The Church Is The Israel Of God, Children Of The Promised Seed

[Timtofly]

Clearly, this is the remnant of the army gathered together under all kings of the earth: all nations will have some fighting in that battle to be destroyed by the brightness of His coming.

After the beast and false prophet are defeated, then the remnant gathered together against Him will be slain.

This is not the remnant of all people on earth, but only the remnant of the whole army of earth: even as their remained a remnant of Egyptians on earth, after the whole army and king of Egypt was slain in the sea.

Not so fast. Who was called to Armageddon? Revelation 16:14-16

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he (God) gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

Revelation 19:18

"That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great."

No one is left behind at Armageddon. Those gathering at Armageddon are the only remnant left of Adam's flesh and blood. All other souls have already been harvested years before Armageddon.

 

[Moriah's Song]

Jesus Christ fulfilled the promises and covenant made to Abraham, the Church is the Israel of God, children of the promised seed, it's that simple

Great topic truth!

A bond of life and death was established between God and man after the fall into sin. The Lord sovereignly committed himself to establish enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of Satan (Genesis 3:15). This divine commitment set the stage of a life-and-death struggle between God's people and Satan's people. Yet, God's bond with fallen man resulted in life for the seed of the woman, and death for the seed of Satan. Lest we forget that Satan does have his army and is alive and doing well - but limited due to the cross.

 

[robert derrick]

Not so fast. Who was called to Armageddon? Revelation 16:14-16

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he (God) gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

Revelation 19:18

"That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great."

No one is left behind at Armageddon. Those gathering at Armageddon are the only remnant left of Adam's flesh and blood. All other souls have already been harvested years before Armageddon.

Another fine effort indeed.

the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Here we have kings of the whole world, not the whole world of inhabitants.

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

And once again, the flesh of all men that are gathered together for war.

And so, in this case, it could go either way in the reading. So now show how He shall rule over them after destroying them.

Those gathering at Armageddon are the only remnant left of Adam's flesh and blood. All other souls have already been harvested years before Armageddon.

How do you prove the harvest resurrection prior to this time?

The Scripture of the Lord as the thief in the night following the round up to battle, shows how there will still be saints on earth at this time, since that verse is always a warning to His church, and never to the unconfessed strangers of the earth.

 

[ewq1938]

God's kingdom come is first spiritual in physical bodies on earth, and then physical in resurrected spiritual bodies on earth.

Amen.

 

[Timtofly]

Another fine effort indeed.

the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Here we have kings of the whole world, not the whole world of inhabitants.

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

And once again, the flesh of all men that are gathered together for war.

And so, in this case, it could go either way in the reading. So now show how He shall rule over them after destroying them.

Those gathering at Armageddon are the only remnant left of Adam's flesh and blood. All other souls have already been harvested years before Armageddon.

How do you prove the harvest resurrection prior to this time?

The Scripture of the Lord as the thief in the night following the round up to battle, shows how there will still be saints on earth at this time, since that verse is always a warning to His church, and never to the unconfessed strangers of the earth.

How did God rule over humans after the Flood?

Do you think they all came from Noah and his 3 sons, or was there a remnant of the wicked somewhere else on earth? God can accomplish a lot in1,000 years. That "remnant" you are looking for are the 144k, the sheep from Matthew 25, and the wheat from Matthew 13. This is God's handpicked firstfruits to multiply during the Millennium like Noah's offspring multiplied after the Flood.

 

[GEN2REV]

The Bible does not literally have to claim any future time, yet time still happens. Peole are not building a doctrine. People are just pointing out John states a literal 1,000 years.

Uh no. Sorry, but the doctrine is false and it is being built, or founded on, those 7 verses in Rev. Nothing about the fact that John says he sees it in a vision while in the spirit makes it literal. AND, it completely contradicts all of the other eschatological passages that claim:

1. the earth will be destroyed at Christ's return (thus no ANY NUMBER of years upon a physical earth thereafter)
2. it is the end of the world (no more world going forward in time for all that Pre-Mils claim takes place during the Millennium time period - including the 2nd Resurrection and Punishment of the devil and all sinners at the end.)
3. sinners and all wickedness will be destroyed upon Christ's return.

Amil have a doctrine stating the 1,000 years is indefinite, it could be any time in the past and some even claim it happens in the NHNE. That is creating doctrine.

ZERO Amils claim the 1,000 years happens in the New Heaven and New Earth. That is fundamentally against the entire concept of Amillennialism.

Sounds like you've bitten off a bit more than you can chew with this concept. Study up a bit more to understand what the basic beliefs are of each side. Amillennialism has the words 'there will be no 1,000 year period' right there in the name. That's what a millennia is, a 1,000 year period of time.

Doctrine is what men teach over and above what is stated, and doctrine usually changes a passage, or takes a passage out of context.

Where are you getting all this from? Are you just making this up as you go along?

Doctrine is absolutely not what you defined it as. Sound doctrine is taught directly from scripture, with all points being traced back to the Bible, and the verses therein. What you are describing is False Doctrine.

Goodness gracious.

Pre-mill are literally the only readers who literally take the passage as written and as happening between Armageddon and the GWT.

Pre-mils are literally the only readers who 100% ignore the abundance of scripture that contradicts their man-made doctrine, that is constructed over and above what scripture actually teaches - just as you put it.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture is not necessarily forming a doctrine. Although all doctrine is formed by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Of course doctrine can be formed from one verse, but harder to defend. Pre-mill has nothing to defend. Are you saying John was wrong? Only John can defend his own writings, pre-mill don't have to, not their responsibility. Pre-mill did not write the book of Revelation, John did.

Anybody can create doctrine out of anything they like. For it to be sound doctrine, there is a standard. It must coincide with the weight of scripture as a whole.
2 Timothy 4:3

Was John wrong? Nope. He saw exactly what he claims he saw. Does that mean we will see a massive statue made of different materials from head to toe and a massive rock will blast it to smithereens before our eyes on the last day? Yep, it's exactly the same thing as the Millennial doctrine. I could make up a doctrine based on the statue of the kingdoms and find little bits of scripture here and there to support the nonsense idea and start a massive movement based on absolute nonsense that would not line up with plain scripture about the end times events spoken of by Jesus Christ.

And, for the record, Daniel saw what he saw as well, but Jesus wasn't dreaming, or in vision or in the spirit when He foretold what would happen on the Last Day of the world and what He foretold lines up perfectly with multiple other scriptures, all of which completely contradict Millennium doctrine.

This argument that you need true doctrine is nonsense.

Very unusual opinion.

So explain how all eschatology can be true if there are a smorgasbord of different doctrines competing to be heard?

I just did above. When they all coincide, that is how sound doctrine is established.

That is exactly why God made the Bible have multiple authors, from multiple time periods. So that the information that they presented that lined up with other prophets from other time periods could be confirmed as God's Word.

Sound Doctrine cannot be established from just one verse, or small passage in scripture, without having corroborating scripture to back it up - nor when it is contradicted by much of the Bible.

Plain and simple.

 

[GEN2REV]

Until you accurately show who 'them' is in Rev 19, you're doctrine is false.
And if you do accurately admit who 'them', then you may discard your false doctrine.

What difference would it make if I "accurately showed" anything?

I "accurately showed" what scripture says about it in Acts 1:12.

You don't care. You guys couldn't care less.

Same Shtuff, Different Day. (SSDD)

You guys hold your breath until I do exactly as you say.

 

[GEN2REV]

Daniel 12:5-10

"Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

Daniel admitted he heard "time, times, and a half", but he did not understand. Who would understand, and when then?

You claim there is no other verse, but there is in Daniel 12:7. But you will not take my word for it, but keep making excuses. You cannot prove otherwise what this verse says, but perhaps in your private thoughts, or you have no opinion at all. No one until the end times could explain this verse, because even Daniel admitted he did not understand. Which is probably the wise choice, unless one does actually understand.

Well it's a good thing we've got you here to straighten us out on it.

I go with scripture. That's what God intended.

 

[Timtofly]

1. the earth will be destroyed at Christ's return (thus no ANY NUMBER of years upon a physical earth thereafter)
2. it is the end of the world (no more world going forward in time for all that Pre-Mils claim takes place during the Millennium time period - including the 2nd Resurrection and Punishment of the devil and all sinners at the end.)
3. sinners and all wickedness will be destroyed upon Christ's return.

ZERO Amils claim the 1,000 years happens in the New Heaven and New Earth. That is fundamentally against the entire concept of Amillennialism.

Give me one verse where the earth will stop existing at the Second Coming.

Have you met every single Amil on the planet?

 

[Moriah's Song]

The Scripture of the Lord as the thief in the night following the round up to battle, shows how there will still be saints on earth at this time, since that verse is always a warning to His church, and never to the unconfessed strangers of the earth.

Would your explain in more detail what you mean by...."there will be saints on the earth at this time"...and "never to the unconfessed stangers of the earth"?

- at what "time" are you referring to?
- in "unconfessed strangers" are you referring to those left behind in a pre-mil "rapture?​

What has this got to do with the OP titled "The Israel of God - Children of the Promised Seed"?

 

[GEN2REV]

Give me one verse where the earth will stop existing at the Second Coming. Have you met every single Amil on the planet?

I think this comment of yours sufficiently sums up our conversation.

This argument that you need true doctrine is nonsense.

God bless.

 

[robert derrick]

What difference would it make if I "accurately showed" anything?

I "accurately showed" what scripture says about it in Acts 1:12.

You don't care. You guys couldn't care less.

Same Shtuff, Different Day. (SSDD)

You guys hold your breath until I do exactly as you say.

You guys hold your breath until I do exactly as you say.

Not really. I grew up a long time ago. I don't really care if someone agrees with me or not, but only if they can either correct or add to the teaching.

Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Rev 19:15 is the nail in the coffin of your teaching. Rev 2:27 confirms it.

You made a fair effort to respond to it, and for a moment I had to take you seriously, and told you so, but it was inadequate, and so you have apparently backed off without willing to be corrected.

Another fellow of your learning did try to respond, and did show me I needed to rethink my original statement, that 'them' is the one word that rebukes your teaching. There are two: 'rule' and 'them'.

I was glad he did so.

And so, until you can adequately explain an alternative to what and who 'shall rule them' means, then the obvious and simple answer is them not destroyed on earth shall be ruled by the Lord and His saints with rod of iron.

All other points are side-show disputes that can be interesting, but proves nothing.

 

[robert derrick]

How did God rule over humans after the Flood?

Do you think they all came from Noah and his 3 sons, or was there a remnant of the wicked somewhere else on earth? God can accomplish a lot in1,000 years. That "remnant" you are looking for are the 144k, the sheep from Matthew 25, and the wheat from Matthew 13. This is God's handpicked firstfruits to multiply during the Millennium like Noah's offspring multiplied after the Flood.

That "remnant" you are looking for are the 144k, the sheep from Matthew 25, and the wheat from Matthew 13.

Very interesting. You know there will be a millennial reign on earth, but your only objection is who 'them' will be that the Lord shall rule?

So, you don't believe all inhabitors of earth will be destroyed? Or you do, but the sheep will come 'from elsewhere', being the 144k?

I'll need you to explain that some more: The sheep are not remnant inhabitors of the earth? The 144k are not the resurrected saints?

Where do they come from?

Your reference to the food is appropriate, because Jesus likens the manner of His second coming with the flood.

However, His coming from the air and the flood were only similar in that it is swift and catching them unawares on earth:

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.

The flood came suddenly in a rush and caught the wicked unawares, and so shall be the second coming of the Lord.

or was there a remnant of the wicked somewhere else on earth?

No, there wasn't. The remnant was not of the wicked but of the good only.

Do you think they all came from Noah and his 3 sons.

No, they didn't. Not by themselves at least. It was from the sons and their wives. Even as man's lineage began with 2, Adam and Eve. Also, old Noah was still going strong with his wife, which foreshadows the great ages of Abraham and Sarah:

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

So, the flood is not an example of all on earth be destroyed, nor of God replenishing the earth by 'other means' than the good remnant of the slaughter.

God can accomplish a lot in 1,000 years.

So can man that He blesses, including replenish the earth, which already happened twice, and how much more so with Him Personally ruling over them with His resurrected saints.

That remnant are indeed the sheep that were good neighborly sinners, without being believers in Jesus Christ, which is true all over the world.

They do not gather with the armies of the devilish kings of the earth to actually try and fight against the Lord and His glorified saints from the air.

Talk about a nonstarter.

 

[GEN2REV]

You guys hold your breath until I do exactly as you say.

Not really. I grew up a long time ago. I don't really care if someone agrees with me or not, but only if they can either correct or add to the teaching.

Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Rev 19:15 is the nail in the coffin of your teaching. Rev 2:27 confirms it.

You made a fair effort to respond to it, and for a moment I had to take you seriously, and told you so, but it was inadequate, and so you have apparently backed off without willing to be corrected.

Another fellow of your learning did try to respond, and did show me I needed to rethink my original statement, that 'them' is the one word that rebukes your teaching. There are two: 'rule' and 'them'.

I was glad he did so.

And so, until you can adequately explain an alternative to what and who 'shall rule them' means, then the obvious and simple answer is them not destroyed on earth shall be ruled by the Lord and His saints with rod of iron.

All other points are side-show disputes that can be interesting, but proves nothing.

A whole lot of yammer, but saying nothing.

You, alone, are claiming that a single verse of scripture dismantles many other verses to the contrary. I have no need to correct everyone. Only to convey Truth and allow God to do the rest.

Your argument is nonsense to me, that is why I don't care to pursue it further. All of the information I have presented on the subject in this thread is way more than enough for a reasonable person to see their folly in your current pursuit. Believe whatever you like. Your position is woefully desolate of scriptural support. That's why you've latched onto it like a pit bull that literally can't let go of its prize.

You feel empowered to have found a single verse that you've twisted to mean something it doesn't even mean.

Thus the admonishment:
2 Timothy 4:3

God bless.

 

[Timtofly]

I think this comment of yours sufficiently sums up our conversation.


God bless.

So your point is GEN2REV has no verse for any doctrine, yet calls this doctrine his without any Scriptural support. That sums up your side of the conversation.

 

[robert derrick]

A whole lot of yammer, but saying nothing.

You, alone, are claiming that a single verse of scripture dismantles many other verses to the contrary. I have no need to correct everyone. Only to convey Truth and allow God to do the rest.

Your argument is nonsense to me, that is why I don't care to pursue it further. All of the information I have presented on the subject in this thread is way more than enough for a reasonable person to see their folly in your current pursuit. Believe whatever you like. Your position is woefully desolate of scriptural support. That's why you've latched onto it like a pit bull that literally can't let go of its prize.

You feel empowered to have found a single verse that you've twisted to mean something it doesn't even mean.

Thus the admonishment:
2 Timothy 4:3

God bless.

A whole lot of yammer, but saying nothing.

You are yammering, but are saying very much indeed about yourself.

You, alone, are claiming that a single verse of scripture dismantles many other verses to the contrary.

True, which shows the teaching of those verses are being read contrary to what they are saying.

All of the information I have presented on the subject in this thread is way more than enough for a reasonable person to see their folly in your current pursuit.

A reasonable person such as myself would be glad to agree, so long as you provide a reasonable alternative to the plain reading of that single Scripture, which you tried to do but failed, and then worse still, refuse to be corrected.

Your position is woefully desolate of scriptural support. That's why you've latched onto it like a pit bull that literally can't let go of its prize.

Your failure in the argument of that single verse of Scripture, is also why you now twist the challenge into something it isn't:

The teaching of Christ's rule on earth with His resurrected saints is not by one Scripture alone, but by the reasonable reading of an abundance of OT and NT prophecies.

The Scripture I speak of merely further confirms them. But as a single verse of Scripture, I offer it as the one sound refute to your teaching, that must be answered, if that Scripture is not to be nullified as written.

I do not rely on that Scripture as the proof of His reign, but only as the proof your teaching is false.

You feel empowered to have found a single verse that you've twisted to mean something it doesn't even mean.

By your outburst, you are obviously feeling some heat from that 'power', which I say is the truth of all Scripture together, without any single Scripture plainly saying otherwise.

You tried to show that single Scripture doesn't mean what it plainly says, and I applauded your effort to do so with other Scripture, but it unfortunately fell short. If you had been correct, then I would need be corrected and go back and review all other Scriptures in that light.

You are not of the same mind. You'd rather stick with your own idea, and allow a scripture or two to be mangled or dismissed out of hand.

I do know what it is like to have a near lifetime of 'knowledge' of Scripture corrected by another with Scriptural proof, but the fruit from that heap of fallen rubbish has been far better than the blow to my pride. You apparently will never know this great blessing.

Only to convey Truth and allow God to do the rest.

You have done so, but I say you do not allow God to do His part, and correct you by another with one single Scripture of truth.

that is why I don't care to pursue it further.

Agreed.

 

[GEN2REV]

A whole lot of yammer, but saying nothing.

You are yammering, but are saying very much indeed about yourself.

You, alone, are claiming that a single verse of scripture dismantles many other verses to the contrary.

True, which shows the teaching of those verses are being read contrary to what they are saying.

All of the information I have presented on the subject in this thread is way more than enough for a reasonable person to see their folly in your current pursuit.

A reasonable person such as myself would be glad to agree, so long as you provide a reasonable alternative to the plain reading of that single Scripture, which you tried to do but failed, and then worse still, refuse to be corrected.

Your position is woefully desolate of scriptural support. That's why you've latched onto it like a pit bull that literally can't let go of its prize.

Your failure in the argument of that single verse of Scripture, is also why you now twist the challenge into something it isn't:

The teaching of Christ's rule on earth with His resurrected saints is not by one Scripture alone, but by the reasonable reading of an abundance of OT and NT prophecies.

The Scripture I speak of merely further confirms them. But as a single verse of Scripture, I offer it as the one sound refute to your teaching, that must be answered, if that Scripture is not to be nullified as written.

I do not rely on that Scripture as the proof of His reign, but only as the proof your teaching is false.

You feel empowered to have found a single verse that you've twisted to mean something it doesn't even mean.

By your outburst, you are obviously feeling some heat from that 'power', which I say is the truth of all Scripture together, without any single Scripture plainly saying otherwise.

You tried to show that single Scripture doesn't mean what it plainly says, and I applauded your effort to do so with other Scripture, but it unfortunately fell short. If you had been correct, then I would need be corrected and go back and review all other Scriptures in that light.

You are not of the same mind. You'd rather stick with your own idea, and allow a scripture or two to be mangled or dismissed out of hand.

I do know what it is like to have a near lifetime of 'knowledge' of Scripture corrected by another with Scriptural proof, but the fruit from that heap of fallen rubbish has been far better than the blow to my pride. You apparently will never know this great blessing.

Only to convey Truth and allow God to do the rest.

You have done so, but I say you do not allow God to do His part, and correct you by another with one single Scripture of truth.

that is why I don't care to pursue it further.

Agreed.

You're arguing against the doctrine of Amillennialism.

You have not presented anything that refutes it.

That's all that's taking place here contrary to your efforts to make much ado about nothing.

 

[GEN2REV]

So your point is GEN2REV has no verse for any doctrine, yet calls this doctrine his without any Scriptural support. That sums up your side of the conversation.

Whatever you so eloquently say.

You win. ;)

 

[Timtofly]

That "remnant" you are looking for are the 144k, the sheep from Matthew 25, and the wheat from Matthew 13.

Very interesting. You know there will be a millennial reign on earth, but your only objection is who 'them' will be that the Lord shall rule?

So, you don't believe all inhabitors of earth will be destroyed? Or you do, but the sheep will come 'from elsewhere', being the 144k?

I'll need you to explain that some more: The sheep are not remnant inhabitors of the earth? The 144k are not the resurrected saints?

Where do they come from?

Your reference to the food is appropriate, because Jesus likens the manner of His second coming with the flood.

However, His coming from the air and the flood were only similar in that it is swift and catching them unawares on earth:

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.

The flood came suddenly in a rush and caught the wicked unawares, and so shall be the second coming of the Lord.

or was there a remnant of the wicked somewhere else on earth?

No, there wasn't. The remnant was not of the wicked but of the good only.

Do you think they all came from Noah and his 3 sons.

No, they didn't. Not by themselves at least. It was from the sons and their wives. Even as man's lineage began with 2, Adam and Eve. Also, old Noah was still going strong with his wife, which foreshadows the great ages of Abraham and Sarah:

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

So, the flood is not an example of all on earth be destroyed, nor of God replenishing the earth by 'other means' than the good remnant of the slaughter.

God can accomplish a lot in 1,000 years.

So can man that He blesses, including replenish the earth, which already happened twice, and how much more so with Him Personally ruling over them with His resurrected saints.

That remnant are indeed the sheep that were good neighborly sinners, without being believers in Jesus Christ, which is true all over the world.

They do not gather with the armies of the devilish kings of the earth to actually try and fight against the Lord and His glorified saints from the air.

Talk about a nonstarter.

Do you ever wonder why the angels are physically on earth, physically pulling souls out of physical bodies? Why not just do it the same as now? The sea of glass is a physical symbolism of some place these souls with new permanent incorruptible physical bodies wait until after the battle of Armageddon. An angel physically escorts them, no? The wheat is gathered into the barn, no? The sea of glass is the same place as the barn symbolizes.

Isaiah 65 indicates a new heaven and earth. No more sin, so no more sinful flesh and blood. The wheat represents all nations. The sheep represents Israel. The 144k are the disciples during the period after the Second Coming.

Noah started out on a new heaven and earth, because the former was destroyed. For one, the water above the firmament was now on the earth, instead of separated by the firmament. The earth was changed because the fountains of the deep came up through the earth, splitting the earth itself. There were only 8 people, and none of the wicked left on earth.

So you take the Second Coming as like Noah, but not like Noah, suiting your theology? Like Noah would mean no one with Adam's dead corruptible flesh and blood survive the destruction coming. The destruction happens before things are made new. 2 Peter 3 explains what happens, with the baptism of fire.

The difference with the Second Coming with Noah is that God redeems more than just 8 souls, but all those starting out alive after Satan is bound are redeemed. They all have new permanent incorruptible physical bodies. There is no sin, nor any bondage of humanity and the earth to the effects of sin and decay. It will be the earth again like before Adam disobeyed God in the Garden. It will not be same earth like the last 6,000 years.

You all can argue about a temple, an alter, and sacrifices all you want. There is also a temple and alter in heaven without sin and death in heaven. Jesus having one on earth, will not be the old law given on Sinai. It will be part of the iron rod rule for the next 1,000 years. Getting too bogged down into the specifics of the Millennium is not productive. We as sinners in Adam's flesh and blood are too biased with knowing good and evil, black and white, even with grey areas called grace. The Millennium will be void of the knowledge of good and evil. No one will be eating from that tree. And no one alive will still have Adam's dead corruptible flesh and blood. Those 8 souls were not spiritually changed at the Flood. They still carried on Adam's fallen nature. All humanity will be changed at the Second Coming who live on in the Millennium. That is the only way to still be alive during the Millennium. Being changed is the "ark" experience.

 

[Moriah's Song]

How did God rule over humans after the Flood?

Do you think they all came from Noah and his 3 sons, or was there a remnant of the wicked somewhere else on earth? God can accomplish a lot in1,000 years. That "remnant" you are looking for are the 144k, the sheep from Matthew 25, and the wheat from Matthew 13. This is God's handpicked firstfruits to multiply during the Millennium like Noah's offspring multiplied after the Flood.

1- How did God rule over humans after the flood? God sent the flood to judge the world at that time of heinous, continual, worldwide sin. Yes, He knew that the flood would not eradicate the sin problem and that mankind would remain sinful after the flood. But God was not done dealing with sin. He sent His Son into the world to disarm the powers of evil and make “a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15). Because of Christ, the new heaven and new earth are promised (Revelation 21:1), and “no longer will there be any curse” (Revelation 22:3).

2- Do you think they all came from Noah and his 3 sons,...yes, just like Adam and Eve populated the earth from their own children - which were many.

3- ...or was there a remnant of the wicked somewhere else on earth? No! Evil was, and still is a part of humanity until Christ does away with all of it.

4- ...That "remnant" you are looking for are the 144k, the sheep from Matthew 25, and the wheat from Matthew 13....No they are not! There is not ONE hint of a 144,000 sheep or wheat anywhere in Matthew.

Definition of eisegesis (Wikipedia): Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it.​

If we all did that to scripture, how many different "heresies" like yours come out of scripture. How would you know truth if everyone did what you just did to scripture! Try preaching that one out to Jesus!

5- This is God's handpicked firstfruits to multiply during the Millennium...un NO! It is more like Tim's very vivid imagination that will be burnt along with the other false doctrinces like this.