillennialism breeds false teachers. It breeds a lack of accountability. No other eschatology does so. DPism is a corrupt eschatology in both content and consequence.

You and I can argue over the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 and while we do so everyone is ignoring the abuse of an ordinary everyday definition of "near" broadcast on Christian radio every day. You won't take the near of Revelation literally but you will take the near of modern prognosticators literally.

Please think about this.

 

[Josheb]

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand [Gr. eggizō]: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

What is this talking about?

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand [Gr. eggizō]: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

What is this talking about?

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

Fail. Luke 21:28 is engizei, not eggizo nor engys. Romans 13:12, 1 Peter 4:7 and James 5:8 are is engiken, not eggizo nor engys. Hebrews 10:25 is engizousan, not eggizo nor engys.

Aside from the differences in conjugation each exhortation is written directed to the first century church about something they were to expect to see or experience. You've proven my point, not your own! "Near" means near. That's how the first century church would have understood it and it is that way uniformly throughout scripture.

The response, "He didn't mean it literally fails."

Luke, Paul, Peter, James, and the author of Hebrews did mean it literally. Take them at their word. Step out in faith and trust them.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The book of Revelation was written just a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Once again you've got some crazy idea that bears no integrity with reality, and certainly no integrity with the scriptures themselves.

It was long thought Revelation was dated much later based on 1) a mention in Irenaeus' writings dating the book and 2) the practice of liberal theologians to assign it to the time of Domitian. Increasing amounts of archeological evidence and literary analysis have incrementally moved the date back to the late 60s. This has been true of NT epistolary and probably at least two of the gospels and the book of Acts. This is why there is no mention of James,' Paul's or Peter's having died. Their deaths would most certainly have been very important to the first century church. Tradition holds Paul preached the gospel in Caesar's courts. There's no actual evidence of this but if true that would certainly have been noteworthy to the apostles. Most importantly, had Jerusalem been destroyed prior to the writing of the history, epistolary and revelation of Revelation it most certainly would have been mentioned.

The book of Revelation was penned and distributed in the late 60s, perhaps two to four years before the destruction of Jerusalem, not forty. Forty years earlier Jesus had told his disciples no one in the generation of his first century audience would know the day or time but it would happen in "this generation." Jesus did not say "that generation;" he said "this generation," and like the "engys" of Rev. 1:3 and 22:1 the conjugation of the "this generation" cannot be made to mean anything other than the generation of his audience to whom he was speaking as he looked them in their faces and answered the three-part question they'd asked. The conjugation of "this generation" is near demonstrative. The near demonstrative conjugation cannot be made to mean "2000 years from now."

Look it up.

Look

it

up.


Don't just look up Matthew 24; look up the near demonstrative conjugation.

The "near" of Revelation 1:3 and Revelation 22:10 was not written with a forty year time frame in mind. It was written with a few years of time in mind.




I'm going to move on because I don't read any evidence what I'm posting is not being given any authentic consideration. Before I do I'd like to leave you with one last thought. Contemporary Dispensational Premillennialists are constantly saying the rapture is near, the tribulation is near, Jesus' return is near. They are constantly being proven incorrect! Their use of near is intended to mean near but it never actually does mean near. Teachers like David Jeremiah, Hal Lindsay, Michael Oxentenko, Jack Hibbs, John Hagee, and others can be heard to say they believe Jesus will return in their lifetime. Hal Lindsay is 90 years old! John Hagee is 79. David Jeremiah is 78. If these men live to be 100 (unlikely) then we can expect to see the Second Coming within the next 10 to thirty years (or sooner).

Do any of you here actually expect all of the event DPism predicts to happen in the next 10 to 30 years? Is that enough time for all of the geopolitical occurrences to happen? For another temple to be built and sacrifices restarted? Possibly. Likely?

So these men are going to die having taught falsely. Their "near" was untrue. They died having taught falsely, no one held them accountable and after they are dead it's too late. No one held Chuck Smith accountable for his false predictions in the late 60s and 70s. No one held John Walvoord, the president of a seminary! accountable for his false predictions. No one held Hal Lindsay or any of the others accountable for their false predictions. The stopped date setting but they did not stop time frame setting.

Dispensational Premillennialism breeds false teachers. It breeds a lack of accountability. No other eschatology does so. DPism is a corrupt eschatology in both content and consequence.

You and I can argue over the "near" of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 and while we do so everyone is ignoring the abuse of an ordinary everyday definition of "near" broadcast on Christian radio every day. You won't take the near of Revelation literally but you will take the near of modern prognosticators literally.

Please think about this.

Revelation was written a lot later. This is all a Preterist theory to sustain their belief.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Fail. Luke 21:28 is engizei, not eggizo nor engys. Romans 13:12, 1 Peter 4:7 and James 5:8 are is engiken, not eggizo nor engys. Hebrews 10:25 is engizousan, not eggizo nor engys.

Aside from the differences in conjugation each exhortation is written directed to the first century church about something they were to expect to see or experience. You've proven my point, not your own! "Near" means near. That's how the first century church would have understood it and it is that way uniformly throughout scripture.

The response, "He didn't mean it literally fails."

Luke, Paul, Peter, James, and the author of Hebrews did mean it literally. Take them at their word. Step out in faith and trust them.

Your constant avoidance shows your position is untenable.

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand [Gr. eggizō]: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

What is this talking about?

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand [Gr. eggizō]: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

What is this talking about?

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh [Gr. eggizō].

What is this talking about?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Fail. Luke 21:28 is engizei, not eggizo nor engys. Romans 13:12, 1 Peter 4:7 and James 5:8 are is engiken, not eggizo nor engys. Hebrews 10:25 is engizousan, not eggizo nor engys.

Aside from the differences in conjugation each exhortation is written directed to the first century church about something they were to expect to see or experience. You've proven my point, not your own! "Near" means near. That's how the first century church would have understood it and it is that way uniformly throughout scripture.

The response, "He didn't mean it literally fails."

Luke, Paul, Peter, James, and the author of Hebrews did mean it literally. Take them at their word. Step out in faith and trust them.

You need to re-check your facts.