The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why would God want to tabernacle with us on this cursed earth?

I can't think of any reason why He would.

He clearly makes all thing new before he does so at his coming.

Yes, that is very clearly indicated in passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Act 3
17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers also did. 18 But the things which God previously announced by the mouths of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has fulfilled in this way.

19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

Repent or perish before his coming right...?

Right.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for your "yes".

You're welcome. I hope you understood how that did not confirm your premise, that categorization does not change definition. ;)

 

[covenantee]

You're welcome. I hope you understood how that did not confirm your premise, that categorization does not change definition. ;)

Black letter categorizations require no premise.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Black letter categorizations require no premise.

The premise behind giving categories is that each category provides a different context for the *same word.* We can gather that the word itself retains its meaning, even though it is colored by the category to which a person applies it. The word "earth" means "land." Period.

 

[covenantee]

The premise behind giving categories is that each category provides a different context for the *same word.* We can gather that the word itself retains its meaning, even though it is colored by the category to which a person applies it. The word "earth" means "land." Period.

The word "earth" is a different word from the word "land".

Hence Thayer/Strong placed them in different categories.

No amount of denial changes that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The word "earth" is a different word from the word "land".

Hence Thayer/Strong placed them in different categories.

No amount of denial changes that.

I'm not denying "earth" and "land" are two different words. But in use they can be synonyms. Not all words that have synonyms have the same synonyms. "Earth" can refer to the "globe" or to the "planet."

I don't believe "earth," in this case, ie "ge," is used in the sense of a planet, because those who used the word had no concept of earth as a planet. "Ge" means earth, but not like we use "earth" in English to refer to the planet.

 

[covenantee]

I'm not denying "earth" and "land" are two different words. But in use they can be synonyms. Not all words that have synonyms have the same synonyms. "Earth" can refer to the "globe" or to the "planet."

I don't believe "earth," in this case, ie "ge," is used in the sense of a planet, because those who used the word had no concept of earth as a planet. "Ge" means earth, but not like we use "earth" in English to refer to the planet.

Category 4 specifies:

4. the earth as a whole, the world (Latinterrarumorbis);

That includes everything, all land and sea.

Distinct from just land.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Category 4 specifies:

4. the earth as a whole, the world (Latinterrarumorbis);

That includes everything, all land and sea.

Distinct from just land.

That is a very general context. A specific context can place the same meaning of the word in a local environment. For example, all the land of Israel, or all the land of the Antichristian Empire, or all the land that belongs to the wicked. It depends on context. It need not refer to the *planet.* This can easily be shown.

 

[covenantee]

That is a very general context. A specific context can place the same meaning of the word in a local environment. For example, all the land of Israel, or all the land of the Antichristian Empire, or all the land that belongs to the wicked. It depends on context. It need not refer to the *planet.* This can easily be shown.

The earth as a whole is global, not local.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The earth as a whole is global, not local.

Consider the following uses, which Thayer's views as a universal kind of usage. In use, it is a local application of a universal word.

Matthew 16:19 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Do you actually think that when someone "binds something on earth," he is binding the entire planet?

Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Here it is clear, that the universal application of "earth," as opposed to heaven, is specifying a location that is not universal, namely the places upon whom God's favor rests.

John 12:32 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

When Christ was raised from the dead, he was raised from the earth as a whole. But the meaning is confined to a specific place where this took place, namely Golgotha, or the Cross.

Acts 2:19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.

Again, the entire earth may be affected, or may experience side effects, but the application is limited to where the listed events happen. They happen across the earth, but not in places where they do not happen. It refers to places on earth where the signs of blood and fire and smoke take place. Blood will not take place on every inch, in every mile, of earth's territory. There is Antarctica, brother! ;)

 

[Timtofly]

Hold on: in your theology, this is supposed to be a glorious victorious unchallenged reign of Christ with a rod of iron over the nations in perfect submission to Him. Of course, this is not not in the Bible. It is a Premil invention. But this whole false portrayal is exposed by a complete overthrow of righteousness when billions of millennial inhabitants turn to Satan their master for succor. Billions of sinners who became sinless as soon as they entered this future millennium suddenly become the grossest and most foolish bunch of sinners ever to live as they en-mass become Satan worshipers as soon as 1,000 years is up.

So you can viciously attack the Word of God, but seem allegedly offended when people say you are wrong?

You make up way more unbiblical nonsense than secular film makers. Keep building those windmills, and knocking them down if that makes you feel better about Amil.

 

[covenantee]

Consider the following uses, which Thayer's views as a universal kind of usage.

Provide a verbatim copy/paste of the evidence that "Thayer's views as a universal kind of usage."

There is no "universal kind of usage". If there were, there would only be one category, not five.

Matthew 16:19 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Matthew 16:19 reflects the same usage as 2 Peter 3:10, and is thus in the same category 4. So is Luke 2:14.

John 12:32 and Acts 2:19 also appear in category 4.

4. the earth as a whole, the world (Latinterrarumorbis);
a. the earth as opposed to the heavens: Matthew 5:18, 35; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 2:14; John 12:32; Acts 2:19; Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 3:5, 7, 10, 13; Revelation 21:1;

Scriptures that appear in category 3, which applies to the local land that you're desperately seeking, are:

3. the main land, opposed to sea or water: Mark 4:1; Mark 6:47; Luke 5:3; Luke 8:27; John 6:21; John 21:8f, 11; Revelation 12:12.

 

[Timtofly]

Exactly. It's not called "the new earth" because it's a completely separate earth from this one. It's called the new earth because this earth will be made new.

I'm asking Truth7t7 about what he thinks it means for the meek to inherit the earth because I don't think he has thought this through fully. As an Amil it makes no sense to claim that this earth will be completely annihilated and replaced by an entirely separate "new" earth because that would make nonsense out of verses like the one that talks about the meek inheriting the earth. How can they inherit the earth if the entire earth, even to the core, is completely annihilated? They couldn't. But, they can if the earth is made new.

The earth is made new for the Millennium Kingdom.

For the New Jerusalem, there is a totally different reality. No sun or moon in the next reality. No sea either. No earthly Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is a 1200 square mile cube that comes down and sits flat on the earth. That will cover a lot of real estate.

Revelation 21

 

[WPM]

So you can viciously attack the Word of God, but seem allegedly offended when people say you are wrong?

You make up way more unbiblical nonsense than secular film makers. Keep building those windmills, and knocking them down if that makes you feel better about Amil.

I actually articulated what most Premils believe.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Where is your evidence? You come across as a wikipedia historian.

Well as I asked you first for th elinks to verify your claims, I will await you providing yours first.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Read the evidence.

I am waiting to read the info you seem to have gathered your info from. Polite and civil debaters will gladly provide the basis for their claims. Are you both of these?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Open your eyes wide, take off your Premil glasses, and you will see it.

Well you made the claim- I am asking you to provide evidence. Or were you just seeing these guys were heretics and just plugged them in hoping no one would do a cursory investigation?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Read the evidence.

I am awaiting for you to provide the evidence you made the allegations of.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So, are you saying the eschatology of heretics should be trusted?

Well everyone has some measure of correct Bible doctrine who is a heretic and even unbelievers! We look to Scripture to see what is true or false. Ghandi was an unbeliever but He believed Jesus died on a cross. should we reject that because he was Hindu?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So you can viciously attack the Word of God, but seem allegedly offended when people say you are wrong?

You make up way more unbiblical nonsense than secular film makers. Keep building those windmills, and knocking them down if that makes you feel better about Amil.

I actually articulated what most Premils believe.

No you don't. You misrepresent what many Premills believe.
Do you see how you twist the conditions existing in the Millennium in an effort to make Premills look contradictory? Premills do not indicate that mortal humanity in the Millennium is in *perfect submission.* It just indicates that will be a necessary rule by Christ over them. To rule over them assumes there is resistance--control must be *enforced.*