22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Truth7t7]

Zechariah 14:2-3 says, “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.”

Paul the Apostle outlines this fact, when speaking of the Jews and the impending wrath of God on the nation of Israel, in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”

Your claim Zechariah 14:2-3 represents 70AD Jerusalem is a "Farce"

Zechariah 14:1 clearly tells the reader "The Day Of The Lord Cometh" a "Future" event unfulfilled

WPM you want to have literal 70AD destruction of Jerusalem, what you going to do with the "Literal" second coming seen in Zechariah 14:4 below, put some phony 2,000 year gap, or symbolize it away into a dark cloud behind the leaders curtain in the kingdom of Oz

Preterist Reformed Eschatology Is A Farce, Full Of False Claims In 70AD Fulfillment

A "claimed" 70AD literal event in Zechariah 14-2-3?

That's Impossible because the "Future" Literal Second Coming is Seen In Zechariah 14:4 below

Zechariah 14:4KJV
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.

 

[covenantee]

We are talking about the technique of Hermeneutics. I think I can say without question that there are cloudy passages that are informed by clear ones. But, and this is the point, I can't assume, from the outset that 1) all the clear passages are in the NT, 2) all the cloudy passages are in the OT, 3) cloudy OT passages MUST be clarified by NT passages, 4) that clarification must be found elsewhere in the Bible rather than, say new archeological information. I definitely can't argue that a particular NT passage clarifies a particular OT passage if the alleged clarification makes no sense within the broader context of established Biblical themes.

In my experience, many of the so-called "clarifications" of the OT are actually misinterpretations of both the NT passage and the OT passage. For this reason, one should guard against both. One can not claim to have clarified the OT by using the NT unless one has properly interpreted the NT.

You mention "new archeological information". What about "new and old recognized scientific information" in general?

 

[Truth7t7]

You mention "new archeological information". What about "new and old recognized scientific information" in general?

Who controls this "Recognized Scientific Information" God fearing Spirit filled believers?

 

[covenantee]

Who controls this "Recognized Scientific Information" God fearing Spirit filled believers?

2H2 + O2 → 2H2O is recognized scientific information.

Is 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O controlled by "God fearing Spirit filled believers"?

 

[Truth7t7]

2H2 + O2 → 2H2O is recognized scientific information.

Is 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O controlled by "God fearing Spirit filled believers"?

Laughable!

 

[CadyandZoe]

1. Do you advocate the return of animal sacrifices as sin offerings in the future in your so-called future millennium?
2. Do you hold to the restoration of the old covenant priesthood in your so-called future millennium.

Yes to both questions. Animal sacrifices and the priesthood are part of the Mosaic Law, which God commanded. Many prophets predict a time when God will restore the fortunes of his people, circumcise their hearts and these folks will keep all of his commandments.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I repeat: this is totally damning and exposing at the one time to his theology. No Christian should ever say this.

Why? Do you have a legitimate reason for what you believe? I don't think you do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Zechariah 14:2-3 says, “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.”

This passage is not talking about the events that took place during 70 because The Lord did NOT go forth and fight against these nations. Zechariah is talking about another time in our future when the Lord DOES go forth and fight against the nations.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Ezekiel prophesied of the 2nd Zerubabbel Temple built in 536BC, after the 70 year Babylonian Captitity, Your suggestion Ezekiel's Temple is future is "False"

I don't believe you are correct. Consider this verse

Ezekiel 43:7
7 He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever. And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die . . .

I don't think I could argue that the house of Israel has never again defiled his holy name.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You mention "new archeological information". What about "new and old recognized scientific information" in general?

Sure. The central point is this, we must always be cognizant of the fact that when we compare scripture with scripture, interpreting scripture with scripture WE ARE ACTUALLY comparing one of our interpretations with another of our interpretations; we are interpreting scripture with OUR interpretation of scripture.

Suppose a Bible teacher or a Bible commentator suggests that they are interpreting unclear passages of scripture with clear passages of scripture? Okay, this seems reasonable enough. Where does that leave us? Should we take their word for it? We might. Nothing wrong with trusting competent people. But if we want to commit our lives to a particular teaching, wouldn't it be prudent if we investigated the interpretation to see if it makes sense?

If the Bible teacher's interpretation of the clear passage is incorrect, then his or her interpretation of the unclear passage is suspect. Is it possible for an NT passage to shed light on an OT passage. Yes, absolutely, but only if one holds the correct interpretation of the NT passage.

Isn't that right?

 

[Truther]

...so says the man who falls to his knees and prostrates himself in worship before the errant KJV.

No, I just hold my KJV and confess to God that I trust it as what God has given me as His pure word for the last days before His second coming.

You have no statement of faith whatsoever, as your mission is to debunk God's pure word in any translation before His second coming.

Ick!

 

[Truther]

This proves nothing. He came with His saints at the First Advent and He will come with them at the Second Advent. I was talking about the same Premil tenets.

It proves that at His 2nd coming in Rev 19, He will set up a 1000 year earthly reign as per Rev 20(with no demonic activity).

It is really super easy to see.

 

[Truther]

Sure. But like the KJV, they were not inerrant.

God oversaw the event of the creation of the KJV for a last days witness.

Counterfeits ensued hundreds of years later(modern translations).

Now, buying a Bible is like picking your favorite cereal in the grocery store to suit your tastebuds.

 

[covenantee]

God oversaw the event of the creation of the KJV for a last days witness.

Counterfeits ensued hundreds of years later(modern translations).

Now, buying a Bible is like picking your favorite cereal in the grocery store to suit your tastebuds.

There were English versions prior to the KJV whose creation God oversaw.

By your criteria, the KJV was and is a counterfeit of those.

 

[covenantee]

No, I just hold my KJV and confess to God that I trust it as what God has given me as His pure word for the last days before His second coming.

You have no statement of faith whatsoever, as your mission is to debunk God's pure word in any translation before His second coming.

Ick!

Continue your idol worship at your KJV shrine.

Gross!!

 

[Truther]

There were English versions prior to the KJV whose creation God oversaw.

By your criteria, the KJV was and is a counterfeit of those.

Little by little, nine upon line, precept upon precept...the knowledge and doctrine had to start somewhere.

This had to build to the finale in 1611.

 

[Truther]

Continue your idol worship at your KJV shrine.

Gross!!

You have admitted that the pure word of God is unavailable to mankind in our days.

Gross!

 

[covenantee]

Little by little, nine upon line, precept upon precept...the knowledge and doctrine had to start somewhere.

This had to build to the finale in 1611.

Nothing but pure delusion.

 

[covenantee]

You have admitted that the pure word of God is unavailable to mankind in our days.

Gross!

You have admitted to idolatrizing at the KJV altar.

Odious!!!

 

[covenantee]

Sure. The central point is this, we must always be cognizant of the fact that when we compare scripture with scripture, interpreting scripture with scripture WE ARE ACTUALLY comparing one of our interpretations with another of our interpretations; we are interpreting scripture with OUR interpretation of scripture.

Suppose a Bible teacher or a Bible commentator suggests that they are interpreting unclear passages of scripture with clear passages of scripture? Okay, this seems reasonable enough. Where does that leave us? Should we take their word for it? We might. Nothing wrong with trusting competent people. But if we want to commit our lives to a particular teaching, wouldn't it be prudent if we investigated the interpretation to see if it makes sense?

If the Bible teacher's interpretation of the clear passage is incorrect, then his or her interpretation of the unclear passage is suspect. Is it possible for an NT passage to shed light on an OT passage. Yes, absolutely, but only if one holds the correct interpretation of the NT passage.

Isn't that right?

If someone/s espouse/s interpretations which clearly depart from the consensus interpretations of 17 centuries of historical orthodox Christian doctrine, whose interpretations would you gravitate to?