PAST-Millennialism

[ewq1938]

Of course there were "two notable resurrections prophecy speaks of". But that doesn't limit the number of group resurrection events to only two.

It does because post-ascension, there are only two mass bodily resurrections, both found in various passages including Rev 20. None of these passages or any other speak of three resurrections.

 

[ewq1938]

God planned a massive group resurrection in AD 70 to put a wrap on all things Old Covenant related.

No, he didn't. There was no resurrection in AD70. The first of the remaining two resurrections takes place at the second coming, a future event.

There are not two stages of the first resurrection ie: those who shall rise first. All the dead in Christ will rise at the same exact time. Revelation 20 simply focuses on one group like if there were a million people in a dark room and you shined a flashlight at a group of around a thousand. The others are still there. The light just isn't being shown at them at that time.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

All the dead in Christ will resurrect at the same time. Revelation 20 is only shining a light on one specific group but everyone is actually resurrecting at the same time the beheaded saints are.

 

[Ghada]

Ah, well I’ve been very clear that God’s millennium of Revelation 20 is not literally 1,000 earth years,

Ok, so you're just another fable maker. There is one person that actually tries to prophecy a 'past' millennium, that is a thousand years and has already expired.

The millennium is a symbolic period represented as a thousand years

Like theft of a brand name, your prophecy is just a rip off of 'millennium'.

You don't prophecy a millennium. Like a ripped off brand name, you render it meaningless.

but you have to admit that that can validly be read as happening over the course of the thousand years ~

Since you don't preach a 1000 years at all, any mention of a 1000 years is self-contradictory.

rather than “it’s a one-time event in which all the saints die at the same time an rule with Christ the entire thousand years.” And I say what I underlined is the correct way to see it. Think about it.

God's Millennium is with His first resurrected saints for a thousand years. There will be natural people living natural lives all through it.

Your prophecy of continued generations is nothing new.

We don’t physically live a thousand years, right. But that’s really not relevant.

Christs millennial rule may not look like we would like it to look,

Nothing about your prophecy is relevant to God's Millennium. And your prophecy of continued unrighteous rulers, is nothing like God's millennium of the Lord's righteous rule over all nations.

but one thing that cannot be refuted is that God is in total control, and everything is happening according to what God has ordained, and God’s purposes cannot be thwarted.

Which has always been so since the beginning of the world. Nothing has changed in heaven with God's rule from His everlasting throne.

I would argue too that from what Revelation actually says, we can see really that the more it seems sin and death and even Satan are winning

Exactly. In your present 'reign' on earth, Satan still has rule over many nations on earth. Good job. Your great reigning still results in the same old world of iniquity as when wicked Cain slew righteous Abel.

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

The Lord's 1000 year reign will be the opposite of yours, with the devil's temptations shut up from the earth, and the King's law and rule executed justly over all the earth

Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.

The opposite is true; see above. His eternal rule will be what you say here; there will be no more sin or death. Everlasting joy will be on our heads, and all sorrow and sighing will flee away.

The new heaven and earth will be with the saints reigning with the Lamb forever. Unlike His 1000 year righteous rule on this earth, His rule on the new earth will not expire.

Your prophecy is not of a millennium, nor of the Lord's righteousness ruling upon all the earth.

Your prophecy is of all things remaining the same unto the end of this earth, as from the beginning:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

And we see the reason for scoffing at the Lord's overnight change of all the earth from unrighteous rule to righteousness, is from continued walking after your own unrepented sins.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You preach an unconditional salvation of no more being condemned, when you are walking after the flesh, And then you prophecy a spirit-only reigning for yourself, to believe the second death has no more power over you,

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Ok, so you're just another fable maker. There is one person that actually tries to prophecy a 'past' millennium, that is a thousand years and has already expired.



Like theft of a brand name, your prophecy is just a rip off of 'millennium'.

You don't prophecy a millennium. Like a ripped off brand name, you render it meaningless.



Since you don't preach a 1000 years at all, any mention of a 1000 years is self-contradictory.


God's Millennium is with His first resurrected saints for a thousand years. There will be natural people living natural lives all through it.

Your prophecy of continued generations is nothing new.


Nothing about your prophecy is relevant to God's Millennium. And your prophecy of continued unrighteous rulers, is nothing like God's millennium of the Lord's righteous rule over all nations.


Which has always been so since the beginning of the world. Nothing has changed in heaven with God's rule from His everlasting throne.






Exactly. In your present 'reign' on earth, Satan still has rule over many nations on earth. Good job. Your great reigning still results in the same old world of iniquity as when wicked Cain slew righteous Abel.

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

The Lord's 1000 year reign will be the opposite of yours, with the devil's temptations shut up from the earth, and the King's law and rule executed justly over all the earth

Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.



The new heaven and earth will be with the saints reigning with the Lamb forever. Unlike His 1000 year righteous rule on this earth, His rule on the new earth will not expire.

Your prophecy is not of a millennium, nor of the Lord's righteousness ruling upon all the earth.

Your prophecy is of all things remaining the same unto the end of this earth, as from the beginning:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

And we see the reason for scoffing at the Lord's overnight change of all the earth from unrighteous rule to righteousness, is from continued walking after your own unrepented sins.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You preach an unconditional salvation of no more being condemned, when you are walking after the flesh, And then you prophecy a spirit-only reigning for yourself, to believe the second death has no more power over you,

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

When Christ returns, are all that are alive not changed? If so there will be no natural life through the millennium.

 

[3 Resurrections]

All the dead in Christ will resurrect at the same time.

This is obviously not true, because Paul wrote otherwise in 1 Cor. 15:23 describing two resurrections with time between separating them. Christ was the First-fruits resurrection, then "AFTERWARDS" would be resurrected those at His coming return. You really shouldn't sweep the Matthew 27:52-53 group of many resurrected saints under the rug as you are doing.

 

[PinSeeker]

Yes…

That’s the answer TN: just yes. God plainly told Adam that he would die that very day, so he (and Eve) must have died. However, it is quite evident that his and Eve’s mortal life did not end that very day, so the question that remains is, what kind of death did they experience?What does it actually mean that they died. Well, it’s not hard to find out, as we find a great many explicit clues throughout the rest of Scripture, and John 3, Ephesians 2, and 1 Peter 1 are three of the clearest. :)

What I would clarify though is that Adam indeed would have lived forever had he not sinned…

That’s absolutely true.

Is a day not a 1000 years?

This seems a non sequitur to me, but no. Where this is found, the context is that even the passage of much time to us is as a blink of an eye to God, Who always is ~ present in the eternal now, we sometimes say. We can’t really get it, but we can understand to a limited degree, that eternity past and eternity future and all times in between is now to God, the great I AM.

Is God the god of unbelievers?

Nope. Unbelievers are not included when He says, “I will be their God, and they will be My people.” As Paul says of unbelievers in Romans 1, because they have exchanged the truth for a lie and worship creation instead of the Creator, He has given them up to their own foolish passions.

Grace and peace to you, Truthnightmare.

 

[Truthnightmare]

That’s the answer TN: just yes. God plainly told Adam that he would die that very day, so he (and Eve) must have died. However, it is quite evident that his and Eve’s mortal life did not end that very day, so the question that remains is, what kind of death did they experience?What does it actually mean that they died. Well, it’s not hard to find out, as we find a great many explicit clues throughout the rest of Scripture, and John 3, Ephesians 2, and 1 Peter 1 are three of the clearest. :)


That’s absolutely true.


This seems a non sequitur to me, but no. Where this is found, the context is that even the passage of much time to us is as a blink of an eye to God, Who always is ~ present in the eternal now, we sometimes say. We can’t really get it, but we can understand to a limited degree, that eternity past and eternity future and all times in between is now to God, the great I AM.


Nope. Unbelievers are not included when He says, “I will be their God, and they will be My people.” As Paul says of unbelievers in Romans 1, because they have exchanged the truth for a lie and worship creation instead of the Creator, He has given them up to their own foolish passions.

Grace and peace to you, Truthnightmare.

God plainly told Adam that he would die that very day, so he (and Eve) must have died. However, it is quite evident that his and Eve’s mortal life did not end that very day,

That’s questionable is it not?

Is a day a 1000 years? Let’s say it is,
I propose Adam was 810 years old when the decree of his death was ordered.. He died when he was 930… is that not the same day?

 

[ewq1938]

This is obviously not true, because Paul wrote otherwise in 1 Cor. 15:23 describing two resurrections with time between separating them. Christ was the First-fruits resurrection, then "AFTERWARDS" would be resurrected those at His coming return. You really shouldn't sweep the Matthew 27:52-53 group of many resurrected saints under the rug as you are doing.

That resurrection is a PAST EVENT which is why it is not mentioned as part of the future two resurrections that are left. Remember those, the ones you always refuse to acknowledge?

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

First group resurrection: "to everlasting life"
Second group resurrection: "to shame and everlasting contempt"


Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

First group resurrection: "resurrection of life"
Second group resurrection: "the resurrection of damnation"


Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

First group resurrection: "the just"
Second group resurrection: the "unjust"

 

[ewq1938]

That’s questionable is it not?

Is a day a 1000 years? Let’s say it is,
I propose Adam was 810 years old when the decree of his death was ordered.. He died when he was 930… is that not the same day?

A thousand years is a day to God, not to man. The Hebrew there actually proves an instant death the day he died as opposed to a long slow death over a long period of time. It's a long read also but I'll post it for those who want to read it.


The infinitive absolute verb pairing explained.


Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


When speaking to a human man and telling him that in the day he sins he will suffer a punishment could only be understood as a literal day wherein he would receive that punishment. The word day means warm, which obviously is a reference to the daylight part of day so this punishment did not occur at night. The word can mean longer than a day in a figurative sense but the context of the passage shows a literal use.

Adam sinned and not long after he died. It simply wasn't a physical death but the type of death any sinless person suffers when they sin for the first time. Sin is a moral/spiritual concept, and the death it brings to a person is spiritual.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


It is claimed by some that this actually means "dying thou shalt die" and is conveying the meaning of "a continued action over a long period of time" meaning Adam began to physically age when he sinned and eventually would die but is this actually an accurate translation and interpretation? No. Allow me to explain:

Gen 2:17 But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it: forH3588 in the dayH3117 that thou eatestH398 thereofH4480 thou shalt surely die.H4191 H4191

Here we see the word "die" repeated twice, H4191 H4191.

One of the verbs will be written in a different verbal form than the other. That literally means one will have an extra hebrew letter/character despite being the same exact word. That spelling difference and which order the two verbs appear can alter the meaning of the verbs. One verb will be written in the infinitive absolute form. The other verb will be written in the conjugated/inflected form which has the extra letter/character. What the pair of verbs actually mean is based on which form appears first and which is second:

http://kukis.org/Languages/Hebrew4Dummies.pdf

The infinitive absolute has four uses: when found alone, it sometimes acts as an English gerund, so that we may add ING to the end of the verb;

This isn't relative because this is only when the verb is alone and not in a pair as it is in Gen 2:17.

When found directly before it's verbal cognate, it serves to intensify or strengthen the action or the meaning of the verb which follows

This is when the infinitive absolute form appears first or before the conjugated/inflected form.

When it follows it's cognate verb, it emphasizes the duration or the continuation of the verbal idea.

This is when the the conjugated/inflected verb form appears first or before infinitive absolute verb form.

So back to the verse and the pair of verbs:

Gen 2:17 But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it: forH3588 in the dayH3117 that thou eatestH398 thereofH4480 thou shalt surely die.H4191 H4191

Here we see the word "die" repeated twice, H4191 H4191 or using an english transliteration, "muth t'muth". "muth" is the infinitive absolute verb and "t'muth" is the conjugated/inflected verb.

So in Gen 2:17 is the first verb in the "infinitive absolute form" or is the first verb in the "conjugated/inflected form"?

In that verse the first verb is in the "infinitive absolute form" so it appears first: muth t'muth, so this meaning is the correct one:

When found directly before it's verbal cognate, it serves to intensify or strengthen the action or the meaning of the verb which follows

 

[ewq1938]

I will now prove that the infinitive absolute verb does appear first:

Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/113. The Infinitive Absolute - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

113n (a) The infinitive absolute used before the verb to strengthen the verbal idea, i.e. to emphasize in this way either the certainty (especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence. In English, such an infinitive is mostly expressed by a corresponding adverb, but sometimes merely by putting greater stress on the verb; e.g. Gen 2:17 ???? ???????? thou shalt surely die,

Confirmation it does indeed come first proving which meaning it conveys.


"dying thou shalt die" interpreted to mean "a continued action over a long period of time" and that Adam began to physically age when he sinned and eventually would die is an incorrect interpretation in Gen 2:17. Those that promote this understanding do not properly understand the "infinitive absolute verb pairing" because they are ignorant of the order of the verb forms involved and which meaning is conveyed by their order.

A translation hard to misunderstand would be either "a death thou shalt die" or how it's rendered in the KJV "thou shalt surely die" which shows how the infinitive absolute verb form intensifies or strengthens the meaning of the verb "die". "dying thou shalt die" does not convey a "continued action over a long period of time" though it is often understood in that errant way. Using the verb "dying" in that verse suggests the wrong meaning as if Adam just began the process of dying over time which did not start happening as soon as he sinned. The first verb is supposed to intensify or strengthen the action or the meaning of the second verb yet "dying thou shalt die" fails to convey that properly which leads to many false understandings of this verse. It is a very poor way to translate the Hebrew. "thou shalt surely die" properly conveys the meaning of the verb pairing which "intensifies or strengthens the action or the meaning of the verb" that follows the infinitive absolute verb.

Gesenius' Hebrew Grammer Lexicon:

#113 - ܐܰܟ݂ܰܐܺܝܩܳܘܣ - New Testament Aramaic Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

#113 - ܐܰܟ݂ܰܐܺܝܩܳܘܣ in the New Testament Aramaic Lexical Dictionary on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

(a) The infinitive absolute used before the verb to strengthen the verbal idea, i.e. to emphasize in this way either the certainty (especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence. In English, such an infinitive is mostly expressed by a corresponding adverb, but sometimes merely by putting greater stress on the verb; e.g. Genesis 2:17 "mut t'mut" thou shalt surely die

Note, again, that there is only one meaning when the infinitive absolute verb is first and the conjugated/inflected verb is second; "to strengthen the verbal idea". No other meaning can be attached yet you will find all kinds of articles and forum posts which do exactly that due to ignorance of the true meaning of the infinitive absolute/inflected verb pairing. Some will insist it can have both meanings but that is quite untrue!


So, Adam did NOT start to age and slowly die over a period of time when he sinned. The "infinitive absolute form" used in Gen 2:17 proves that theory to be incorrect. The death he experienced was completed at that very day he sinned just as God promised. Since he was still physically alive the only completed death he experienced that day can only be a spiritual/figurative death. He was not "dying" but "died". The Hebrew demands that meaning. He was born dying because he was created a mortal human being. Aging and physically dying was unrelated to his sin.



Simplified version:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

When the Hebrew uses this same verb twice in a row one of the words will be spelled slightly different. One will be the infinitive absolute verb and the other is called the conjugated/inflected verb.

They can mean two different things but not both at the same time:

1. "a continued action over a long period of time" meaning death is a long process because the verb means death. "dying thou shalt die".

OR

2. "a future completed death spoken in an emphatic way" re-enforcing the fact that he would definitely/surely die the literal day he sinned.

It all depends on if the infinitive absolute verb is first and the conjugated/inflected verb is last, or vice versa.

In the manuscripts the the infinitive absolute verb is first and the conjugated/inflected verb is last so the meaning of the verb is "a future completed death spoken in an emphatic way" and NOT "a continued action over a long period of time" meaning death is a long process.

In order for the verb to mean "a continued action over a long period of time" meaning death is a long process it would have to have been the conjugated/inflected verb first and the infinitive absolute verb last but that is not how it appears in the manuscripts. Number 2 is the way the verb paring appears in Gen 2:17.



When it comes second as here: "t'muth muth" then it can only mean "a continued action over a long period of time" meaning death is a long process because the verb means death.

When the infinitive absolute verb comes first as it does here: "muth t'muth" it can only mean "a future completed death spoken in an emphatic way" and that is the order of the verb pairing in Gen 2:17.


I should explain what I mean by, "a future completed death spoken in an emphatic way" because I am aware the conjugated/inflected verb is in the imperfect which means an incompleted action. God spoke these words before Adam sinned which is why the death is not a completed action yet when God spoke those words but the use of the infinitive absolute verb pairing supports the fact that Adam would indeed die the day he sinned as opposed to an incomplete death ie: begin to die. God said he would die the day he sinned and he definitely did. God simply never explained what type of death it would be.

 

[Ghada]

#1) The scripture's language does not require that these individuals themselves reign a total of a thousand-years of their own lifetime.

And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

They lived with Christ a thousand years.

These individuals took part in "reigning in life by one Christ Jesus" during the ordinary span of their lifetime,

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

God's righteousness reigns in the life of His saints on earth today. Our lives do not reign with Him over nations. Nor do we even reign with Him in our own lives.

Only the self-willed and unrepentant still reign in their own lives. Jesus is the only Head of the body. No member of His body on earth today is a co-head reigning with Him in life.

Having reign in ones own life is the uncrucified, and imagining oneself to have reign in high places is idolatry.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

"This artist was a Renaissance painter", because this person lived and created works of art at some point during the Renaissance - not that they lived and produced paintings for the entire Renaissance period from start to finish.

I don't teach the Renaissance of man, but the Millennium of resurrected saints with Christ.

Natural examples can illustrate the Bible, but they do not govern it.

#2) John wrote in Rev. 20:5 that the millennium ended when the First resurrection had taken place.

The thousand years expires a thousand years after the first resurrection. So also is Satan bound in hell.

If you can't figure out that "Christ the FIRST-fruits" was raised to life in the FIRST resurrection, there really is no hope for you to make any sense of the millennium..

The newborn resurrection of the inner man in old natural body, is not the argument.

It's the millennium of Christ and His resurrected saints bodily.

Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

O let the nations be glad and sing for for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Selah.

The Lord has not returned, nor have His resurrected saints governed the nations with Him upon the earth.

#4) All of those individuals bodily raised to life again in the scripture were the ones who were "alive" but who had "remained" on earth in those glorified bodies, as Paul referred to them in 1 Thess. 4:15 & 17

Not who 'were' alive, but 'are' alive:

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Paul was speaking of himself at the time. He was not already resurrected bodily and waiting for the Lord's return.



.

They all left this planet together with the newly-resurrected multitude of saints in the bodily resurrection that Paul told Felix was "ABOUT TO BE" in Acts 24:15

Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Redeemed souls of saints that die bodily, are in the presence of the Lord at His altar in heaven. All the dead bodies of the saints remain in graves to be resurrected, beginning with righteous Abel.

#5) Satan was never said to be bound in Hell.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Hell is the pit, that is later called bottomless. The prophecy is that Lucifer will later be chained and cast down into hell, just as the other angels that sinned.

God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

He was in the "ABYSS" (abusson), which "abyss" Christ also was in during His three days and nights before He was bodily resurrected (Romans 10:7) .

True. He called it the heart of the earth, and He was not left in hell.

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

The Bible places hell in the pit and heart of the earth, and also calls it the bottomless pit.

The "abyss" is not a place on earth with coordinates that can be located.

Goes without saying. No pit nor deep ditch nor cavern is on the earth, but in the earth.

The bottomless pit is in the heart of the earth and called hell. That is why it's sometimes accurately referred to as the 'pit of hell'.

Satan's deception of the nations was not functioning during those thousand years as it had been prior to the beginning of the millennium,

The Bible prophecy is binding Satan. Your prophecy is just binding his powers.

In the Bible, Satan's powers go with Satan wheresoever he is.

#6) It is true that no deception by Satan could be without temptation by the devil.

It's not about making difference between temptation and deception. It's about trying to make difference between Satan and the Devil.

There is another simple means of proving that Satan's deception of the nations was bound, even before Christ's earthly ministry began. Christ was comparing His ability to cast out devils (plundering Satan's goods) with the fact that Satan had FIRST been bound before that.

No, it means Satan is binding the man, and so needs to first be bound to do that.

If Satan had been bound, as in the Lord's Millennium on earth, then there would be no need to bind him and cast out, as in the Lord's millennium on earth.

Therefore, this literal thousand-year millennium binding of Satan's ability to deceive the nations began even BEFORE Christ's earthly ministry started.

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

Neither Satan nor his powers were yet bound from the earth.

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

Nor today.

And ended with the "First resurrection", according to John.

Began. And expired 1000 years later.

 

[Truthnightmare]

A thousand years is a day to God, not to man.The Hebrew there actually proves an instant death the day he died as opposed to a long slow death over a long period of time. It's a long read also but I'll post it for those who want to read it.


The infinitive absolute verb pairing explained.


Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


When speaking to a human man and telling him that in the day he sins he will suffer a punishment could only be understood as a literal day wherein he would receive that punishment. The word day means warm, which obviously is a reference to the daylight part of day so this punishment did not occur at night. The word can mean longer than a day in a figurative sense but the context of the passage shows a literal use.

Adam sinned and not long after he died. It simply wasn't a physical death but the type of death any sinless person suffers when they sin for the first time. Sin is a moral/spiritual concept, and the death it brings to a person is spiritual.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


It is claimed by some that this actually means "dying thou shalt die" and is conveying the meaning of "a continued action over a long period of time" meaning Adam began to physically age when he sinned and eventually would die but is this actually an accurate translation and interpretation? No. Allow me to explain:

Gen 2:17 But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it: forH3588 in the dayH3117 that thou eatestH398 thereofH4480 thou shalt surely die.H4191 H4191

Here we see the word "die" repeated twice, H4191 H4191.

One of the verbs will be written in a different verbal form than the other. That literally means one will have an extra hebrew letter/character despite being the same exact word. That spelling difference and which order the two verbs appear can alter the meaning of the verbs. One verb will be written in the infinitive absolute form. The other verb will be written in the conjugated/inflected form which has the extra letter/character. What the pair of verbs actually mean is based on which form appears first and which is second:

http://kukis.org/Languages/Hebrew4Dummies.pdf

This isn't relative because this is only when the verb is alone and not in a pair as it is in Gen 2:17.




This is when the infinitive absolute form appears first or before the conjugated/inflected form.



This is when the the conjugated/inflected verb form appears first or before infinitive absolute verb form.

So back to the verse and the pair of verbs:

Gen 2:17 But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it: forH3588 in the dayH3117 that thou eatestH398 thereofH4480 thou shalt surely die.H4191 H4191

Here we see the word "die" repeated twice, H4191 H4191 or using an english transliteration, "muth t'muth". "muth" is the infinitive absolute verb and "t'muth" is the conjugated/inflected verb.

So in Gen 2:17 is the first verb in the "infinitive absolute form" or is the first verb in the "conjugated/inflected form"?

In that verse the first verb is in the "infinitive absolute form" so it appears first: muth t'muth, so this meaning is the correct one:

A thousand years is a day to God, not to man.

To what man? The man Adam or the haa-'adam is not the same man/men as

'adam is man, any man, men, mankind

The man Adam walked God and the the edict surrounds him.

Note:
These are generally taken as meaning 120 years before the Flood. But this mistake has been made by not observing that the word for "men" in Gen. 6:1, 2 is in the singular number with the definite article, as in v. 3 "man", and means THE MAN ADAM. The word "also" clearly refers to him. It has no meaning if "men" be read, in the plural. It means, and can mean, only that Adam himself, "also", as well as the rest of mankind,. (*1) If "men" be the meaning, then it may be well asked, who are the others indicated by the word "also"?
In Gen. 2:17, the Lord God had declared that Adam should die. Here, in Gen. 6, it was made more clear that though he had lived 810 years he should surely die; and that his breath, or spirit of life from God should not for ever remain in him. See the notes on Gen. 6.

This fixes the chronology of v. 3, and shows that long before that time, A.M. 810, and even before Enoch, this irruption of fallen angels had taken place. This was the cause of all the "ungodliness" against which the prophecy of Enoch was directed in Jude 14, and which ultimately brought on the fulfillment of his prophecy in the Judgment of the Flood. See Ap. 23 and 25.

 

[Mr E]

That’s questionable is it not?

Is a day a 1000 years? Let’s say it is,
I propose Adam was 810 years old when the decree of his death was ordered.. He died when he was 930… is that not the same day?

That's an interesting take. You are proposing that the 120 year life span was from a declaration day going forward?

 

[3 Resurrections]

That resurrection is a PAST EVENT which is why it is not mentioned as part of the future two resurrections that are left. Remember those, the ones you always refuse to acknowledge?

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

First group resurrection: "to everlasting life"
Second group resurrection: "to shame and everlasting contempt"

It's not that I refuse to acknowledge two future resurrections from the time perspective of when the scriptures were written. But you are attempting to subdivide the mention of a particular single resurrection into two separate events, (one for the righteous and another one for the wicked), which scripture does not do in these texts you have brought up. Each one of the references you are highlighting is the mention of a single particular resurrection, "A resurrection of the dead" with BOTH the just and unjust participating in that occasion of a single particular resurrection event.

What you yourself are refusing to acknowledge is the timing which all of these texts refer to - specifically one group resurrection event that was "ABOUT TO BE" when Paul and Christ mentioned this particular resurrection soon to come in their own generation. Daniel 12:11-13 predicted the signs for the actual first-century day this would occur, and Christ told the people of His generation that if anyone read Daniel, they would understand the timing of this. The resurrection at Christ's AD 70 return occurred just as predicted by Daniel, Christ, Paul, and the other NT writers; a group resurrection event which included both the righteous and the wicked.

What God has already done for the group of Matthew 27:52-53 saints and for the first-century generation of the wicked and righteous dead, He will do again for a final time in our own future, since "...we must ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ...". Just not all on a single occasion of time.

 

[Mr E]

It's not that I refuse to acknowledge two future resurrections from the time perspective of when the scriptures were written. But you are attempting to subdivide the mention of a particular single resurrection into two separate events, (one for the righteous and another one for the wicked), which scripture does not do in these texts you have brought up. Each one of the references you are highlighting is the mention of a single particular resurrection, "A resurrection of the dead" with BOTH the just and unjust participating in that occasion of a single particular resurrection event.

What you yourself are refusing to acknowledge is the timing which all of these texts refer to - specifically one group resurrection event that was "ABOUT TO BE" when Paul and Christ mentioned this particular resurrection soon to come in their own generation. Daniel 12:11-13 predicted the signs for the actual first-century day this would occur, and Christ told the people of His generation that if anyone read Daniel, they would understand the timing of this. The resurrection at Christ's AD 70 return occurred just as predicted by Daniel, Christ, Paul, and the other NT writers; a group resurrection event which included both the righteous and the wicked.

What God has already done for the group of Matthew 27:52-53 saints and for the first-century generation of the wicked and righteous dead, He will do again for a final time in our own future, since "...we must ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ...". Just not all on a single occasion of time.

The 70 AD return? Christ returned 3 days later, not some 35 years later.

You are sadly stretching things.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The 70 AD return? Christ returned 3 days later, not some 35 years later.

You are sadly stretching things.

I am referring to Paul standing before Felix around AD 60 when he told the governor, "...there is ABOUT TO BE a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." (Acts 24:15). When Paul again had a chance to reason with Felix about righteousness, temperance and "the judgment ABOUT TO BE", Felix began to tremble (Acts 24:25). If this was a far distant future resurrection event Paul was describing, Felix would not have reacted in this manner. But because this next resurrection event was coming in the very near future in Paul's generation, Felix had reason to be afraid.

 

[Mr E]

I am referring to Paul standing before Felix around AD 60 when he told the governor, "...there is ABOUT TO BE a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." (Acts 24:15). When Paul again had a chance to reason with Felix about righteousness, temperance and "the judgment ABOUT TO BE", Felix began to tremble (Acts 24:25). If this was a far distant future resurrection event Paul was describing, Felix would not have reacted in this manner. But because this next resurrection event was coming in the very near future in Paul's generation, Felix had reason to be afraid.

Your words.

Paul doesn't say that there is 'about to be' a resurrection of the dead. He just says that there will be a resurrection. You've created an artificial timeline that Paul did not. You should acknowledge this.

 

[PinSeeker]

Ok, so you're just another fable maker.

LOL! Hoo boy. :)

There is one person that actually tries to prophecy a 'past' millennium, that is a thousand years and has already expired.

Right, which is... well, in my opinion, at least, ridiculous... :) ...and I am thus surely not that person...

Like theft of a brand name, your prophecy is just a rip off of 'millennium'. You don't prophecy a millennium. Like a ripped off brand name, you render it meaningless.

Ah, now, that's a point worth addressing, although not for the reasons you think. I actually don't like the term "amillennialism," as the 'a' prefix can really convey a 'not' sort of understanding, as if there is no millennium at all, and that's not the case, as we would all agree. Actually, though, the prefix 'a' has a few different meanings:

1. Again, it can mean 'not,' or 'without' ~​

'atypical'... not typical; 'achromatic'... not chromatic/without color; 'asymmetrical'... not symmetrical; 'asymmetry'... lack/absence of symmetry​

2. It can also mean 'on,' 'in,' or 'at' ~​

'abed'... in bed; 'ashore'... at/on the shore; 'atop'... on top​

3. It can also mean 'in (such) a state or condition' ~​

'afire'... in the state/condition of being (on) fire; 'adrift'... in the state/condition of drifting; 'afloat'... in the state/condition of floating; 'akin'... in the state/condition of being kin​

4. And it can also mean 'in (such) a manner' ~​

'afar'... in a far manner; 'aloud'... in a loud manner; 'along'... in a long manner; 'alike'... in a like manner​

I would submit the better term to use ~ because of lack of ambiguity, and it is used ~ is 'nunc-millennialism.' The 'nunc' prefix more properly conveys that the millennium is now, rather than not a reality at all, corresponding with number 2 (bolded) above.

Since you don't preach a 1000 years at all, any mention of a 1000 years is self-contradictory...

See above; the millennium is indisputably a reality. Again, I submit the term "amillennialism" is really a misnomer; "nunc-millennialism" is the better descriptive term.

God's Millennium is with His first resurrected saints for a thousand years. There will be natural people living natural lives all through it.

I agree, but not with your take on it. See above. I would replace "first" here with "all," and I would replace "natural" with... well, "physical," although I'm good with "natural," if understood just in the earthly sense. Paul does differentiate between the natural and the spiritual in 1 Corinthians 15, as you're probably aware.

Your prophecy of continued generations is nothing new.


Nothing about your prophecy is relevant to God's Millennium.

In... your humble opinion... :)

And your prophecy of continued unrighteous rulers, is nothing like God's millennium of the Lord's righteous rule over all nations.

This is no prophecy, but reality. After God's millennium, there will be no more unrighteous rule, as there will be no more sin.

Which has always been so since the beginning of the world. Nothing has changed in heaven with God's rule from His everlasting throne.

That God is in total control, and everything is happening according to what God has ordained, and God’s purposes cannot be thwarted ~ sure; I have never said otherwise.

In your present 'reign' on earth, Satan still has rule over many nations on earth.

Sigh... Jesus is not presently reigning on earth. But He is our reigning King. Is Satan your King, Ghada? Or is Christ Jesus? And regarding Satan, he is "the ruler of this world" in Jesus's context in John's Gospel (in speaking to some Gentiles [12:31] and in speaking to His disciples [14:30, 16:11]). But Jesus's Kingdom, again, in Jesus's context in John's Gospel (in speaking to the Pharisees [8:23] and in speaking to Pontius Pilot [18:36]) is not of this world.

The Lord's 1000 year reign will be the opposite of yours

No, the Lord's eternal reign...

• in the New Heaven and New Earth, when Christ is actually present with us, when there will be no more sin, as everlasting joy shall be upon our heads, and all sorrow and sighing will have fled away, in the words of Isaiah 35:10

...will be much different than His millennial reign...

• from Heaven, from His being seated at the right hand of the Father, which is the case in the world at present.

, with the devil's temptations shut up from the earth, and the King's law and rule executed justly over all the earth...

Hmmm... Well, yes, but the Old Testament Civil and Ceremonial Law will not somehow be reinstituted. I'm not sure if you think so or not.

The new heaven and earth will be with the saints reigning with the Lamb forever.

Absolutely.

Unlike His 1000 year righteous rule on this earth, His rule on the new earth will not expire.

Absolutely.

Your prophecy is not of a millennium, nor of the Lord's righteousness ruling upon all the earth. Your prophecy is of all things remaining the same unto the end of this earth...

Well, in both statements, regarding my "prophecy," not at all accurate, and not at all accurate. :) See above.

And we see the reason for scoffing at the Lord's overnight change of all the earth from unrighteous rule to righteousness...

As it concerns me and what I am saying, is a terrible misunderstanding of what I actually am saying. See above.

You preach an unconditional salvation of no more being condemned, when you are walking after the flesh, And then you prophecy a spirit-only reigning for yourself, to believe the second death has no more power over you...

Sigh... Like all those in Christ, there is therefore now no condemnation for sin. Consequences, for sure, but no more condemnation. Yet again, Paul is crystal clear on this in Romans 8, but in all his other letters, too. Your concept of unconditional salvation is terribly flawed in your context here. Our unconditional election to salvation is of God and of God only, dependent on nothing else other than His decision to "have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, compassion upon whom He will have compassion," as Paul says in Romans 9, quoting from Moses, who of course is quoting God Himself, in Exodus 33:19... even "gracious to whom He will be gracious." As Paul says in Ephesians 2, "...by grace (we) have been saved through faith... (a)nd this is not (our) own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast..." If you believe otherwise, Ghada, then you are making God's grace out to be not grace ~ unmerited favor ~ at all, something wholly other than grace, as Paul says in Romans 11:6 ~ "...if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." Faithfulness is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), Ghada, a gift of the Spirit (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12); so our faithful obedience is a result of the saving grace we've received from God.

A thousand years is a day to God, not to man. The Hebrew there actually proves an instant death the day he died as opposed to a long slow death over a long period of time. It's a long read also but I'll post it for those who want to read it.

And I would argue the exact opposite of what is true about the day there is true of the thousand years; the thousand years is not an absolute 1,000 years, but an undefined number of days, a totality, or fullness of days and/or years ~ in the sense that any length of time may seem like a long, long time to us, but is as the blink of an eye to God, for Whom there is no "time"... anything is past, present, or future to us, but it is all now from His perspective. Which again, we, as finite beings, can't really wrap our minds around; we cannot really grasp the infinite, the eternal.

Grace and peace to you both.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Your words.

Paul doesn't say that there is 'about to be' a resurrection of the dead. He just says that there will be a resurrection. You've created an artificial timeline that Paul did not. You should acknowledge this.

These are not "my" words. They are straight out of the Interlinear translation. Paul was speaking of an imminent resurrection of the dead that was "ABOUT TO BE" in his own generation. Many of the literal translations acknowledge this as the proper translation of the original Greek language in this verse. The reason I know this is the correct translation is that Christ said quite bluntly that there would be some of those standing in front of Him who would not die before they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom with the angels, to give rewards to every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27-28). That was within some 40 years or so, which would allow some of those whom Christ was addressing to still be alive at Christ's coming return in their generation, given the natural lifespan of a person in those days.

 

[PinSeeker]

That’s questionable is it not?

Not. :)

Is a day a 1000 years?

No. :) To God ~ from His perspective ~ a day is... simultanously... as 1000 years to God, and a thousand years as a day.

Let’s say it is,

Hmm, well, I say let's say it's not. :) Because if we do, it's just... well, neither here nor there. :)

I propose Adam was 810 years old when the decree of his death was ordered.. He died when he was 930… is that not the same day?

I think there's 120 years in between (if my math is correct), so no. :) In Genesis 5, we do see that Adam was 800 years old when He fathered Seth, but we don't know how old he was when Cain and Abel were born. We do know that Cain fathered Enoch before Adam fathered Seth (Genesis 4), but how much time there was between those two events we know not... My point here is that it seems logical to me to think Adam was far less than 810 years old when God said, in Genesis 3, that Adam would "return to the ground" at the end of his life here on this planet. :) Even so, this whole conversation is meaningless speculation on both our parts. Again, to your question here, ("is that not the same day?"), no. No, it's not the same day. No. :) And now we're talking about his physical death, which is very different than the death God told Adam he would suffer in Genesis 2:17 ~ the very day he partook of the forbidden fruit ~ which was always my point. :)

Grace and peace to you, TN.