The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[ewq1938]

44. Does owning the cattle on a thousand hills prove Revelation 20's "a thousand years" is figurative?

Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Amillennialism likes to cite this verse to show that numbers are figurative, especially a "thousand" of something. Can this only be viewed as figurative?

No.

If I asked someone to name a thousand hills or mountains where cattle were, and I said, "I own all the cattle on the hills/mountains you named." That would not be a figurative use of a thousand because it is exactly a thousand of them. The point of course is to imply God owns the cattle on all hills and mountains but he can demonstrate that by using an exact number of them.

Hebrew language and culture and literary traditions and grammar are NOT THE SAME as Greek language and culture and literary traditions and grammar. No one can redefine a word in a Greek text using a word from a Hebrew text.

 

[ewq1938]

45. Can one word prove Amillennialism is false?

Yes, "rule" (poimaino) being in the future tense in Revelation 19:15. (This is an addendum to number 35.)



Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite (Aorist tense verb with PRESENT tense meaning) the nations: and he shall rule (FUTURE tense verb) them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth (PRESENT tense verb) the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.


Here rule/poimaino is in the FUTURE tense meaning it will happen at some point AFTER the second coming and battle of Armageddon while treadeth/pateo is written in the PRESENT tense meaning it is happening during this second coming. The treading and smiting are happening at Armageddon but not the ruling which proves mortals will be alive after Armageddon is over. This proves the Premill position because indeed there is a future rule of people who were not slain during the second coming that Christ and his saints will rule over.


A second witness to this:

Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

That is the second coming. Everything we read of next comes after the second coming:

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

After "the end" comes, there is given power over the nations to those that are overcomers which naturally includes those who "are alive and remain" at the second coming. They will be given power over the mortal unsaved nations after Christ has returned not before it.

Compare that wording to this:

Mat_10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mat_24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mar_13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

These are survivors of the Great Tribulation. Same here:

Mar 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
Mar 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
Mar 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
Mar 13:12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.
Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.


Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule (FUTURE tense verb) them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

After the second coming and after "the end" will the overcomers be given power over the nations, ruling them with a rod of iron. That proves the rod of iron rule over the nations for a thousand years does not even start until Christ has returned and has given overcomers this power to rule over the nations.

It is impossible to understand what happens at the second coming and what happens AFTER the second coming properly without understanding the verb tenses involved.

 

[Timtofly]

Ephesians 1:19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Long ago God the Father "placed all things" under Christ's feet and gave Him "all authority in heaven and on earth". Don't tell me that He doesn't reign over the earth now when Jesus Himself said that He does and Paul also said that He does. You are blatantly contradicting what scripture teaches.

Why did you not point out the age to come?

After the Second Coming there is an age before Jesus hands back creation. Amil tend to overlook the age to come part. Certainly both ages happen before all is subjected.

 

[Timtofly]

Its a spiritual state of being bound by the gospel (the great chain) through the power of the Holy Spirt. It is the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of the people of the church that binds him from deceiving whoever chooses to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

Now the saints aren't deceived anymore because their identity is now in Jesus.

Now the Holy Spirit is a bottomless pit? Is the Holy Spirit literal, but the pit is not?

What Scripture defines the Holy Spirit as the bottomless pit?

 

[Davy]

Amillennialism, which began in the 2nd century A.D., I am convinced is a belief of Gnosticism. The Gnostics who took Greek Neo-Platonism philosophy and joined it with select Christian doctrines, is still very alive today, just under a new name, Amillennialism. It crept into the Christian Church in the 2nd century and has never left those 'certain' types of Churches.

Why is Amillennialism associated with 2nd century A.D. Gnostic doctrine? It's because believing that Christ's Kingdom, literally, is to be established by us, now, today, without Jesus' return, is actually a deception to lead deceived Christians to follow the New World Order working, which actually is a plan required to bring in Lucifer here on earth in place of God.

That is why Amillennialism denies the Premill idea, and also what is clearly written about Christ's future reign beginning only on the day of His future return, along with His elect, over the unsaved nations. That clearly is NOT happening yet today, otherwise the radical anti-christ nations would already be subdued today under Jesus Christ. They are not, not yet, because for Amillennialism to be true, it means ALL... nations MUST convert to belief on Jesus Christ! It's that simple.

 

[ewq1938]

46. Did the earliest identified Amillennialist oppose the canonization of the book of Revelation?

Yes.

The earliest identified Amillennialist was a Presbyter in Rome in the third century named Gaius. He opposed the canonization of the book of Revelation which means he did not feel the book of Revelation should have been allowed into the bible. No surprise an Amillennialist would not want Revelation canonized since it is that book which speaks so much about the thousand years (the future Millennium) and proves Amillennialism wrong by speaking of two separate days of judgment and two separate resurrections in chapter 20. Amillennialism originated from the Roman Catholic Church and that should bother Amillennialists.

 

[ewq1938]

47. Did the Great Tribulation happen in the past?

No.

Amillennialism often teaches that the Great Tribulation started and ended in the past but that contradicts the teaching of Jesus:

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Jesus taught that his second coming would immediately happen once the Great Tribulation ends. This means Amillennialism is immediately incorrect.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

44. Does owning the cattle on a thousand hills prove Revelation 20's "a thousand years" is figurative?

Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Amillennialism likes to cite this verse to show that numbers are figurative, especially a "thousand" of something. Can this only be viewed as figurative?

No.

If I asked someone to name a thousand hills or mountains where cattle were, and I said, "I own all the cattle on the hills/mountains you named." That would not be a figurative use of a thousand because it is exactly a thousand of them. The point of course is to imply God owns the cattle on all hills and mountains but he can demonstrate that by using an exact number of them.

Hebrew language and culture and literary traditions and grammar are NOT THE SAME as Greek language and culture and literary traditions and grammar. No one can redefine a word in a Greek text using a word from a Hebrew text.

What is this nonsense? It's very clear that the word "thousand" is used figuratively in Psalm 50:10. It's futile to try to say otherwise. That doesn't mean it must be used that way in Revelation 20 as well, but it does mean it CAN be used that way in Revelation 20. Some people deny that possibility because of how hyper-literal they take everything.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

46. Did the earliest identified Amillennialist oppose the canonization of the book of Revelation?

Yes.

The earliest identified Amillennialist was a Presbyter in Rome in the third century named Gaius. He opposed the canonization of the book of Revelation which means he did not feel the book of Revelation should have been allowed into the bible. No surprise an Amillennialist would not want Revelation canonized since it is that book which speaks so much about the thousand years (the future Millennium) and proves Amillennialism wrong by speaking of two separate days of judgment and two separate resurrections in chapter 20. Amillennialism originated from the Roman Catholic Church and that should bother Amillennialists.

No, the earliest identified Amillennialists were the authors of the Bible. These arguments in this thread are all extremely weak. You are wasting your time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

45. Can one word prove Amillennialism is false?

No. Not even a million words can.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Amillennialism, which began in the 2nd century A.D.,

This is a lie. Amillennialism began well before that.

On this forum I have found that almost all of the Premils here are willing to resort to lying about Amillennialism in order to try to make it look bad. You know that lying is a sin, don't you Davy?

 

[ewq1938]

48. Is there any relation between "cattle upon a thousand hills" and the "thousand years" in Revelation 20?


No.

Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

H505
'eleph
eh'-lef
Properly the same as H504; hence (an ox’s head being the first letter of the alphabet, and this eventually used as a numeral) a thousand: - thousand.
Total KJV occurrences: 504

H504
'eleph
eh'-lef
From H502; a family; also (from the sense of yoking or taming) an ox or cow: - family, kine, oxen.
Total KJV occurrences: 8

This did not even start out as a number that meant a thousand. It's original meaning was a family or an ox or cow.

How languages evolve is unique to each language. Trying to use this to redefine a Greek word is wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the Hebrew and Greek languages.

 

[Randy Kluth]

46. Did the earliest identified Amillennialist oppose the canonization of the book of Revelation?

Yes.

The earliest identified Amillennialist was a Presbyter in Rome in the third century named Gaius. He opposed the canonization of the book of Revelation which means he did not feel the book of Revelation should have been allowed into the bible. No surprise an Amillennialist would not want Revelation canonized since it is that book which speaks so much about the thousand years (the future Millennium) and proves Amillennialism wrong by speaking of two separate days of judgment and two separate resurrections in chapter 20. Amillennialism originated from the Roman Catholic Church and that should bother Amillennialists.

Good point. I'm not sure anybody can pinpoint an earlier Amill, but I don't think it can be proven that Amill was predominant from the beginning of the Church, particularly when the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation establishing a literal Millennium. Those who would arbitrarily change the meaning of a "thousand" to a *symbolic" thousand would surely have appeared and contradicted John. But there is no record of that happening--only of a series of men coming out of Asia Minor who agreed that John had spoken of a literal thousand years.

People on this forum and elsewhere try in vain to make these early Premillennialists into Amillennialists, but to no avail. As you say, it was later that Amill took root. The only supposed "proof" that it was there from the beginning is by reading that belief system into the book of Revelation itself.

 

[ewq1938]

People on this forum and elsewhere try in vain to make these early Premillennialists into Amillennialists, but to no avail. As you say, it was later that Amill took root.

Indeed, the early church was fully Premill (Christ comes before the thousand years begins). Amill came out of the RCC, which also did not exist in the early church despite it's claims to be the original church.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Indeed, the early church was fully Premill (Christ comes before the thousand years begins). Amill came out of the RCC, which also did not exist in the early church despite it's claims to be the original church.

Yes, the RCC wanted to be the beginning of the promised eschatological Kingdom, which on the face of it sounds absurd, particularly since John painted in his Revelation a picture of a defeated Church before Christ returns to save us. The Church is not the future Kingdom bringing in the future Kingdom. At best, Christianity is a temporal form of God's Kingdom, establishing a basis for immediate salvation, but reserving the eschaton for the 2nd Coming.

The RCC in effect tried to establish itself as THE Church. And although I'm not really a Catholic-basher, neither can I justify some of its aberrant doctrines. The Catholic Church tried to *replace* the Israeli nation by declaring itself the new nation of God. But we were warned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians that the apostasy precedes the Kingdom of God. I will not here digress into the various theories of the Tribulation. ;)

The bottom line is, the Kingdom of God is not yet. Jesus said it was "near," but not *here!* And the Apostles taught that consistently in their epistles.

There is a difference between the spiritual impact of the heavenly Kingdom on the Church today, and the eschatological Kingdom that was promised Israel in the OT. The Kingdom to come promises international peace on earth in the Reign of Messiah. That has not yet come, in my opinion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Indeed, the early church was fully Premill (Christ comes before the thousand years begins).

That is a complete lie. It's a sin to lie. You should repent of your lying. If you take away your lies, you have nothing left to support your false doctrine.

 

[Davy]

That is a complete lie. It's a sin to lie. You should repent of your lying. If you take away your lies, you have nothing left to support your false doctrine.

No, it is NOT a lie. The Amill doctrine first began in the 2nd CENTURY A.D.

The 1st Century Church was Premill., which means Christ's Apostles and disciples were all Premill. That is why The New Testament teaches a premillennial return of Jesus Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, it is NOT a lie. The Amill doctrine first began in the 2nd CENTURY A.D.

No, the Amill doctrine started with scripture itself. Stop your lies.

The 1st Century Church was Premill., which means Christ's Apostles and disciples were all Premill. That is why The New Testament teaches a premillennial return of Jesus Christ.

No, it was not. You can't back up that claim, that's for sure.

You really should not comment at all on this particular issue since you have the insane belief that a multitude of people will be resurrected with mortal bodies in the future. You lose all credibility with that ridiculous belief.

 

[jeffweeder]

The 1st Century Church was Premill., which means Christ's Apostles and disciples were all Premill. That is why The New Testament teaches a premillennial return of Jesus Christ.

Amills can quote numerous verses from the NT starting with the Lord Jesus himself, can premill?
If you would like to compare notes give me one clear statement Jesus made about Premill and then corroborate it with another. We will do the same.
What do you reckon Davy?

 

[WPM]

No, the Amill doctrine started with scripture itself. Stop your lies.


No, it was not. You can't back up that claim, that's for sure.

You really should not comment at all on this particular issue since you have the insane belief that a multitude of people will be resurrected with mortal bodies in the future. You lose all credibility with that ridiculous belief.

And you wonder why I have taken time out to actually study the early church fathers. It is nonsense like this that caused me to do it. I wanted to establish the truth. I'm sick and tired of people making outlandish claims that were manifestly partial, unobjective and blatantly far from the truth.