Isaiah 65:17 vs. Revelation 21:1. How many NHNEs does that equal?

[Randy Kluth]

Unfortunately, that is what many Premillennialists focus in on and want to talk about. Check any end-time board and you will see the evidence. They struggle to let go of the old covenant and enter into the new.

That may be, but that's not me. Most certainly many Premills do not embrace the Old Covenant at all. I certainly don't!

I realize that many Premills are Dispensationalists, who believe in the restoration of national Israel with all of the legalistic paraphernalia. I'm not a Dispensationalist, as I've told you a number of times in the past.

There would definitely be less misunderstanding if they took the time to openly and objectively read Genesis 12:1-3 for themselves. They would quickly discover that the promise made was not given to Israel, or to the Jews, but was directly promised to Abraham himself. Neither Israel nor the Jews even existed at that time.

Well of course Israel didn't exist yet when God gave Abraham the promise of a biological inheritance through the nation Israel! That He did so is beyond question in my mind. Indeed, it is the story of the Bible, in particular the story of the Old Testament.

Despite Israel's failure to enter into the New Testament as a nation, I think Jesus' death was meant to allow for Israel's eventual recovery, after reaching out to the nations of the world.

Orthodox Amils focus in on Christ and the new covenant.

So do I as a non-Dispensational Premiller. Israel getting saved as a nation means nothing if it isn't through repentance, conversion, and the rebirth of every individual who wishes to consider himself or herself a true Christian, qualifying for Eternal Life.

Jesus said, in Luke 16:16, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man (biazo) presseth into it.”

We should immediately note: for men to be able to press into the kingdom and for it to suffer violence it must already exist. The Greek word biazo here means to force, to crowd oneself into, or to seize. The kingdom of God is shown here to be a present reality that the righteous enter upon salvation. This has been the case since John the Baptist. The spiritual kingdom Christ brought was very-much alive and active from the beginning of Christ’s earthly ministry.

Yes, the Kingdom of God has long been associated with nations who were devoted to God's ideal. This was a temporal form of God's Kingdom, as opposed to the full representation of God's Kingdom in heaven.

People of this world have indeed tried to despoil God's People of their territory, which is identified with God's Kingdom. These non-Christian people, such as the Muslims, think that they can take Christian territory by force.

Well, God allows the enemies of Israel and of Christendom to rob nominal Christian states of their territories when they are not obedient to Him. The Kingdom was taken from Israel and given, as Christian governments, to Gentile nations. And since the rise of Christianity, many Christian territories have been lost to their enemies.

But we all agree that the ultimate representation of God's Kingdom will be when the New Jerusalem comes to the New Earth. That may be as you see it or as I see it. We shall see.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Premils attribute much to their millennium that is unknown to Revelation 20 or anywhere else in Scripture.

Not true. I've told you many times now that I base my belief in a literal Millennium on OT Prophecy of Israel's final restoration--not just on Rev 20. OT prophecies of Israel's recovery appears to me to be a fulfillment of mortal history, and not a post-historical fulfillment.

What we are looking at is a semi-glorious/semi-corrupt kingdom that is half-liberated and half-bound.

No, I've also explained this to you before, as well. The Millennial Age is in general controlled by Christianity, by the rule of God's Kingdom. Yet it is rule over an imperfect, still-mortal world.

The rebellion that takes place *after* the Millennium indicates that mortal humanity is still capable of relapsing into rebellion against God on a major scale, once Satan is released once again. He deceives them into thinking they can overrule the imposition of God's Kingdom on earth. But that will not be true during the Millennium itself.

Obviously, we are have the same old disagreements. Have a nice day.

 

[WPM]

God allows the enemies of Israel and of Christendom to rob nominal Christian states of their territories when they are not obedient to Him. The Kingdom was taken from Israel and given, as Christian governments, to Gentile nations. And since the rise of Christianity, many Christian territories have been lost to their enemies.

But we all agree that the ultimate representation of God's Kingdom will be when the New Jerusalem comes to the New Earth. That may be as you see it or as I see it. We shall see.

The problem with your theory is that you have a misconception of what the word "Christian" actually means. What you define as a "Christian" nation is far from it. Nations like the United States of America and United Kingdom possess governments, people and laws that are hostile to the truth of God.

You have been pushing this nationalistic Christian nations replacement theology error for years without any biblical support. Many have challenged you but you refuse to change. The reality is: the Gospel was given to a spiritual organism - the Church - to bring to a lost world of sinners. It was not sent to secular governments as you wrongly allege. Where is your biblical evidence? Nowhere! Sadly, you refuse to receive scriptural rebuke and cease to keep spreading this error.

Secular governments have shown themselves throughout history to be man-made entities that exist to represent the people. But the kingdom of God (on the other hand) is here to represent God on earth. Your teaching is an innovation you have personally thought up that you have failed to support with any NT Scripture. Thankfully few have bought into it, even amongst our Premil brethren. You have yet to show us one single Christian government throughout the world. That is because it does not exist.

What the NT shows is that Church is indeed a nation made up of members from all nations, tribes, and kindreds shining a light in this world.

 

[WPM]

Not true. I've told you many times now that I base my belief in a literal Millennium on OT Prophecy of Israel's final restoration--not just on Rev 20. OT prophecies of Israel's recovery appears to me to be a fulfillment of mortal history, and not a post-historical fulfillment.

No, I've also explained this to you before, as well. The Millennial Age is in general controlled by Christianity, by the rule of God's Kingdom. Yet it is rule over an imperfect, still-mortal world.

The rebellion that takes place *after* the Millennium indicates that mortal humanity is still capable of relapsing into rebellion against God on a major scale, once Satan is released once again. He deceives them into thinking they can overrule the imposition of God's Kingdom on earth. But that will not be true during the Millennium itself.

Obviously, we are have the same old disagreements. Have a nice day.

This has to be the greatest falling away in history. It is the biggest religious deception in history. It is the most pronounced religious circus in history. It makes Christ out to be deceived - believing He had mass allegiance when in fact he had a millennium full of phonies. His outreach to the nations is a complete bust. It makes His efforts out to be a failure. His attempt to reign in righteousness, glory and power is an unmitigated mess.

So much for your war-free millennium!!!

The feigned devotion that marks the vast bulk of the millennial inhabitants takes a thousand yrs to be uncovered; by that time the amount of phonies has swamped the millennial earth to a number as vast as the sand of the sea. This certainly is in stark contrast to the victorious millennial earth that most Premils portray in their writings, arguments and sermons.

Premils imagine a future millennial age on earth that is vastly different from our day and only slightly less-perfect than the new heavens and new earth. When the reality is in fact that it is little different from our present day.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The problem with your theory is that you have a misconception of what the word "Christian" actually means. What you define as a "Christian" nation is far from it. Nations like the United States of America and United Kingdom possess governments, people and laws that are hostile to the truth of God.

The same could be said of ancient Israel. They were called and chosen of God, and yet they fell into sin. That's the story of the human race. But it doesn't mean God has given up on Israel.

I define "Christian nations" and "Christian governments" just like the Dictionaries do. Saying they fail to live up to the highest ideal doesn't mean that nations hold to "fake Christianity."

I'm not going to get caught up in a "war" with you about what we *should* believe. We believe what our conscience tells us the best we know about a subject. You should let others believe as they see fit without the "pressure" and "manipulation" you wish to add to the conversation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This has to be the greatest falling away in history. It is the biggest religious deception in history. It is the most pronounced religious circus in history. It makes Christ out to be deceived - believing He had mass allegiance when in fact he had a millennium full of phonies. His outreach to the nations is a complete bust. It makes His efforts out to be a failure. His attempt to reign in righteousness, glory and power is an unmitigated mess.

Believe what you will, brother. This is not how I characterize it. It sounds like so much hyperbole and exaggeration, along with a little mockery mixed in. Again, I don't wish to regurgitate any previous irritations. I'll give you reasons for believing as I do. If you want to argue over who's right and who's wrong, I'm not interested.

 

[WPM]

The same could be said of ancient Israel. They were called and chosen of God, and yet they fell into sin. That's the story of the human race. But it doesn't mean God has given up on Israel.

I define "Christian nations" and "Christian governments" just like the Dictionaries do. Saying they fail to live up to the highest ideal doesn't mean that nations hold to "fake Christianity."

I'm not going to get caught up in a "war" with you about what we *should* believe. We believe what our conscience tells us the best we know about a subject. You should let others believe as they see fit without the "pressure" and "manipulation" you wish to add to the conversation.

Again, zero Scripture. You are simply outlining your own personal opinions that carry no biblical warrant. The burden of proof is with you. Over the years, you are yet to provide anything. Who cares what the secular dictionaries teach. Christians do not take their beliefs from there. Where in Scripture do you find "Christian nations" or "Christian governments" mentioned?

 

[WPM]

Believe what you will, brother. This is not how I characterize it. It sounds like so much hyperbole and exaggeration, along with a little mockery mixed in. Again, I don't wish to regurgitate any previous irritations. I'll give you reasons for believing as I do. If you want to argue over who's right and who's wrong, I'm not interested.

I present what Premils believe. You know that! I know the implications of that doctrine are difficult to defend, but this is what you hold to.

 

[APAK]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

Hi David...

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

These two verses speak to the same event. The 1st was to an audience hundreds of years before Christ, and the other not long after the ascension of Christ.

These verses, like all scripture were not addressed to a 21st century audience directly. So today we must understand the context and those times and the ability of the people then to grasp, say in this case, a really revolutionary concept that a 'new heaven(s) and earth' will be created by God in their future.

Now, if this scripture was addressed specifically for us today it would have much more detail concerning the new heaven and earth....

So, in Isaiah, we read that the people will never remember or never know the existence of an old heaven and earth when/after this recreation occurs. And further, that it will all 'pass away.'

In Revelation, there is a clue that there will be no human beings created of protoplasm in a carbon-based air breathing form.

Saying there will be 'no sea' was more than enough to startle and turn the heads of the average joe. They knew much of their lives depended on the sea, the fish and the waters, the streams rivers and lakes etc., for life.

In fact the clue of 'no sea' to me, means the water vapor-condensation clouds cycle will cease and not exist. The carbon-cycle depends upon it as well. This is a strong clue that human life as we know it will be all gone forever.

And the the old heaven and old earth will 'pass away.'

In Peter we read that the entire earth will 'pass away' for sure, with fire....be vaporized.....utterly destroyed and never to return or be remade.

So I do not see any rework of this decaying earth and heavens in the future works of God. This new heaven and earth can only mean a spiritual invisible habit for the raised, from the dead in Christ. And those genuine believers of yesterday, today and tomorrow are spring-loaded to be consummated into it fully as part of this event.

I'm afraid most people only want to see what they desire and forget what scripture actually says and to whom, directly. Again this scripture was written to a more primitive people of understanding. So we fill it today with a modern sci-fi version of this future event.....and then chaos ensues.

 

[PinSeeker]

If taken in context, I gave reasons why Amils will likely not grasp what follows---

Right, ridiculous reasons. As I said, just because someone disagrees with something doesn't mean they don't grasp it.

that being because Amils are notorious for making nonsense out of numerous OT prophecies by trying to explain them away, or trying to make them mean something they don't mean.

And in the context that you say this, amillennialists would turn that right back around on premillennialists. But nobody "tries to make things mean anything they don't mean," which is to call them liars. Someone may be mistaken, but they are not liars. Why do you do this, David?

For example Zechariah 14. Another example, Ezekiel 37:25. There are other examples as well, and instead of Amils making sense of what God through His prophets said, they make nonsense out of it.

You think they do, sure.

Imagine reading Ezekiel 37:25, for example, before there was the NT...

Ah, see, that's at least part of the problem, I would say. Wouldn't you agree that we need to hear it as the original hearers of Ezekiel's prophecy heard it to understand it properly?

, then taking those things to mean what Amils insist they mean. In particular, meaning this land where their fathers dwelt, this being where they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever. That this is just a lie, that it means something else instead, IOW, what Gentile Amils want it to mean, not what God wants it to mean. As if Gentile Amils know better than God.

See, this is just demagoguery. It's ridiculous. Why do you do this, David?

I was addressing Amil in general, not any particular Amil.

Come on, man. That's just a terrible rationalization. Come on.

Do you recall where there are posts of yours where you did that? I would be interested in reading what you had to say about the subject. You never know, I might end up agreeing with you about some of it. For one, as long as you are not applying Zechariah 14:2 to 70 AD like most Amils typically do, we might find agreement there, for instance.

Hmm, if you say "most Amils" typically apply Zechariah 14:2 to A.D. 70, I might question who you're talking to; that sounds like an assertion a Preterist would make. I can't recall where I originally did that, or even if it was in response to you, but I think it was, because... well, I don't think you're the only one who's brought up Zechariah 14. But... see my post 75, just above. Well, I'll copy and paste here for convenience:

Zechariah 14:16-18 is in the midst of one of these kingdom prophecies which can have more than one application. Like certain parts of Revelation, it is about those who attack the Church and God’s judgment on such people, but it is also about the final judgment and salvation. Besides, it is in apocalyptic language, which is cryptic and must be understood in the symbolic way in which it is written. I say that “on that day” in Zechariah 14:20-21 is a reference to end times and to the final kingdom of God. There is little doubt that this is an apocalyptic description of heaven. As for Zechariah 14:16-18, this, like in most of Revelation, is a prophecy about the current “Church age.” It appears to be a reference to people who would oppose the Church. The use of the Feast of Tabernacle is intended for us to think of being in a relationship with God. Verse 18 seems to be a statement that those who do not repent and become part of the Church will be judged. So, although Zechariah 14:20-21 seems to be about heaven, Zechariah 14:16-19 appears to be about the time between when the Church was established and when Jesus will come back. Which we are in the midst of now. But again, there are allusions and implications here to Christ's return and the final Judgment.

It's not ridiculous for Premils to conclude that about Amil if they insist everything recorded in Zechariah 14 is meaning before the 2nd coming and that none of it is meaning after the 2nd coming.

Right; see above.

Clearly, some of it is involving post the 2nd coming and verse 5 alone proves it, that verse meaning the 2nd coming.

Agreed.

Which then means the verses that follow, almost all of that is meaning post the 2nd coming.

Disagree. See above. This is the same mistake so many make with Revelation, e.g., the conversation that's been had on this board a thousand times ~ see what I did there? :) ~ with regard to Revelation 19 and 20, that the events of Revelation 20:1-6 chronologically follow the events described in Revelation 19:11-21. They do not... And that's what you're doing here with Zechariah 14; see above.

Except I do not do that, though...

You know, I may be mistaken, because you and I have not talked much together about those things, so I don't know where you stand on a lot of things, but I think you do.

. For example, the 6th seal and 7th trumpet involve the 2nd coming. What is recorded from ch 13 through ch 18 is mainly meaning prior to the 2nd coming, ch 19 then pertaining again to the 2nd coming. But as to Revelation 15:4, chronology is irrelevant since we already know what time period it is involving. It is involving the vials of wrath and that the text says, Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

Hmmm... I'll hold any comments here, because what you say here is not really enough for me to really get your thoughts on things in those chapters of Revelation.

Where it is then logical that the era of time pertaining to Zechariah 14:16-19 follows after the time of the vials of wrath.

Hmmm... Again, still trying to follow your train of thought. Although I've also been trying to discern what you think "Amils" really think... :)

Except Amil has no one remaining of the nations that came against Jerusalem, they instead have every last one of them being bird food(Revelation 19:21), regardless that Zechariah 14:16 undeniably says there will be survivors from the nations that came against Jerusalem.

Ugh. :) See above. And again, it seems you're applying at least some Preterist thoughts to Amillennialists.

No wonder then, what I did say about Amil...

Well yeah, but maybe now you'll give some thought to changing what you said about "Amil." :)

...since Amils fit exactly what I said about them, to a T even...

No... :)

. And that I showed some reasons as to why, above.

Well, you showed some things, sure... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[APAK]

@Davidpt... to complete my thought, I may as well add some spiritual language for 'the sea' or in this case the lack of it, and replaced with the 'new' sea.

A logical conclusion can be made that the 'old' sea is all the physical elements, the physical water-cycle of this physical earth and including the corrupt world of the sea(s) of unbelievers, the fallen and the dead. God has pulled his own people out of this evil sea through his Son. So, 'no more sea' includes this dual meaning, the lack of corruption and defilement of people.

The 'new' sea therefore is the 'sea of glass' as depicted in Revelation 21. The elect of God is this 'new' sea. The New Jerusalem as written in Rev Chapter 21..

 

[Davidpt]

This has to be the greatest falling away in history. It is the biggest religious deception in history. It is the most pronounced religious circus in history. It makes Christ out to be deceived - believing He had mass allegiance when in fact he had a millennium full of phonies. His outreach to the nations is a complete bust. It makes His efforts out to be a failure. His attempt to reign in righteousness, glory and power is an unmitigated mess.

So much for your war-free millennium!!!

The feigned devotion that marks the vast bulk of the millennial inhabitants takes a thousand yrs to be uncovered; by that time the amount of phonies has swamped the millennial earth to a number as vast as the sand of the sea. This certainly is in stark contrast to the victorious millennial earth that most Premils portray in their writings, arguments and sermons.

Premils imagine a future millennial age on earth that is vastly different from our day and only slightly less-perfect than the new heavens and new earth. When the reality is in fact that it is little different from our present day.

Unlike Amil, Premil has no one being deceived during the thousand years and has no one being warred against during the thousand years. Premil has all these things happening after the thousand years, thus agreeing with the text, not contradicting it instead like Amil is doing.

Revelation 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.


Amil can't even reasonably explain what these in verse 8 are doing during the thousand years. Obviously, if they are seen after the thousand years, this means they are alive and present during the thousand years. What are they doing during the thousand years, and what changes about how their lives were during the thousand years that then makes them want to do what is recorded in verse 8 instead? IOW, per Amil, what are these in verse 8 rebelling against after the thousand years that they weren't rebelling against during the thousand years?

 

[WPM]

Unlike Amil, Premil has no one being deceived during the thousand years and has no one being warred against during the thousand years.

Really? So, who are these billions of wicked who follow Satan at the end after 1000 years of Jesus reigning in righteousness, justice and glory? What are they doing for 1000 years - feigning allegiance to Christ?

 

[WPM]

per Amil, what are these in verse 8 rebelling against after the thousand years that they weren't rebelling against during the thousand years?

It is the scale and gravity of the rebellion that will intensify in Satan's little season (which corresponds with the releasing of the restraint on the mystery of lawlessness) before the second coming. It is the overt global resistance of the great commission by governments and mankind in reaching the nations.

 

[WPM]

If taken in context, I gave reasons why Amils will likely not grasp what follows---that being because Amils are notorious for making nonsense out of numerous OT prophecies by trying to explain them away, or trying to make them mean something they don't mean. For example Zechariah 14. Another example, Ezekiel 37:25. There are other examples as well, and instead of Amils making sense of what God through His prophets said, they make nonsense out of it.

Imagine reading Ezekiel 37:25, for example, before there was the NT, then taking those things to mean what Amils insist they mean. In particular, meaning this land where their fathers dwelt, this being where they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever. That this is just a lie, that it means something else instead, IOW, what Gentile Amils want it to mean, not what God wants it to mean. As if Gentile Amils know better than God.




I was addressing Amil in general, not any particular Amil.




Do you recall where there are posts of yours where you did that? I would be interested in reading what you had to say about the subject. You never know, I might end up agreeing with you about some of it. For one, as long as you are not applying Zechariah 14:2 to 70 AD like most Amils typically do, we might find agreement there, for instance.



It's not ridiculous for Premils to conclude that about Amil if they insist everything recorded in Zechariah 14 is meaning before the 2nd coming and that none of it is meaning after the 2nd coming. Clearly, some of it is involving post the 2nd coming and verse 5 alone proves it, that verse meaning the 2nd coming. Which then means the verses that follow, almost all of that is meaning post the 2nd coming.




Except I do not do that, though. For example, the 6th seal and 7th trumpet involve the 2nd coming. What is recorded from ch 13 through ch 18 is mainly meaning prior to the 2nd coming, ch 19 then pertaining again to the 2nd coming. But as to Revelation 15:4, chronology is irrelevant since we already know what time period it is involving. It is involving the vials of wrath and that the text says, Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

Where it is then logical that the era of time pertaining to Zechariah 14:16-19 follows after the time of the vials of wrath. Except Amil has no one remaining of the nations that came against Jerusalem, they instead have every last one of them being bird food(Revelation 19:21), regardless that Zechariah 14:16 undeniably says there will be survivors from the nations that came against Jerusalem.

No wonder then, what I did say about Amil, since Amils fit exactly what I said about them, to a T even. And that I showed some reasons as to why, above.

It is pointless discussing anything with you over the years. You hurl multiple false charges against Amil by twisting its beliefs. You have to! You cannot help but look at Amil through a Premil lense. You consequently impose faulty Premil modes of understanding on Amil. That is why you are totally ignorant of Amil. That is why you do not get it. But when you are challenged on these false allegations you are unable to provide support for your claims. When challenged: you always run from each respective discussion. That is what you are doing here and will (doubtless) do. All the time, you duck around the multiple holes in Premil and fudge the lack of corroboration that sinks Premil.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I present what Premils believe. You know that! I know the implications of that doctrine are difficult to defend, but this is what you hold to.

No, you present a flawed portrait of Premill, as I've shown you repeatedly over the years. You present what *some* Premills believe, but not all.

As such, it is a *flawed* presentation. Not all Premills are Dispensationalists--I am not. And not all Dispensationalists believe in a recovery of the Old Covenant--in fact, most do not.

Many Premills believe in common what Amills believe--so much so that you've argued that early Premills were really Amills! ;)

 

[Randy Kluth]

Again, zero Scripture. You are simply outlining your own personal opinions that carry no biblical warrant. The burden of proof is with you. Over the years, you are yet to provide anything. Who cares what the secular dictionaries teach. Christians do not take their beliefs from there. Where in Scripture do you find "Christian nations" or "Christian governments" mentioned?

I'm not really interested in discussing with you. I've given you numerous passages from the Bible through the years. And you continue to claim I don't reference the Bible.

I've repeatedly indicated on these forums that "Christian nations" comes from God's promise to Abraham that he would become spiritual father to many nations, which in Gal 3.8 appears to reference the Christianization of nations. Obviously that was before the Roman Empire was Christianized.

To not use Dictionaries indicates you have little interest in real communication. Enjoy your beliefs...

 

[Davidpt]

The 'new' sea therefore is the 'sea of glass' as depicted in Revelation 21. The elect of God is this 'new' sea. The New Jerusalem as written in Rev Chapter 21..

I don't know if you are correct or not, but one thing I do not think, is this That it is meaning in the literal sense. Ezekiel 47 and the following alone already proves a literal sea is not meant in Revelation 21:1..

Ezekiel 47:7 Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
8 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea , the waters shall be healed.
9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
10 And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

Make no mistake about it, the era of time these verses above are involving, are the same era of time Revelation 21-22 are involving. We can know that by comparing a few things.


These waters issue out toward the east country(Ezekiel 47:8)---compare with---And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb(Revelation 22:1)

And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine(Ezekiel 47:12)---compare with---In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations(Revelation 22:2)

Obviously, literal seas still exist during the NHNE, otherwise God through Ezekiel lied to us in these verses above in Ezekiel 47.

-------------------------
The OT account says this---it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary

The NT account says this----And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb---which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month
------------------------

-----------------------------------
The OT account says this----and the leaf thereof for medicine

The NT account says this----and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations
-----------------------------------------------
----------------------------
The OT account says this----And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed

The NT account says this----In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life
----------------------------

While Ezekiel 47:8 says this----These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea , the waters shall be healed.


Of course the waters would need to be healed post the trumpet and vial judgments involving bodies of water. That's just common sense. Of course though, some interpreters think literal bodies of water are not meant in the book of Revelation pertaining to judgments involving bodies of water to begin with. Therefore, it's going to make zero sense to them that post these trumpet and vial judgments that there is then a need to heal these bodies of water.

 

[WPM]

No, you present a flawed portrait of Premill, as I've shown you repeatedly over the years. You present what *some* Premills believe, but not all.

As such, it is a *flawed* presentation. Not all Premills are Dispensationalists--I am not. And not all Dispensationalists believe in a recovery of the Old Covenant--in fact, most do not.

Many Premills believe in common what Amills believe--so much so that you've argued that early Premills were really Amills! ;)

Instead of rubbishing and avoiding some of the core Premil facts i present re your rerun of this age in a future age after the second coming, please address these simple questions that prove my thesis:

When is sin finally and eternally eliminated?
When is disease finally and eternally eliminated?
When is death finally and eternally eliminated?
When is corruption finally and eternally eliminated?
When are tears finally and eternally eliminated?
When is deception finally and eternally eliminated?
When is war finally and eternally eliminated?
When are funerals finally and eternally eliminated?

 

[WPM]

I'm not really interested in discussing with you. I've given you numerous passages from the Bible through the years. And you continue to claim I don't reference the Bible.

I've repeatedly indicated on these forums that "Christian nations" comes from God's promise to Abraham that he would become spiritual father to many nations, which in Gal 3.8 appears to reference the Christianization of nations. Obviously that was before the Roman Empire was Christianized.

To not use Dictionaries indicates you have little interest in real communication. Enjoy your beliefs...

God does not mention "Christian nations" in either the OT or the NT. That is your own invention. Scripture describes the NT Church as a spiritual nation. This is the only entity that carries His favor and blessing. This is God's only chosen people. Every invented Christian nation you present carries no such biblical designation. Such only exists in your thoughts.

There is only one nation that is God's in the NT era, and it is spiritual. It involves peoples of all nationalities. Their citizenship is not off this world, it is heavenly. It was considered "a foolish nation" (Deuteronomy 32:21) from an Old Testament perspective but is known in the New Testament as "a holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9) - “a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt 21:43).

A Christ-rejecting nation is neither chosen, pleasing to God, holy or fruit-bearing. Your fight is with the prophets, Jesus, the NT writers and all Amils.