Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So in Daniel 2:44 where it says “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” we can know that God sets up His kingdom with unsaved people and these unsaved people remain alive in that kingdom up until it is given to Christ then at that time, the saved and unsaved are separated out, then, after that event only born again saved people can enter into the kingdom.
One group says the earth is not destroyed by fire, and the other group says it is. One group says all men are killed in the fire, the other says no men are killed in a fire. Why do you guys have to be polar opposites on this?
What's this nonsense you're saying? I'm telling YOU the truth.Thou blasphemest because I tell you the Truth?
When will you stop taking that verse (1 Thess 4:16) out of context? Where do you see Paul comparing the resurrection of the dead in Christ to the resurrection of the dead unsaved in this passage:
You can resolve this by showing where in 2 Peter 3:10-12 it gives any indication that any mortal could possibly survive what is described there. Can you do that? In verse 13, Peter suggests that the result of what is described in verse 10-12 will be "the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness", but you also have wickedness dwelling on the new earth because of your false interpretation of Isaiah 65:17-25 that contradicts Revelation 21:1-4.
The few men who survive are believers who are made immortal at that point. Scripture says, "many are called, but few are chosen". When Christ comes, the ones not chosen will be killed and the few chosen will survive. You ASSUME that it's talking about mortals surviving there, but it does not say that. Why would you interpret Isaiah 24:6 that way when it so obviously contradicts what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12?
David, do you think it's helpful to talk to me like this? Do I come across as someone who doesn't try to think of all possibilities when interpreting scripture? I make no assumptions about any given verse or passage as far as whether it's literal, symbolic or some other type of text. So, of course I've thought of that. Many times. I believe amil is true because, from my perspective, it doesn't cause any contradictions in scripture like premil does.
Most of the time, similar text in one passage as another passage should be interpreted similarly. But, it all depends on the context of each passage. For example, take Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:30 (and Rev 1:7). Both talk about Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven, but when you take a closer look you can see that Daniel 7:13-14 is talking about Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven TO heaven and Matthew 24:30 (and Rev 1:7) is talking about Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven FROM heaven. So, two passages containing similar text doesn't automatically make them about the same event, but should at least make us consider that they might be. But, we have to take a closer look to make sure and not just assume that.
For one thing, why did you highlight some text in bright yellow? I can't even read that. I know what it says, anyway, but I'm just wondering why you did that.
I don't believe it's talking about heaven literally rolling up like a scroll in either verse. But, it being dissolved could make it look like that for all we know. Why do you make assumptions about what I believe all the time as if you should speak for me? Ask me and I'll tell you what I believe, so that you don't have to makes assumptions about it.
Of course they are. I never said otherwise. You waste so much time making strawman arguments over and over and over again.
Where does Revelation 6 talk about heaven being dissolved? It doesn't. What evidence do you have to show that part is not literal?
It's literal in both. I'm not finding your argument here to be very convincing. Give me some kind of evidence to show that heaven being dissolved is not supposed to be taken literally. What would it represent in a non-literal sense? If you can't answer that then I have no reason to take you seriously about this.
It's described figuratively in Revelation 6:12-14 and literally in 2 Peter 3:10-12. There is no reference to heaven or the elements dissolving or the earth being burned up in Rev 6:12-14. That is because 2 Peter 3:10-12 is a literal passage and Rev 6:12-14 is not.
Yes, there is, so we agree on that.
Where do you get the idea that a description of the heavens dissolving is ever not meant to be taken literally?
David, how can you say this to me when I pay more attention to what you say than probably anyone else here on this forum? I've been paying attention to what you say for many years now. If I ignored what you say then why do I respond to you so often? Just because I don't often agree with you doesn't mean I don't consider what you say. Any time the subject relates to amil vs. premil I'm not likely going to agree with you. And you're not likely to agree with me, either. So, should I say that you don't consider anything I say, either, just because you disagree with me?
You should ask yourself why doesn’t Paul just say ALL the dead rise first? Why does Paul specifically refer to only the dead in Christ rising first? It is because that is the order of the resurrections shown in Rev. 20.
2 Peter 3:10-12 is not every word of God on the matter. You need to look at every place where this destruction by fire is mentioned.
What I believe is not just something that I believe, but many others do as well, so you are just not understanding what I believe for whatever reason.
I didn't say it was, but I haven't seen you offer any alternative interpretation of the passage that you can reconcile with your premil view. Can you do that? I've seen in other posts of yours that you agree that it should be taken literally as burning up the entire planet, but why can't you see that it refers to something that will occur when Jesus returns?
That's what you need to do! You're not doing that! You have yet to offer an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 that you can reconcile with your view. It clearly refers to the entire earth being burned up and I believe it also clearly refers to that as happening when Jesus comes as a thief in the night, so tell me how you reconcile that with your view?
Have you ever tried reading the bible?
She wasn’t burned by fire to ashes, she was turned into a pillar of salt.
You should ask yourself why you're not addressing what I said about this and why you're taking 1 Thessalonians 4:16 out of context? Are you afraid to address what I said about the context of that verse?
Let's talk about how you change John 5:28-29 to say that the HOURS are coming when all the dead will be raised instead of saying the HOUR is coming when all the dead will be raised in order to make scripture say what you want it to say?
I didn't say either of the things you claimed
I understand how you feel.
That’s the point, Paul knew those who are of the first resurrection were the “blessed and holy” dead in Christ mentioned in Rev 20. Paul did NOT say all the wicked rise first, or that ALL the dead rise first. Paul specifically said the dead in Christ rise first, because Paul understood the order of the resurrections of the dead.
I’m not changing anything, all the scriptures agree. You just have a problem accepting this….But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
