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

[Davidpt]

There is no literal sea/river sourced from Ezekiel 47 and therefore you proof is really no proof at all. The symbolic language used by Ezekiel uncannily mirrors in many ways John's view as both were caught up by the Spirit of God. Care to review it? And what is your real scriptural basis for a literal sea in Ezekiel anyway? Is there a agenda afoot to force it to be true? This can be a dangerous route to tread on.

Let me give you but one reason for my response.

This river of the Spirit, not a literal river, is in the New Jerusalem and is spoken of in Ezekiel 47:12 and in Rev 22:2. They are the same in intent and meaning.

The identification of the river in Ezekiel's vision with the river in the New Jerusalem is corroborated by Ezek 47:7, 12 which says that there were trees on both banks of the river. That parallels Rev 22:2 which similarly says that the tree of life was "on either side of the river." In both cases the trees are said to bear fruit (Ezek 47:12; Rev 22:2). Further, in both cases the leaves of the trees are "for healing" (Ezek 47:12; Rev 22:2).

This is no coincidence that John and Ezekiel align in thought and meaning, and there is more.

Ezekiel 47:8 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.

Totally unreasonable that one shouldn't take any this in the literal sense, that the fish in this passage are not even literal fish. What are they then? Do you treat Genesis 1 in the same manner when it comes to mentioning fish and bodies of water, that none of that is literal, either? Probably not, right? If God found multitudes of fish relevant in the beginning, why wouldn't they still be relevant in the new earth? What about the trumpet and vial judgments involving bodies of water? Why wouldn't those bodies of water be in need of healing post those judgments?

Obviously, regardless what era of time one thinks what I submitted above in Ez 47 f its, it is meaning post the trumpet and vial judgments, not prior to them instead. Thus it makes good sense when the text says---the waters shall be healed. 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.



Keeping in mind, things such as the following happening prior to when the verses above are meaning.

Revelation 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

Revelation 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Revelation 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ah, well, that seems to indicate a misunderstanding of what it means to be dead. In the Bible, Randy, being dead is a state of being.

I've not said otherwise. In this post I don't think we've communicated with each other very well. I had limited time, so perhaps I didn't say things well?

And the dead ~ you're right ~ will not enter into Christ's Kingdom... the New Heaven and New Earth.

I've not said otherwise. The recipients of the "2nd Death" will not enter into Christ's Kingdom, no.

...I would submit to you, Randy, that those who "will not" will also have an eternal state of existence ~ annihilationism is a heresy that I hope you have not bought into ~ and that eternal state of existence will be ~ rather than in fellowship with God, in Christ ~ under His final judgment, which again, might sound mild, but... <shudder>.

No, I haven't remotely suggested I believe in annihilationism. The 1st Death is when our souls are separated from our bodies, which return to dust, to earthly particles. The 2nd Death is when a soul obtains a new body that remains somewhat separated from God's Spirit forever.

It is like the 1st Death in the sense that people had their bodies removed as a sign that they do not belong on the same earth with God's presence. In the same way Israel was removed from the Holy Land when they turned away from God to pagan religion. The 2nd Death restores the Wicked to physical existence, but in a state of separation from God's presence.

Well, he's depicted as being loosed, and I would just say "at the close of the millennium," because the millennium is the period in which God brings all His elect into His Israel. So, once God has completed bringing all the Gentile elect in and the Jewish elect in... once all Israel is saved... this is what will bring the millennium to a close, when it will have ended.

I think Satan's rebellion is renewed *after* the Millennium because we are told in Rev 20 that the entire Millennium is for the rule of the glorified saints. Satan cannot lead a rebellion as long as the Millennial Reign continues.

I say again that Satan has been bound since the time of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit; Satan is presently unable to prevent the spread of the Gospel, which, before Christ came, he was able to do ~ he was able to prevent the spread of the Gospel outside the commonwealth of Israel... but only because God allowed him to do that, because it suited God's redemptive purposes, which were limited at that time ~ again, by God Himself ~ to the commonwealth of Israel (and the few foreigners who had come in, which at that time foreshadowed the bringing in of the Gentiles).

I disagree. Satan has always been under "God's thumb." However, he has been given freedom to accomplish his misdeeds under the supervision of God's greater will.

Satan was not bound at the cross, though he was defeated in a legal sense. He can no longer condemn the saints to everlasting spiritual death.

Satan has certainly been disruptive to the purpose of the Gospel, though he is not able to stop it entirely. But we can believe what we best think fits reality and the Scriptures. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[PinSeeker]

Unless you haven't noticed, this is a public forum.

Sure it is.

Which means no post is a private post between just two people.

But when someone replies or addresses someone individually by quoting them, then it's a smaller exchange between the two... into which anyone can interject, for sure, but still, it is what it is. But yeah, you have ghosted me several times. Hey, if we were actually in a room all together, even one that the entire public had access to, if I addressed you personally, David, or you me, then we probably would have some sort of personal exchange, however short or long. Others might interject, but still, it would be what it would be. Like I said though, it doesn't bother me really, it's just not cool. But hey, yeah, like I said, suit yourself. That's... kind of what you seem to be all about anyway... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[APAK]

Ezekiel 47:8 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.

Totally unreasonable that one shouldn't take any this in the literal sense, that the fish in this passage are not even literal fish. What are they then? Do you treat Genesis 1 in the same manner when it comes to mentioning fish and bodies of water, that none of that is literal, either? Probably not, right? If God found multitudes of fish relevant in the beginning, why wouldn't they still be relevant in the new earth? What about the trumpet and vial judgments involving bodies of water? Why wouldn't those bodies of water be in need of healing post those judgments?

Obviously, regardless what era of time one thinks what I submitted above in Ez 47 f its, it is meaning post the trumpet and vial judgments, not prior to them instead. Thus it makes good sense when the text says---the waters shall be healed. 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.



Keeping in mind, things such as the following happening prior to when the verses above are meaning.

Revelation 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

Revelation 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Revelation 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

Still possessed and focused on a modern literal meaning to Ezekiel's writings? And then you move off subject at hand to trumpets and judgments and other symbolic constructs found in Rev. And bringing in Genesis of the physical and natural, for support, for symbolic support won't work. It would be great for you to build a solid foundation in one area and then move out and build upon it, and then interconnect other areas later...imo

Literal meanings for his audience is not what Ezekiel wrote, and never intended it for your ears and eyes, for today or tomorrow, to then pull it all apart and trash it. He wrote to the people who understood symbolism and these people were in exile and needed a boost and more hope for themselves and their future and their people. They already knew of Joel's symbolic writings (...'mountains dripping with sweet wine'..) and Ezekiel followed suit. The people did not have to manufacture some bizarre take on his meanings as you are doing here that make no sense.

The rivers of living waters represent the Spirit of God and since his Son, these waters have increased in 'depth' and volume or quantity over the passage of time. The people knew this life-giving river(s) was a message of blessing for them. Bringing eternal life to all who would live within and along side it, as symbolized by fish immersed in the the living waters and the trees alongside of the river for nurture and spiritual growth and healing. This was a future blessing to the people. And it began to become true and realized via the Son of God and after Pentecost.

Saltwater becoming fresh water means that the climate of dominance by the spirit of evil within men would be overcome and transformed by the goodness and righteousness of the Spirit of God in the world. And this has happened since Christ and still continues today.

The fishermen are those who are eager with their nets along the shores of once 'dead' sea, encircling (the sense of being populated and crowded) the entire perimeter of the sea to capture the life-giving food (fish) of God and also give them to others to eat as spiritual food. To move other men to the gospel and they also become immersed in the living waters of the Spirit God, part of the New Jerusalem.

These living waters still flow today, the living waters of God emanating from his presence or temple for our immersion (worship) sustenance and life.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

The millenial kingdom is not creating the new heaven and earth, but a restoration of the current earth to a near edenic like state for the 1000 years. There is a vast difference between restoration and recreation.

 

[rwb]

Still possessed and focused on a modern literal meaning to Ezekiel's writings? And then you move off subject at hand to trumpets and judgments and other symbolic constructs found in Rev. And bringing in Genesis of the physical and natural, for support, for symbolic support won't work. It would be great for you to build a solid foundation in one area and then move out and build upon it, and then interconnect other areas later...imo

Literal meanings for his audience is not what Ezekiel wrote, and never intended it for your ears and eyes, for today or tomorrow, to then pull it all apart and trash it. He wrote to the people who understood symbolism and these people were in exile and needed a boost and more hope for themselves and their future and their people. They already knew of Joel's symbolic writings (...'mountains dripping with sweet wine'..) and Ezekiel followed suit. The people did not have to manufacture some bizarre take on his meanings as you are doing here that make no sense.

The rivers of living waters represent the Spirit of God and since his Son, these waters have increased in 'depth' and volume or quantity over the passage of time. The people knew this life-giving river(s) was a message of blessing for them. Bringing eternal life to all who would live within and along side it, as symbolized by fish immersed in the the living waters and the trees alongside of the river for nurture and spiritual growth and healing. This was a future blessing to the people. And it began to become true and realized via the Son of God and after Pentecost.

Saltwater becoming fresh water means that the climate of dominance by the spirit of evil within men would be overcome and transformed by the goodness and righteousness of the Spirit of God in the world. And this has happened since Christ and still continues today.

The fishermen are those who are eager with their nets along the shores of once 'dead' sea, encircling (the sense of being populated and crowded) the entire perimeter of the sea to capture the life-giving food (fish) of God and also give them to others to eat as spiritual food. To move other men to the gospel and they also become immersed in the living waters of the Spirit God, part of the New Jerusalem.

These living waters still flow today, the living waters of God emanating from his presence or temple for our immersion (worship) sustenance and life.

I fear you might be addressing a member of the choir, having their own way of forcing Scripture to accommodate their man-made doctrines of deception. Nonetheless this shows excellent understanding of the spiritual language written through the providence of God.

AMEN Apak!

 

[WPM]

Sure it is.


But when someone replies or addresses someone individually by quoting them, then it's a smaller exchange between the two... into which anyone can interject, for sure, but still, it is what it is. But yeah, you have ghosted me several times. Hey, if we were actually in a room all together, even one that the entire public had access to, if I addressed you personally, David, or you me, then we probably would have some sort of personal exchange, however short or long. Others might interject, but still, it would be what it would be. Like I said though, it doesn't bother me really, it's just not cool. But hey, yeah, like I said, suit yourself. That's... kind of what you seem to be all about anyway... :)

Grace and peace to you.

When Amils refute David he does that. That is his MO. Just look back over this past few pages where he has no support for his claims or a response to the biblical evidence that points to Amil. He has been doing this on other boards for years. Most Amils on here can confirm that. Just count it as a commendation of the validity of your argument. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[WPM]

The millenial kingdom is not creating the new heaven and earth, but a restoration of the current earth to a near edenic like state for the 1000 years. There is a vast difference between restoration and recreation.

Where does it say in Rev 20 (or in Scripture) that your sin-cursed goat-infested death-blighted millennium is "a near edenic like state"?

 

[APAK]

I fear you might be addressing a member of the choir, having their own way of forcing Scripture to accommodate their man-made doctrines of deception. Nonetheless this shows excellent understanding of the spiritual language written through the providence of God.

AMEN Apak!

Thank you for your post. The choir is smaller than most although it produces more refined, penetrating and harmonizing sounds of real music!

 

[PinSeeker]

The recipients of the "2nd Death" will not enter into Christ's Kingdom, no.

Good; that's settled.

No, I haven't remotely suggested I believe in annihilationism. The 1st Death is when our souls are separated from our bodies, which return to dust, to earthly particles.

Good; that's settled.

The 2nd Death is when a soul obtains a new body...

Well, our bodies, along with the rest of creation, are made new. Certainly, God can reconstitute our bodies; he made man from dust ~ Genesis 2:7 ~ in the first place, right? And then, in view of the fall, God says to Adam, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." And I would submit to you, Randy, that God is going to completely ~ completely ~ reverse the effects of the fall of man, and a big part of this is that man's bodies will be completely reconstituted, and for us believers, be made completely new... and most importantly, we will then be without sin and completely like Jesus.

Maybe ~ maybe ~ you would point to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 and conclude that the new is entirely different than the old, but I would disagree with that. And maybe ~ maybe you would say that the first body is physical and the second body is spiritual, which I would agree with on its face, but what many are saying in saying that is that the spiritual is not a physical body at all but rather spirit, and I would disagree with that. You might want to clarify here what you mean, but this is kind of going off into different subject matter, and maybe we want to put that on the backburner for now. But do what you want, here, for sure.

that remains somewhat separated from God's Spirit forever.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but on it's face, I disagree. Ah, wait... I think you mean the Holy Spirit, and in that case I would agree.

It is like the 1st Death in the sense that people had their bodies removed as a sign that they do not belong on the same earth with God's presence. In the same way Israel was removed from the Holy Land when they turned away from God to pagan religion.

Yeah, disagree. The first death, Randy, is a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Which I think you probably agree with, but... "people had their bodies removed as a sign that they do not belong on the same earth with God's presence"... What does that even mean? God created the earth and all of creation and declared it good, but everything was changed with the fall, and God is restoring it. Again, God is making all things new (Revelation 21:5); He is not "making all new things." And in the sense of the now and the not yet (which runs throughout Scripture), Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 that "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation... the old has passed away; behold, the new has come." So we are in our new state now ~ we have been born again of the Spirit ~ but not yet fully; that will be when Christ returns. Regarding us as Christians, specifically, we are both saved and being saved. When Christ returns (and after the final Judgment), that is when all things will truly and fully be made new.

The 2nd Death restores the Wicked to physical existence, but in a state of separation from God's presence.

Ah! Now this is interesting. Certainly not to say nothing has been interesting to this point; sorry... :) But I say the second death is the state that the unrepentant will be in, away from the New Heaven and New Earth, away from the One Who is life ~ Jesus, of course ~ and... not separated from God's presence, because God is omnipresent, but in a place devoid of His grace, where God's judgment is all there is, The occupants of that place will be totally immersed in God's fire, His judgment, and as such will be in... wait for it... the lake of fire.

I think Satan's rebellion is renewed *after* the Millennium because we are told in Rev 20 that the entire Millennium is for the rule of the glorified saints. Satan cannot lead a rebellion as long as the Millennial Reign continues.

I agree! Well, not totally (I'll explain), because I understand what your full take of this is, but at least to a large degree, I agree with what you're saying here; we're really not that far apart on this. I guess the clarification I would offer here is... well, two things:

1.) that Satan is unable to deceive the nations until the entire millennium is over (that's exactly what Revelation 20 says). But yes, then he will be loosed for a little while...​

and...

2.) that most, if not all, of the glorified saints actually with Christ for the millennium, but that over the course of the millennium, the glorified saints are dying (physically) and their spirits are then actually with Christ and ruling... again, over the course of the millennium. So, for each individual saint, not the entire millennium. But then a further clarification to this point is that here again is the now-and-not-yet concept: In this life, as the saints... become saints, are born again of the Spirit, they are raised (this is the first resurrection, and blessed are those who experience it, as John says in Revelation 20:5) and seated with Christ in the heavenly places (as Paul says in Ephesians 2). In that sense, they do rule with Him in Spirit in this life, just as He is with us now and always, just as He said he would be in Matthew 28:20, This is, again, the now, as opposed to the not yet, but of course the not yet is certain; all God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:20.​

Satan has always been under "God's thumb."

Well, certainly, in the sense that he has never been able to do anything ~ and is not, and never will be ~ outside of God's authority.

However, he has been given freedom to accomplish his misdeeds under the supervision of God's greater will.

Right; agree. And, of course, this was true even when (using John's verbiage in Revelation 20) he was (and will be again, for a short time, cut short for the sake of the elect ~ Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20) ~ unbound. Since Jesus's time and Pentecost, Satan has been and still is completely unable to deceive the nations... prevent the spread of the Gospel to all tongues, tribes, and nations. But he will be again... for a short time, for our sake... and it will be... well, bad. But yes, it will still be... Well, I wouldn't say "under the supervision," because this seems to me to indicate that God is supervising/directing Satan's rebellion, which to me is saying God Himself is guilty of sin, which I know you certainly don't mean to say. But under God's authority and therefore God's bringing about of His purposes and His greater will. Yes, I agree, but I would change the wording of what you said... slightly... :)

Satan was not bound at the cross

He was, and thus Jesus's command in Matthew 28:19-20, to "go and make disciples of all nations." He bound Satan ~ He is the "angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain..." He Who "...seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended" (Revelation 20:1-3).

...though he was defeated in a legal sense....

Ah, well, not sure exactly what you mean or what you're referring to in Scripture (if you are), but I don't really disagree with this; God certainly exercised His legal authority, we could say, because really, His authority is the only authority that is legal... :) ...Paul does tell us in Romans 13:1 that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God..." He's speaking there of earthly authorities, but as you surely know, Satan is the ruler of this world who has been and is being cast out (the concept of the coexistence of the now and the not yet again, John 12:31)...

He can no longer condemn the saints to everlasting spiritual death.

He never could; it always has been ~ since the fall, anyway ~ only God's place to do so.

Satan has certainly been disruptive to the purpose of the Gospel, though he is not able to stop it entirely.

Well, mostly agree, except that he's not able to stop it at all right now... it flows freely...

But we can believe what we best think fits reality and the Scriptures.

Well, sure.

Thanks for the conversation.

Same to you! Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

It then boils down to this. Since both Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21-22 involves the NHNE, it is contradictory to argue that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years if one is already arguing that Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the thousand years.

Do you think they will live on a scorched earth for a thousand years?

The difference between Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 is a totally different creation.

Even in Zechariah 14, we see Jesus creating a new Jerusalem from the current Jerusalem. But certainly Zechariah 14 is not talking about the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven.

The Millennium has to be a new heaven and earth, because in 2 Peter 3, we see the Second Coming dissolves heaven, and the earth is baptized in fire destroying all the works on earth. We even see the mountains and continents are moved out of their places. This destruction is not at the end of the Millennium. It happens way before the thousand years even starts.

There is not a new creation at the Second Coming and then another new creation after the Day of the Lord. Those wanting the NHNE and the New Jerusalem are forcing a new creation a thousand years too soon.

Now Isaiah, in chapter 65, is not comparing this new heaven and earth with the Flood of Noah, but Peter in 2 Peter 3 does. That is why Isaiah 65 can be attributed to the Millennium and still not be the NHNE of Revelation 21. Do you think humans should suffer miserably during the Millennium reign of Christ? There will not even be any mortals living on earth during this Millennial Kingdom.

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

No one will even remember what life was like today. No sin, nor suffering, and all tears will be wiped away. That is why Revelation 20 cannot be the here and now. They will be deceived all over again, just like Eve in the garden. Because no one will have any knowledge of living in Adam's dead corruptible state.

No one will even read or teach God's Word. Jeremiah 31

"After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord."

The only enemy during the Millennium will be death. Disobedience will be rare, but one person's disobedience, will not bring sin back into the world, only death to that one individual. Sin will not be an enemy, but one can still choose of their own will and volition to disobey. That principle seems lost on all those posters who have traded reality for their own spiritual interpretation, relying on failed human understanding.

But in trying to place Isaiah 65 into Revelation 21, they then insert sin and death and Disobedience, freely the same old Adamic construct, into their imagined eternity. Now you go in the opposite direction trying to force a different reality and creation into Revelation 20. You want to bring Revelation 21 immediately into the Second Coming without loosing the thousand year reign of Christ. Some say that the Day of the Lord is the first Millennium of the NHNE. Except Scripture states it is the last Millennium of current creation.

One then asks why would God after the entire time of creation want it different than it has always been. That is where not Remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy comes to mind. Sin and death did not enter this current creation until a Millennium after that first week of creation. No one seems to have figured that out even though it was clearly written in Genesis 1 and 2. All of Christianity has been deceieved in that regards as 2 Thessalonians 2 points out.

This creation was Holy for the first Day of the Lord. This creation will be Holy for the last Day of the Lord. Adam was given 6,000 years of sin and death as punishment for his disobedience. In equality to the 6, 24 hour days, God took to create this current creation. God did not need 6 of His days to create. But God did punish Adam for 6 of His days. Peter said:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Then people remain in ignorance claiming some other interpretation that makes sense in their human understanding. God created a new heaven and earth after the baptism of water. Per Isaiah 65 there will be another new heaven and earth during that last Millennium on earth. One that will make us not remember this current state of punishment.

 

[Timtofly]

The day of the Lord's coming will be accompanied by the heavens passing away, and the earth also and the works therein shall be burned up. This to make way for the new heavens and new earth wherein dwells righteousness.

This is just deception twisting the Word of God. Peter does not write the day of the Lord's coming.

Peter writes the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. The entire day is coming and that day is a thousand years in length.

You have to change how Peter uses day. You change the prepositional phrase with a verb, into a possessive with a noun. You have a day of coming. It should be the Day of the Lord will come. And Peter just stated a day is a thousand years.

You totally dismiss the thousand year reference, and make it about the Second Coming only to avoid the actual Day of the Lord as written.

 

[WPM]

This is just deception twisting the Word of God. Peter does not write the day of the Lord's coming.

Peter writes the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. The entire day is coming and that day is a thousand years in length.

You have to change how Peter uses day. You change the prepositional phrase with a verb, into a possessive with a noun. You have a day of coming. It should be the Day of the Lord will come. And Peter just stated a day is a thousand years.

You totally dismiss the thousand year reference, and make it about the Second Coming only to avoid the actual Day of the Lord as written.

So, your supposed future millennium is a day of ongoing destruction and desolation? After all, a "day" in Scripture, regardless of how long, is always marked for its duration by the detail attributed to it. I prefer the perfect and righteous Amil new earth to your depressing hope.

 

[WPM]

Do you think they will live on a scorched earth for a thousand years?

The difference between Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 is a totally different creation.

Even in Zechariah 14, we see Jesus creating a new Jerusalem from the current Jerusalem. But certainly Zechariah 14 is not talking about the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven.

The Millennium has to be a new heaven and earth, because in 2 Peter 3, we see the Second Coming dissolves heaven, and the earth is baptized in fire destroying all the works on earth. We even see the mountains and continents are moved out of their places. This destruction is not at the end of the Millennium. It happens way before the thousand years even starts.

There is not a new creation at the Second Coming and then another new creation after the Day of the Lord. Those wanting the NHNE and the New Jerusalem are forcing a new creation a thousand years too soon.

Now Isaiah, in chapter 65, is not comparing this new heaven and earth with the Flood of Noah, but Peter in 2 Peter 3 does. That is why Isaiah 65 can be attributed to the Millennium and still not be the NHNE of Revelation 21. Do you think humans should suffer miserably during the Millennium reign of Christ? There will not even be any mortals living on earth during this Millennial Kingdom.

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

No one will even remember what life was like today. No sin, nor suffering, and all tears will be wiped away. That is why Revelation 20 cannot be the here and now. They will be deceived all over again, just like Eve in the garden. Because no one will have any knowledge of living in Adam's dead corruptible state.

No one will even read or teach God's Word. Jeremiah 31

"After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord."

The only enemy during the Millennium will be death. Disobedience will be rare, but one person's disobedience, will not bring sin back into the world, only death to that one individual. Sin will not be an enemy, but one can still choose of their own will and volition to disobey. That principle seems lost on all those posters who have traded reality for their own spiritual interpretation, relying on failed human understanding.

But in trying to place Isaiah 65 into Revelation 21, they then insert sin and death and Disobedience, freely the same old Adamic construct, into their imagined eternity. Now you go in the opposite direction trying to force a different reality and creation into Revelation 20. You want to bring Revelation 21 immediately into the Second Coming without loosing the thousand year reign of Christ. Some say that the Day of the Lord is the first Millennium of the NHNE. Except Scripture states it is the last Millennium of current creation.

One then asks why would God after the entire time of creation want it different than it has always been. That is where not Remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy comes to mind. Sin and death did not enter this current creation until a Millennium after that first week of creation. No one seems to have figured that out even though it was clearly written in Genesis 1 and 2. All of Christianity has been deceieved in that regards as 2 Thessalonians 2 points out.

This creation was Holy for the first Day of the Lord. This creation will be Holy for the last Day of the Lord. Adam was given 6,000 years of sin and death as punishment for his disobedience. In equality to the 6, 24 hour days, God took to create this current creation. God did not need 6 of His days to create. But God did punish Adam for 6 of His days. Peter said:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Then people remain in ignorance claiming some other interpretation that makes sense in their human understanding. God created a new heaven and earth after the baptism of water. Per Isaiah 65 there will be another new heaven and earth during that last Millennium on earth. One that will make us not remember this current state of punishment.

How can you possibly equate the millennial earth to the new heavens and new earth? They are polar opposites.

The millennial earth you profess contains sin.
The new earth does not contain sin.

The millennial earth you profess contains death.
The new earth does not contain death.

The millennial earth you profess contains corruption.
The new earth does not contain corruption.

The millennial earth you profess contains war and terror.
The new earth does not contain war.

The millennial earth you profess contains tears.
The new earth does not contain tears.

The millennial earth you profess contains Satan.
The new earth does not contain Satan.

The millennial earth you profess contains the wicked.
The new earth does not contain the wicked.

The millennial earth you profess contains rebellion and anarchy.
The new earth does not contain rebellion and anarchy.

 

[Timtofly]

Well put. If you dig deeper into the Hebrew it explains the death issue better.

Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

What is this telling us?

The exact same thing, only in different terms.

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

The original Hebrew does not give us any reason to attribute death to the “child” in this second line. In fact, it does not fit the whole context which is evidently speaking of the removal of aging and death on the new earth. Interpreting it as we have, seems to (1) match the original, (2) make sense to its context, and (3) taps into the thrust of what the prophet was trying to relay. We need to remind ourselves that the whole idea here is describing the incredible eternal deliverance from the curse of corruption and the joy that “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” on the “new earth.”

Except you left out:

"but the sinner shall be accursed"

Thus you have sinners in your eternity for all time. This does not indicate that sinners have been removed along with curses. This is indicating the reason there is death. Death being the last enemy to be removed.

The curse is removed from the Millennium Kingdom. But the ability to disobey has not been removed.

 

[WPM]

Except you left out:

"but the sinner shall be accursed"

Thus you have sinners in your eternity for all time. This does not indicate that sinners have been removed along with curses. This is indicating the reason there is death. Death being the last enemy to be removed.

The curse is removed from the Millennium Kingdom. But the ability to disobey has not been removed.

There is absolutely no mention of your supposed future millennium here. You're adding on to Scripture again. You are so fixated with this time that does not exist in the Bible that you force it into the sacred text where it does not belong.

After talking about the righteous and their eternal bliss the prophet then turns to the awful fate of the wicked. There is no suggestion that the sinner is on the new earth. Quite the opposite. This is where he receives eternal damnation. At this stage the unregenerate are eternally separated from the redeemed.

Isaiah 65:20 says: “the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.”

This text is basically telling us that the awful state of the wicked is eternally unchanged. They are damned and doomed eternally. They are forever accursed.

The Hebrew literally reads:

וְהַ֣חֹוטֶ֔א בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה יְקֻלָּֽל׃
wªhachowTe ben- mee'aah šā-nāh yªqulaa
the sinner an hundred years old [shall be] accursed

וְהַ֣חוֹטֶ֔א
wªhachowTe
the sinner

בֶּן־
ben-
Old

מֵאָ֥ה
mee'aah
an hundred

שָׁנָ֖ה
šā-nāh
years

יְקֻלָּֽל׃
yªqulaa
Cursed

The Hebrew word yªqulaa simply means “is cursed.”

The Hebrew word wªhachowTe simply means "sinner."

There is no mention here of the word “death” or “die” in the Hebrew!

The inclusion of the phrase “Accursed an hundred years old sinner” is simply a solemn reminder to the reader that the fate of the unbeliever is starkly different to that being depicted for the believer on the new earth. In the midst of his joy at the revelation of the new earth the Old Testament prophet compares the bliss, blessing and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in hell. The solemn thought is: the eternal horror and hopelessness that will be the lot of the wicked is not just for a short time, it is forever. There is no sense that the wicked are on the new earth here. Isaiah is not describing more of the same as Premil teaches. The new earth is not a repeat or rehash of this corruptible age. This must be forced into the text.

The writer is simply making a comparison (in the midst of his joy at the thought of the new earth) between the bliss and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in the lake of fire. There is no sense that the wicked are on the earth here.

 

[PinSeeker]

Except you left out:

"but the sinner shall be accursed"

He didn't "leave it out." The 'but' is indicating a contrast, so there is a different reality after the millennium for the sinner, the one who still dwells in his/her sin. This person, the one not in Christ, one of the ones on Christ's left in the final Judgment, as Jesus depicts graphically in Matthew 25:41-46, is surely removed ~ sent away... he/she obediently departs... ~ from the New Heaven and New Earth, and goes to his/her eternal dwelling place where he/she is "with the hypocrites" (Matthew 24:51) in "outer darkness" (Matthew 25:30), a "place (where) there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51; Matthew 25:30).

Thus you have sinners in your eternity for all time.

Quite the opposite.

This does not indicate that sinners have been removed along with curses.

It absolutely does.

Death being the last enemy to be removed.

And so it shall be.

The curse is removed from the Millennium Kingdom.

After the millennial Kingdom.

But the ability to disobey has not been removed.

Ah, well, in just being able to do it, woodenly speaking, that's right, but there will be no more disobedience, no more sin, because we will all be completely inclined against it. We will be, at that point, just like Jesus. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Maybe ~ maybe ~ you would point to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 and conclude that the new is entirely different than the old, but I would disagree with that.

I would characterize "resurrection bodies" differently for the Righteous and the Wicked. Both are reconstituted of the same physical material, extracted from earth's elements. They are not "spirit-bodies," but physical bodies.

In the case of the Righteous, they will be "spiritual bodies," designed to reflect the glory and righteousness of Christ, and made "immortal" in that sense. I don't think the resurrected bodies of the Wicked will be "spirit bodies" either, but they will not be "immortal" in the sense of preserving the spiritual life and righteousness of Christ as it is presently being offered. That spiritual life will be gone in those bodies--they will be "spiritually dead" (not physically dead).

The first death, Randy, is a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Which I think you probably agree with, but... "people had their bodies removed as a sign that they do not belong on the same earth with God's presence"... What does that even mean?

Physical death resulted from Man's disobedience to God's word. This was a form of spiritual separation from God. Separating from His word is the same thing as separating from God.

The consequence of separating from God in the garden was being thrown out of the garden. The consequence of Israel disobeying God's word in the land of Canaan was being thrown out of the land of Canaan. The consequence of an eternal decision to separate from God's word will be separation from God's Paradise forever.

....Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 that "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation... the old has passed away; behold, the new has come." So we are in our new state now ~ we have been born again of the Spirit ~ but not yet fully; that will be when Christ returns.

I agree. We have a legal document, and we already have some "rights." But we don't yet have the full package.

Ah! Now this is interesting. Certainly not to say nothing has been interesting to this point; sorry... :) But I say the second death is the state that the unrepentant will be in, away from the New Heaven and New Earth, away from the One Who is life ~ Jesus, of course ~ and... not separated from God's presence, because God is omnipresent, but in a place devoid of His grace, where God's judgment is all there is, The occupants of that place will be totally immersed in God's fire, His judgment, and as such will be in... wait for it... the lake of fire.

Well, I view the "Lake of Fire" as an eternal exit, a metaphorically-described judgment rather than an eternal housing. If I say I'm consigned to the exit door forever, it doesn't mean I live in a door forever. ;) If I say I'm consigned to the fireplace forever, it doesn't mean I will live in a fireplace forever! It means I'm going to be literally removed forever.

The Lake of Fire is not so much an eternal destination but an eternal ban from the presence of God's eternal Kingdom. Being thrown into the Lake of Fire "forever" just means that they have been separated from Paradise forever.

The final destination of the Wicked will really be the "Outer Darkness." That is just a way of saying the Wicked will be outside of Paradise in a place where there is no spiritual light.

If I depict the Lake of Fire as some kind of dungeon where people are literally burned alive hour after hour for all eternity I can't think of a worse God designing such a thing! God Himself has banned all such merciless, cruel instances of sadism. So this cannot be how we are to understand it.

God continues to be "love" even when people have decided to permanently uproot themselves from God's Kingdom and live independent of His love. He will judge them, but He will not undo the way He made them to be "good." They will, I think, be able to do good even without the spiritual light that the Righteous have.

I agree! Well, not totally (I'll explain), because I understand what your full take of this is, but at least to a large degree, I agree with what you're saying here; we're really not that far apart on this. I guess the clarification I would offer here is... well, two things:

1.) that Satan is unable to deceive the nations until the entire millennium is over (that's exactly what Revelation 20 says). But yes, then he will be loosed for a little while...​

and...

2.) that most, if not all, of the glorified saints actually with Christ for the millennium, but that over the course of the millennium, the glorified saints are dying (physically) and their spirits are then actually with Christ and ruling... again, over the course of the millennium.​

I can't follow this?? How can "glorified" saints be "dying" throughout the Millennium? The very definition of "glorified" for me means "immortal!"

So, for each individual saint, not the entire millennium. But then a further clarification to this point is that here again is the now-and-not-yet concept: In this life, as the saints... become saints, are born again of the Spirit, they are raised (this is the first resurrection, and blessed are those who experience it, as John says in Revelation 20:5) and seated with Christ in the heavenly places (as Paul says in Ephesians 2). ​

So you believe our current experience of redemption is the "1st resurrection?" But Rev 20 depicts the more immediate focus of this "1st resurrection" is on those martyred by the Beast.

Yes, we are "raised up in Christ" and "sit with Christ in heaven" legally, but I don't see this as a literal resurrection, and certainly not the "1st Resurrection" mentioned in Rev 20! We have limited spiritual benefits now based on our legal position in Christ in heaven. We are Reborn due to what Christ in heaven has already done.

Since Jesus's time and Pentecost, Satan has been and still is completely unable to deceive the nations... prevent the spread of the Gospel to all tongues, tribes, and nations.

I think the context of "deceiving the nations" indicates a time of actual peace on earth, as opposed to Satan's spiritual deception with respect to the Gospel.

I don't at all think that the nations are yet enlightened by the Gospel! Do you really think the nations today are not under the deception of the Devil? The deception being spoken of refers to "the nations," and not to the Church. And the nations are still "under the power of the Evil One."

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[WPM]

I would characterize "resurrection bodies" differently for the Righteous and the Wicked. Both are reconstituted of the same physical material, extracted from earth's elements. They are not "spirit-bodies," but physical bodies.

In the case of the Righteous, they will be "spiritual bodies," designed to reflect the glory and righteousness of Christ, and made "immortal" in that sense. I don't think the resurrected bodies of the Wicked will be "spirit bodies" either, but they will not be "immortal" in the sense of preserving the spiritual life and righteousness of Christ as it is presently being offered. That spiritual life will be gone in those bodies--they will be "spiritually dead" (not physically dead).


Physical death resulted from Man's disobedience to God's word. This was a form of spiritual separation from God. Separating from His word is the same thing as separating from God.

The consequence of separating from God in the garden was being thrown out of the garden. The consequence of Israel disobeying God's word in the land of Canaan was being thrown out of the land of Canaan. The consequence of an eternal decision to separate from God's word will be separation from God's Paradise forever.

I agree. We have a legal document, and we already have some "rights." But we don't yet have the full package.

Well, I view the "Lake of Fire" as an eternal exit, a metaphorically-described judgment rather than an eternal housing. If I say I'm consigned to the exit door forever, it doesn't mean I live in a door forever. ;) If I say I'm consigned to the fireplace forever, it doesn't mean I will live in a fireplace forever! It means I'm going to be literally removed forever.

The Lake of Fire is not so much an eternal destination but an eternal ban from the presence of God's eternal Kingdom. Being thrown into the Lake of Fire "forever" just means that they have been separated from Paradise forever.

The final destination of the Wicked will really be the "Outer Darkness." That is just a way of saying the Wicked will be outside of Paradise in a place where there is no spiritual light.

If I depict the Lake of Fire as some kind of dungeon where people are literally burned alive hour after hour for all eternity I can't think of a worse God designing such a thing! God Himself has banned all such merciless, cruel instances of sadism. So this cannot be how we are to understand it.

God continues to be "love" even when people have decided to permanently uproot themselves from God's Kingdom and live independent of His love. He will judge them, but He will not undo the way He made them to be "good." They will, I think, be able to do good even without the spiritual light that the Righteous have.

I can't follow this?? How can "glorified" saints be "dying" throughout the Millennium? The very definition of "glorified" for me means "immortal!"

So you believe our current experience of redemption is the "1st resurrection?" But Rev 20 depicts the more immediate focus of this "1st resurrection" is on those martyred by the Beast.

Yes, we are "raised up in Christ" and "sit with Christ in heaven" legally, but I don't see this as a literal resurrection, and certainly not the "1st Resurrection" mentioned in Rev 20! We have limited spiritual benefits now based on our legal position in Christ in heaven. We are Reborn due to what Christ in heaven has already done.

I think the context of "deceiving the nations" indicates a time of actual peace on earth, as opposed to Satan's spiritual deception with respect to the Gospel.

I don't at all think that the nations are yet enlightened by the Gospel! Do you really think the nations today are not under the deception of the Devil? The deception being spoken of refers to "the nations," and not to the Church. And the nations are still "under the power of the Evil One."

Thanks for the conversation.

Satan is under Christ’s kingship today. Jesus defeated him on his own playing field 2000 years ago. He now rules over him. Satan was spiritually bound through the earthly ministry of Christ, he is consequently limited in his power, influence and movement today. His territory has been invaded throughout the world since through the great commission. A bright light is shining throughout the nations. The ignorance that deceived the Gentiles for thousands of years has been lifted. They are now without excuses.

Amazingly, the Church has been given power over the devil. They have been chosen and empowered to represent Christ on this earth. The light they possess overcomes the darkness wherever they go. Satan is powerless to resist the impetus of the great commission as the Church functions in obedience to God and exercises its divine authority. Satan is completely unable to prevent the free-spread of the Gospel to all tongues, tribes, and nations, as Pinseeker said.

Granted, the devil can deceive individuals, he also has been given freedom to accomplish his misdeeds under the careful supervision of God's sovereign will, but he cannot do what he wants. He is a slave to the Lord. He can only do that which advances the cause of Christ. His attacks against the Church ultimately backfire on him. Satan can certainly disrupt the purpose of the Gospel, but he cannot stop them. Satan can resist the Gospel, but God’s people can resist him, whereupon he must immediately flee/vanish. Light overcomes darkness, not the other way around.

The evil one cannot access heaven any more. He cannot accuse the saints before the throne of God. He cannot condemn the saints to everlasting spiritual death.

He has lost the legal authority to attack God’s people because Jesus took back what the devil had stolen from Adam. He cannot therefore win! The battle is already won!

 

[PinSeeker]

I would characterize "resurrection bodies" differently for the Righteous and the Wicked. Both are reconstituted of the same physical material, extracted from earth's elements. They are not "spirit-bodies," but physical bodies.

In the case of the Righteous, they will be "spiritual bodies," designed to reflect the glory and righteousness of Christ, and made "immortal" in that sense. I don't think the resurrected bodies of the Wicked will be "spirit bodies" either, but they will not be "immortal" in the sense of preserving the spiritual life and righteousness of Christ as it is presently being offered. That spiritual life will be gone in those bodies--they will be "spiritually dead" (not physically dead).

Right. Resolved. :) Except ~ and you may agree ~ the unsaved never were alive spiritually.

Physical death resulted from Man's disobedience to God's word. This was a form of spiritual separation from God. Separating from His word is the same thing as separating from God.

Right. Resolved. :) But again, the unsaved never were alive spiritually. Adam and Eve did indeed die that very day in Genesis 3 (albeit spiritually, but not yet physically, when Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed God) just as God told Adam they would in Genesis 2:17.

The consequence of separating from God in the garden was being thrown out of the garden. The consequence of Israel disobeying God's word in the land of Canaan was being thrown out of the land of Canaan. The consequence of an eternal decision to separate from God's word will be separation from God's Paradise forever.

Ah, sort of. :)

I agree. We have a legal document, and we already have some "rights." But we don't yet have the full package.

We do, and we don't. There is a sense in which we have it in full, and there is a simultaneous truth that, in this life, we have not yet attained it. But it is, even now, an absolute certainty.

Well, I view the "Lake of Fire" as an eternal exit, a metaphorically-described judgment rather than an eternal housing. If I say I'm consigned to the exit door forever, it doesn't mean I live in a door forever. ;) If I say I'm consigned to the fireplace forever, it doesn't mean I will live in a fireplace forever! It means I'm going to be literally removed forever.

For the unrepentant, it's both. They are consigned to hell, a real place ~ they will indeed depart to it ~ and be immersed in the fire of God's judgment forever.

The Lake of Fire is not so much an eternal destination but an eternal ban from the presence of God's eternal Kingdom. Being thrown into the Lake of Fire "forever" just means that they have been separated from Paradise forever.

I'm sure you'll agree that it's no mere thing.

The final destination of the Wicked will really be the "Outer Darkness." That is just a way of saying the Wicked will be outside of Paradise in a place where there is no spiritual light.

Well, again, it's no mere thing... And I say, away from the One Who is Light, Jesus. The unsaved are in spiritual darkness now; you and I have been brought out of this darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). But the outer darkness Jesus speaks of, that's a whole 'nother thing...

If I depict the Lake of Fire as some kind of dungeon where people are literally burned alive hour after hour for all eternity....

Yeah don't do that. :) But metaphorically speaking, that's how it will be. Jesus's parable in Luke 16 shows us this...

God continues to be "love" even when people have decided to permanently uproot themselves from God's Kingdom and live independent of His love. He will judge them, but He will not undo the way He made them to be "good."

He gives them what they choose, and we agree that they do not cease to exist.

They will, I think, be able to do good even without the spiritual light that the Righteous have.

Well, possibly, but it will do them no good.

I can't follow this?? How can "glorified" saints be "dying" throughout the Millennium?

They are not glorified until after they physically die; you agree with that, do you not? Right now, for you and me, we have been born again, but we are not yet fully glorified. Right?

The very definition of "glorified" for me means "immortal!"

Ah. Disagree. Ultimately, immortality is certainly a part of being glorified, but I would say that glorification is the final benefit of redemption in the “order of salvation” (predestined, called, justified, glorified" ~ Romans 8:30). This is the order in which the saving benefits of Christ are applied to His people. In the application of redemption, regeneration (being born again of the Spirit) is the beginning of glorification because it is the creation of a new nature that will come to its fullest expression when we are glorified. So, here again, there is the now, and there is the not yet. Glorification is sanctification (renewal after the image of Christ) made perfect. The Holy Spirit is the agent of the glorification of God’s people. God will immediately glorify all believers in the resurrection on the last day, conforming them perfectly to the image of His risen and glorified Son. The glorification of believers will include being renewed to perfection by God, without sin, in their glorified bodies.

So you believe our current experience of redemption is the "1st resurrection?"

Yes. When we are born again of the Spirit, we are raised and seated with Christ in the heavenly places. Yes.

But Rev 20 depicts the more immediate focus of this "1st resurrection" is on those martyred by the Beast.

Ah, they are the first and foremost, but not the only ones. So, "the more immediate focus"... I mean, the martyrs are the first mentioned, but you and I are included in "the rest" in verse 5, and our destiny is the same as those "beheaded for the testimony of Jesus" in verse 4.

Yes, we are "raised up in Christ" and "sit with Christ in heaven" legally, but I don't see this as a literal resurrection, and certainly not the "1st Resurrection" mentioned in Rev 20!

Okay, well, yes, I know. :) Maybe you will someday. :)

We have limited spiritual benefits now based on our legal position in Christ in heaven....

We have spiritual life; it's in Him that we live and move and have our being. I say "limited spiritual benefits" is understating it somewhat... :)

We are Reborn due to what Christ in heaven has already done.

Right, so, limited in the sense that we are still in this world, on this side of glory, but... :) Dude, we have eternal life. "Limited"? I think not... :)

I think the context of "deceiving the nations" indicates a time of actual peace on earth, as opposed to Satan's spiritual deception with respect to the Gospel.

Well, I think neither... I've said several times now that it's not a matter of Satan's spiritual deception, really but his being able ~ again, only because at one time God allowed it to be so ~ to prevent the spread of the Gospel to other people groups. Just like He allowed Satan to have his way with Job, but only up to taking Job's life.

I don't at all think that the nations are yet enlightened by the Gospel!

Well, in the sense that there are unreached people groups, yes. But missionaries are trying to correct that... :) And those people groups will eventually be enlightened by the Gospel, because they can be. God has bound Satan in this sense and has thus opened the Gospel to everyone, which was not the case until Jesus came and Pentecost happened.

Do you really think the nations today are not under the deception of the Devil?

No, if they are unreached. Let's take China, for example, or Iran. Are they unreached, with respect to the Gospel of Jesus? Well no, are there not missionaries in those countries? Their (heavily influenced) governments are actively trying to suppress the Gospel, to stop its spread within their borders, to prevent people from being converted to Christ. They are not succeeding, and even failing miserably. It may not look that way to us yet on the outside looking in, but the Gospel cannot be suppressed.

The deception being spoken of refers to "the nations," and not to the Church.

Sure. Yes.

And the nations are still "under the power of the Evil One."

Well, yes, any nation that is unreached. But Satan can do absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the Gospel to all people groups. He is bound from doing so.

Thanks for the conversation.

Yes, same to you! Grace and peace to you.