Surely Premils must invent 2 future glorifications days and 2 future raptures separated by 1000 years+?

[Zao is life]

And?

He's trying to show you how you have changed the meaning of that scripture and why the way you interpret it is wrong.

But seeing you do not see.

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 20 says: "he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

Deceiving the nations no more is talking about the enlightenment of the Gentiles 2000 years ago. The word interpreted "the nations" (ethnos) refers to the Gentiles throughout the New Testament. Those who were once in darkness, bondage and blindness have now saw a great light. The ignorance is gone. They are now without excuse.

The Old Testament

For many centuries Yahweh was ethnic Israel's God. He was God of the Hebrew people. After the First Advent, He became the God of all nations. The Gospel opportunity widened to embrace the darkened Gentiles. This was not the case prior to Calvary, with the special exception of Nineveh. The Gospel expanse has gone from “the nation” (singular) before the cross to “the nations” (plural) after the cross. The nations now contain God's chosen people, not simply the nation!

In the Old Testament, God governed Israel in a theocracy, Satan, on the other hand, ruled the nations. The Gentiles were overwhelmingly ignorant to God’s truth and outside of His covenant favor. They were spiritually deceived. They were bound in paganism and blinded by idolatry. They sat in spiritual darkness. Only one single Gentile village/town/city experienced salvation that we know of. The world in general was deceived, not knowing anything about the grace of God or His merciful way of salvation.

Acts 17:30 tells us: “the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.”

What is “the times of this ignorance”? What does this mean? Who is this talking about? It is the state of the Gentile nations before the earthly ministry of Christ and the introduction of His Messianic reign. Before Christ came Satan was able to prevent the Word of God from being heard throughout the world. Before the cross, the heathen were ignorant to the truth and therefore in desperate need of enlightenment.

The Gentiles are constantly depicted in the Old Testament as being in darkness. They are described as being ignored, blind and without hope. They are depicted as being imprisoned in chains.

Acts 14:16 teaches that God “in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.”

Did this mean every Gentile in the Old Testament time was unsaved?

No. This tells us that “all nations” were allowed “to walk in their own ways” in the Old Testament era. They were deceived by the lie of the devil and separated from God and from grace.

Ephesians 2:11-12 confirms this, saying, “ye being in time past Gentiles [Gr. ethnos] in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”

The Gentiles generally were in a hopeless condition during the old covenant, “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). That is a pretty grim state to be in.

Israel on the other hand, whilst often in rebellion, was subject to the truth. Prophet after prophet came preaching the unsearchable riches of God. They therefore had no excuse. The people were enlightened to the law of God and therefore God’s expectation of them. Notwithstanding, that did not mean the chosen nation was immune from satanic deception. Israel (who alone possessed God's special favor, and from whom the Messiah came) still mainly died in unbelief before Christ.

That's what I said you were going to do.

The question was. Has Satan been able to deceive the nations since the ascension of Christ? It's a Yes or No answer.

But like I said you were going to do, you were either going to follow the yes or the no with a "but", or you were going to say "that's not what it means". "This is what it means .."

Then you go and add to scripture by pushing in your own meaning that isn't written in the text nor belongs in the text (eisegesis). You find a way of interpreting scripture in such a way as to try and force compliance with Amil. As usual.

 

[WPM]

He's trying to show you how you have changed the meaning of that scripture and why the way you interpret it is wrong.

But seeing you do not see.

That is all you have: avoidance and insults. This seems to be an online Premil requirement.

 

[WPM]

That's what I said you were going to do.

The question was. Has Satan been able to deceive the nations since the ascension of Christ? It's a Yes or No answer.

But like I said you were going to do, you were either going to follow the yes or the no with a "but", or you were going to say "that's not what it means". "This is what it means .."

Then you go and add to scripture by pushing in your own meaning that isn't written in the text nor belongs in the text (eisegesis). You find a way of interpreting scripture in such a way as to try and force compliance with Amil. As usual.

You are unable to refute one single point Amils present.

The general broad deception that engulfed the Gentiles in ignorance and darkness is lifted. They now can receive if they believe. That does not suggest the majority will. Acts 13:46-48 says, “Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you [the Jews]: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles [Gr. ethnos]. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles [Gr. ethnos], that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles [Gr. ethnos] heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

From Acts 10 (and the incident at Cornelius’ house) the Gospel was released unto the darkened Gentiles in a significant manner. They would now be brought from darkness of heathenism unto the light of Christ and His Gospel. The unequivocal words from Paul and Barnabas above confirm that the tide had markedly turned and that the Gospel had opened up to the blinded Gentiles in a very definite way. With the rare exception of the city of Nineveh, the Gospel was previously restricted to the small individual “nation” of natural Israel before the cross. The nations were totally engulfed with a blanket of darkness which was now being removed. The enforcement of Satan’s defeat at the cross would now be realized by the people of God through the faithful preaching of the Word of God. The devil would be spiritually bound as the kingdom of God advanced with the Gospel. This spiritual binding ensures he is unable to defeat the work of the Church of Jesus Christ evangelizing the nations. It was only after Calvary that the good news of salvation was widened out to embrace the heathen “nations” of the world.

For example, Romans 9:30 attests: “the Gentiles [Gr. ethnos], which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.”

Many times, the New Testament uses broad sweeping statements about the salvation of the Gentiles. This in Revelation 20 is just another parallel teaching. It is written throughout the New Testament. Satan has lost his wholesale deception of the Gentile nations. Revelation 20 is one of many general sweeping unqualified statements pertaining to the lifting of the deception on the Gentile nations. This started 2000 years ago. The first resurrection enabled the enlightenment of the nations.

 

[claninja]

And?

And ok….seems like you are acknowledging you moved the “lo” to change the meaning of the passage.

 

[Davidpt]

Oh, so your 1st resurrection is now the resurrection of the wicked dead 1000 years+ after the second coming? Wow! All because you are relying on AI. Sad! I knew this day was coming. Who needs the Holy Spirit any more when Diva has AI?

And here you are undeniably misrepresenting what I'm doing. And you are obviously misrepresenting me on purpose or that you have the most sub par reading comprehension known to man. Which is it in this case since it has to be one of those two things?

This is what I clearly and plainly said--- I do not get my theology from chatgpt. I simply submit my theology at times to chatgpt to analyze and then give it's unbiased opinion of it.

I do not rely on AI, yet AI is unbiased. Therefore, it's opinion is relevant. And guess what? There has been a time or two where I submitted my theology to chatgpt where it did not agree with my interpretation, such as how I interpret 2 Peter 3:8, for instance.

IOW, anyone not trying to purposely misrepresent what I said, or anyone that has decent reading comprehension, is then not going to twist what I said to make it mean something I never said or never meant to begin with--that what I said equals this-- Wow! All because you are relying on AI. Sad!

I have a theory as to why someone like you would purposely misrepresent something I plainly and clearly said, or that someone like you has sub par reading comprehension if not meaning the former. And that is because you, and those like you, have had a lot of practice doing these things with Scripture, purposely misrepresenting what they are meaning, it's called doctrinal bias, or if not that, because of sub par reading comprehension, where you, and those like you, oftentimes, therefore, maybe not every time, have crystal clear passages meaning anything except what they are actually meaning. So, IOW, practice makes perfect.

 

[WPM]

And ok….seems like you are acknowledging you moved the “lo” to change the meaning of the passage.

No. I interpreted it in order and in agreement with Rev 21-22. That is what corroboration is. That is where the NT shed light on the Old.
Revelation expressly locates the new earth after the millennial period and not at the beginning. It correlates with the detail of Isaiah 65. Revelation 21:1-5 tells us: “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. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.”

It is so important to let Scripture speak for itself. In doing that we are able to accurately comprehend the inspired detail pertaining to any truth or event. This is never more needed than when it comes to the return of Christ and what follows this occurrence. There is no other subject where men force their own bias beliefs upon the sacred text more than eschatology. It is breathtaking how most of the normal necessary accepted hermeneutical rules are ignored or discarded to fit man’s theology on end-times. There is therefore no other topic where such great diligent needs to be employed and strong corroboration must be brought to the table.

When we look at this event before us, as we take the text literally, and as we interpret Scripture in its most plain and obvious sense, we immediately recognize, nothing precedes the first of anything. In this text, we see that the first heaven and the first earth that we currently populate (and which is blighted with the awful consequences of the curse), are not changed until the new heaven and new earth arrive. This expressly occurs after the millennium in Revelation 21.

Various other Scriptures show that to be at the second coming of Christ. Many others inspired texts demonstrate that what awaits us when Jesus comes is not a continuation of rebellion, corruption and the wicked but an elimination of the same and an eternal deliverance from their devastating influence. This is continually presented in the sacred text as a climactic event.

While this teaching is found prominently and clearly throughout the Word, this doesn’t stop some Bible students creating an additional age in between this current age and the new heavens and a new earth in the age to come to accommodate their understanding of Revelation 20.

 

[WPM]

And here you are undeniably misrepresenting what I'm doing. And you are obviously misrepresenting me on purpose or that you have the most sub par reading comprehension known to man. Which is it in this case since it has to be one of those two things?

This is what I clearly and plainly said--- I do not get my theology from chatgpt. I simply submit my theology at times to chatgpt to analyze and then give it's unbiased opinion of it.

IOW, anyone not trying to purposely misrepresent what I said, or anyone that has decent reading comprehension, is then not going to twist what I said to make it mean something I never said or never meant to begin with--that what I said equals this-- Wow! All because you are relying on AI. Sad!

I have a theory as to why someone like you would purposely misrepresent something I plainly and clearly said, or that someone like you has sub par reading comprehension if not meaning the former. And that is because you, and those like you, have had a lot of practice doing these things with Scripture, purposely misrepresenting what they are meaning, it's called doctrinal bias, or if not that, because of sub par reading comprehension, you, and those like you, oftentimes, therefore, maybe not every time, have crystal clear passages meaning anything except what they are actually meaning. So, IOW, practice makes perfect.

AI is how you confirm your theology. You have publicly admitted that. That explains a lot. What is more: you refuse to fellowship with fellow believers in blatant defiance of God's Word. You have nothing to say to any of us about truth. You are exempt from the demands of God on His people. No preacher can teach you. You know it all. You are totally unaccountable to anyone but yourself. You are unteachable. You are in rebellion against God.

Why would you listen the truth here?

 

[Davidpt]

Here are some more holes in the view held by the majority of Premils for you (that you mentioned in your OP) - but they still do not forbid a millennium following the return of Christ which is the first thousand years of the ages of the ages - something that goes way, way over your head because your understanding of scripture has been partially blinded by Amil theology.

The structure of the Revelation does not support a NHNE following 1,000 years after the return of Christ:

END OF THE AGE In Revelation 7:13-17 we read about a great multitude, which no man could number, that came out from great tribulation, which they experienced before the return of Christ, and below is what else John saw regarding them: The throne of God is among them, and all tears will be wiped from their eyes. (Revelation 7:13-17).

BRIDE OF CHRIST ALL THINGS NEW Revelation 21:2: "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." The same promises made to those who came out from great tribulation are made to the bride of Christ, New Jerusalem, in a New Heavens and Earth which John saw "descending out of heaven from God.": The throne of God is among them, and all tears will be wiped from their eyes. (Revelation 21:2-4).

BRIDE OF CHRIST Revelation 19:7-8: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

"It is Done!" ​

ARMAGEDDON "Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is the one who watches and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame. --- And he gathered them into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air. --- And a great voice came out of the temple of Heaven, from the throne, saying, --- It is done! "---​ (Revelation 16:15-17)

ALL THINGS NEW "And He sitting on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said to me, Write, for these words are true and faithful. And He said to me, --- It is done ---.​ I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who thirsts I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely. He who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. But the fearful, and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, will have their part in the Lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:5-8)

TREE OF LIFE "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to each according as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city. But outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and makes a lie. I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let him who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:12-17).

ALL THINGS NEW

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:16-17).

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life [zoe]; and the life [zoe] was the light of men." (John 1:3-4)

"And He sitting on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new" "And He said to me, Write, for these words are true and faithful."
(Revelation 21:5).

The last three chapters of the Bible are a repeat of the conditions and events of the first three chapters of the Bible - with one exception:

Satan's deception of Adam & Eve results in Adam's death, and his expulsion from Eden
(Genesis 3:22-24) (Genesis 3:1-7, 11-19).

Satan's deception of the Gog & Magog nations of the human race results in the second death and the Lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15; Revelation 21:8). Only the faithful remain. (Revelation 20:7-10)

In-between Adam's death and the second death came the Resurrection of the dead:

"I am the Resurrection [anastasis] and the (eternal) life [zoe]!" (John 11:25)​

First death: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Second death: "Death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14).

There will be no second sacrifice for sins made and no second resurrection from the second death.

God is life.
From eternity to eternity only God has life in Himself.
The Son of God has (eternal) life in Himself. *

* Created human beings do not have (eternal) life in ourselves. *
​

-- He (Christ) alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.

There was NO DEATH before Adam's death. If created immortals are incapable of dying then Adam would not have died.

THE SERPENT:

"You shall not surely die."
(Genesis 3:4)​

The Theology of many main-stream Christian churches: It is impossible for those who are in Christ, who have been given eternal life in Christ, to die a second death following the resurrection of the body, because following the resurrection of the body, all will be immortal, "and it is impossible for immortals to die".

The Bible:

(1) "He (Christ) alone possesses (His own) immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen." (1 Timothy 6:15-16); and

(2) "God has given to us eternal life [zōḗ], and this life [zōḗ] is in His Son. He that has the Son has (eternal) life; and he that has not the Son of God has not (eternal) life [zōḗ]." (1 John 5:11-12).

JESUS:

"The one who overcomes,
that one will be clothed in white clothing. And
I will not blot out his name out of the book of life,
but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
(Revelation 3:5-6).​

(Do not hear what man-made theology, built upon the doctrines of men, based on interpretations of the Bible understood by fallible human intellect, says to the churches - hear what the Spirit says to the churches).

--- "He who has an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit says to the churches.
He who overcomes
will not be hurt by the second death." ---
(Revelation 2:11)​

Some of this I'm able to follow. Some of this I'm having a hard time following. I would think Zechariah 14:16, for instance, should have some relevance here. And that these can't be meaning saved saints that have put on bodily immortality at the last trump, the fact they can be punished for not coming up to worship. Nor can any of these survivors from the nations which came against Jerusalem, but were spared the fate of Zechariah 14:12, be meaning any of the rest of the dead meant in Revelation 20:5. Therefore, I'm just trying to comprehend how you have these recorded in Zechariah 14:16 fitting with your view?

Before Zechariah 14:16 can be fulfilled, verse 12 has to be fulfilled first. And since there is no way that verse 12 has been fulfilled in the past, in any sense, there appears to be no way to get around that verse 16 has to be meaning post that of verse 12.

 

[Zao is life]

And here you are undeniably misrepresenting what I'm doing. And you are obviously misrepresenting me on purpose or that you have the most sub par reading comprehension known to man. Which is it in this case since it has to be one of those two things?

This is what I clearly and plainly said--- I do not get my theology from chatgpt. I simply submit my theology at times to chatgpt to analyze and then give it's unbiased opinion of it.

I do not rely on AI, yet AI is unbiased. Therefore, it's opinion is relevant. And guess what? There has been a time or two where I submitted my theology to chatgpt where it did not agree with my interpretation, such as how I interpret 2 Peter 3:8, for instance.

I agree. AI obtains its answers from a collection of main-stream Christian doctrine which it gleans from all sorts of corners of the internet.

Here's a place where AI disagrees with what I believe regarding the passage below:

AI-generated answer to "God of the living":

"In the Bible, God is referred to as the "God of the living," emphasizing His relationship with those who are spiritually alive.

Jesus used this phrase to argue against the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. He pointed out that God referred to Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were long dead, indicating that these patriarchs were still alive in God's presence (Mark 12:26–27).

So according to the accusation leveled against you we should NOT go to AI for an unbiased opinion.

I don't agree with the above statement. But clearly the way some accuse us because we asked AI a questions, it's as though those of us who go to AI for an unbiased opinion do not understand that AI obtains its answers from a collection of main-stream Christian doctrine which it gleans from all sorts of corners of the internet, and therefore could be wrong.

 

[WPM]

I agree. AI obtains its answers from a collection of main-stream Christian doctrine which it gleans from all sorts of corners of the internet.

Here's a place where AI disagrees with what I believe regarding the passage below:

AI-generated answer to "God of the living":

"In the Bible, God is referred to as the "God of the living," emphasizing His relationship with those who are spiritually alive.

Jesus used this phrase to argue against the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. He pointed out that God referred to Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were long dead, indicating that these patriarchs were still alive in God's presence (Mark 12:26–27).

So according to the accusation leveled against you we should NOT go to AI for an unbiased opinion.

I don't agree with the above statement. But clearly the way some accuse us because we asked AI a questions, it's as though those of us who go to AI for an unbiased opinion do not understand that AI obtains its answers from a collection of main-stream Christian doctrine which it gleans from all sorts of corners of the internet, and therefore could be wrong.

LOL. Premillennialisms mask is falling

 

[Zao is life]

Some of this I'm able to follow. Some of this I'm having a hard time following. I would think Zechariah 14:16, for instance, should have some relevance here. And that these can't be meaning saved saints that have put on bodily immortality at the last trump, the fact they can be punished for not coming up to worship.

I don't believe there will be any punishment for the above necessary because the converse of the above is that all the nations will be going up to New Jerusalem and will not fail to do so:

Revelation 21
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Nor can any of these survivors from the nations which came against Jerusalem, but were spared the fate of Zechariah 14:12, be meaning any of the rest of the dead meant in Revelation 20:5.

I do not believe there will be anyone spared the fate of those in Zechariah 14:12. I do not believe in mortals after the return of Christ.

There was NO DEATH before Adam's death. If created immortals are incapable of dying then Adam would not have died.

I believe that the big issue with most of the daughters of Eve is that they believe the same lie (she was the spouse of Adam who was called the son of God and is a type of the bride of Christ) and she believed this lie:

"You shall not surely die." (Genesis 3:4)

The Theology of many main-stream Christian churches: It is impossible for those who are in Christ, who have been given eternal life in Christ, to die a second death following the resurrection of the body, because following the resurrection of the body, all will be immortal, "and it is impossible for immortals to die".

The Bible:

(1) "He (Christ) alone possesses (His own) immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen." (1 Timothy 6:15-16); and

(2) "God has given to us eternal life [zōḗ], and this life [zōḗ] is in His Son. He that has the Son has (eternal) life; and he that has not the Son of God has not (eternal) life [zōḗ]." (1 John 5:11-12).

Jesus alone possesses eternal life in Himself. Adam (created human) did not possess or have eternal life or immortality in himself. His death proved it.

JESUS:

"The one who overcomes, that one will be clothed in white clothing. And I will not blot out his name out of the book of life," (Revelation 3:5-6).

--- "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death." ---
(Revelation 2:11)

I believe the message is @Davidpt just as applicable for immortals who rose from the first death (Adam's death). Life | eternal life [zoe] is in God alone and always existed in Him, before the creation of mankind.

The resurrection of the body; and immortality; and "no more death" go together like a hand in a glove:

"When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,

Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Corinthians 15:54)

Paul was writing to the Corinthians about the resurrection of the body from the dead in the above passage.

"God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away." (Revelation 21:4).

Following the resurrection from the dead at the time of the return of Christ, there will be no more death (the first death - the death of Adam). Those who rose from the dead when Christ appeared, will once again be immortal.

I do not believe there will be mortals in the first thousand years of the ages of the ages a.k.a the new heavens and new earth.

It's a restoration of paradise.

Therefore, I'm just trying to comprehend how you have these recorded in Zechariah 14:16 fitting with your view?

Like this:

Revelation 21
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Before Zechariah 14:16 can be fulfilled, verse 12 has to be fulfilled first. And since there is no way that verse 12 has been fulfilled in the past, in any sense, there appears to be no way to get around that verse 16 has to be meaning post that of verse 12.

I agree. But I don't see any mortals surviving. I believe the Gog-Magog nations are those nations who were going up to Jerusalem - but they are immortal and rose again from the dead with the resurrection when Christ returned.

But Gog-Magog is deceived by Satan because he says,

You will NOT surely die. You are IMMORTAL.

Only the Son of God possesses His own immortality in Himself because He alone has life in Himself. Created human beings possess neither life nor immortality in ourselves because it's given to us in Christ through Christ IN us, the hope of our glory in a resurrected body.

Adam believed the lie. Gog-Magog are Adam's descendants, just like we are. They are not an alien race and they certainly will not be mortals.

1. The first death was dealt with by Christ through His death and resurrection.

Fire came down from God and destroyed those who attacked the camp of the saints and the beloved city.

2. Then there was a second and final death from which there will be no escape.

Whoever among created human beings believes they will not surely die because they are immortal, are in danger.

Life was always IN the Word of God (John 1:4), NOT in created human beings. It never will be IN us. We (created human beings) are given life IN Him. Immortality will never be the possession of the creature - ask Adam.

@Davidpt

"IN HIM (the Word of God) was life; and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4).

In Him (Christ) is life; and the life of Christ is the light of men.

If the light of created human beings is the life of Christ that He alone possesses in Himself, and in the understanding that therefore the Son of God alone possesses His own immortality (because He alone has life in Himself), then they are truly blessed in Christ.

But if the light of created human beings is the life they believe they possess in themselves because it was "given to them" (rather than given to them IN Christ through Christ IN them, who alone possesses eternal life in Himself),

and in a belief that they will therefore possess the immortality they will have following the resurrection,

then even the light that is in them, is darkness,

because the light of the created human being (Adam) following Satan's lie, did not remain the life of God and faith in the Word of God, but faith in the word of Satan instead which insists,

"You will not surely die", (which implies also, "because you are immortal").

There was NO DEATH before that first death.

The last three chapters of the Bible repeat the same conditions and events of the first three chapters of the Bible that took place in paradise, except that:

1. Now there is a whole human race consisting of the descendants of Adam; and

2. There will be a faithful remnant that remains following the second death.

Christ died for our sins and rose again from the dead to save us from the first death. Following the resurrection all will be immortal so there will be no more death until Satan is permitted to deceive the nations one last time. In the Revelation of Jesus Christ it takes place at the close of the first thousand years of the ages of the ages a.k.a the new heavens and new earth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

what form of premil is the OP addressing because I’m unaware of any premil belief in 2 raptures?

You are missing the point here. Are you even trying to see it? Why would they not believe that another rapture would occur when what is described in Revelation 20:9 occurs? Do they expect that the camp of the saints will be left on the earth while fire is coming down on it? The point of this thread is to make Premills think about what they believe. Where is the scripture which says anything about the resurrection of any believers who die during the thousand years and Satan's little season or about their bodies being changed to be immortal? Surely, that would need to happen for them to spend eternity in the new heavens and new earth, so where is the scripture which speaks about that?

As to “glorification”, you appear to agree this involves the resurrection - you stated “glorified (changed, made bodily immortal)”.

It's not just the dead who are resurrected who would have their bodies glorified but those who are alive at the time when what is described in Revelation 20:9 occurs, also. Where is the scripture which speaks about any believers who are resurrected at that time (when Satan's little season is over) and those who are alive at that time having their bodies changed to be immortal? We know Paul talked about that bodily change in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54, but that happens at the last trumpet when Jesus returns. Where is the scripture that speaks of anyone else being changed to put on bodily immortality?

So if the OP is using the 2 glorification events to mean 2 resurrection events, I’m not following your counter argument of “read more carefully”

Where do Premills claim that Revelation 20 refers to 2 different events where people's bodies are glorified (changed and made immortal)?

Revelation 20 literally has 2 resurrections or as you put it “glorifications (changed, made bodily immortal) separated by 1000 years.

You are not making any effort at all to understand the point. Premills do not believe the resurrection of the rest of the dead is a resurrection of believers whose bodies are then glorified. I've never seen them claim that the resurrection of the rest of the dead includes believers who die during the thousand years and Satan's little season.

Correct. But premils often take revelation literally and as a brand new revelation, previously unknown by the other apostles.

Yeah, no kidding. But, not only is there nothing in other scripture about those who believe during the thousand years having their bodies changed to be made immortal, there is nothing in Revelation about that, either. Why would that be the case if that is what was going to happen? And it would have to happen in order for those who believe during the thousand years to inherit the new heavens and new earth for eternity because only those with immortal bodies will inherit the eternal new heavens and new earth.

For example, Paul died before the Revelation. Paul’s letters don’t have the complete revelation of how the eschaton will unfold, only bits and pieces. Since revelation is the revealing of how the eschaton will actually unfold, premils will fit Paul’s bits and pieces into the fuller chronology provided by revelation.

You don't need to educate me about how Premills think. I'm well aware of that already.

Why would a premil interpret revelation through the lens of Paul’s incomplete eschatology? They most often dont, and therefore any argument that an amil will make by using the “bits and pieces” of Paul’s incomplete eschatology to prove amil and discount premil is often ineffective.

But, again, there isn't even anything in Revelation about those who believe during the thousand years being bodily glorified, so if that's what they believe will happen, what is that based on? Just an assumption? Why would scripture never refer to that?

It’s why time after time after time, those that hold a literal view of revelation, as a revealing of how the eschaton will unfold, don’t really care if other NT passages don’t teach anything about a millennium nor 2 resurrection separated by 1,000 years —> it hadnt been revealed yet.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But, they are wrong about that, of course. It's not called the book of Revelation because it reveals new doctrine, it's called that because it reveals things that would take place in the future (along with a few things that happened in the past and a few things that were happening at the time).

the 2 separate rapture events kind of sounds like a strawman, but maybe I’m just unaware of a form of premil that believes in 2 separate rapture events?

The point is that it seems that they must believe in that or else what do they think happens to "the camp of the saints" when the fire is coming down on the earth? Wouldn't they need to be removed from the earth first before the fire comes down? This is not something that is ever talked about, but I would assume if asked about this, at least some Premils would say "Yeah, I suppose there would need to be another rapture taking place when that happens and another event where believers' bodies are changed to be immortal".

And if glorification is just another term for the resurrection of the body,

Good grief. I made it clear that glorification refers to the change of the body to be made immortal. How are you equating having one's body changed to be immortal with the resurrection of the body? At the last trumpet, the dead in Christ will be resurrected and then their bodies will be immediately change to put on immortality and those who are alive at the time will also have their bodies changed to put on immortality. Why you think the words "glorification" and "resurrection" are synonyms is beyond me.

revelation 20 does have 2 resurrections separated by 1,000 years. That would not be an “invention”.

LOL! That isn't the point being made!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

ah yes, the ole if I question how someone else is using Greek/hebrew then all of the sudden I’m claiming to be the “ultimate expert”. What a joke of a counterpoint.

LOL. You're not just questioning it, you're just completely dismissing his points and acting like you're sharing facts. That's the real joke here.

I don't need to take any nonsense like this from someone who can't even discern that glorification of the body is not the same as the resurrection of the body.

Careful, wouldn’t want to come off as an ultimate authority on Hebrew. Or is it only okay when you do it?

LOL. You are unbelievably annoying with your nonsense. I used scripture to show how that word translated as "many" in Daniel 12:2 can be used to refer to all of something and that it's not a case where it can only be used to refer to some, but not all of something. Is that what you're doing? Are you using other scripture to support your understanding of Isaiah 65:20? Not that I can see.

Anyways, Wpm moved words around to render Isaiah 65:20 differently in order to provide a stronger support for his framework. I’m simply not agreeing with him on his rearrangement, regardless if I agree or disagree with his framework.

That’s simply not how the Hebrew is:

Isaiah 65:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

That source has a different order, but what source is WPM using? I have seen where sometimes one Hebrew source will show a different order than another. Why don't you allow him to show where he found the word order that he showed instead of making an accusation that he moved the words around?

Additionally, I can’t find one translation that agrees with his rearrangement amongst these 20 plus translations : Isaiah 65:20 Parallel: There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

LOL. You are hilarious. Do you expect me to take you seriously with this line of argument when your interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14 disagrees with all those same translations that have the Son of Man coming TO the Ancient of Days instead of AS the Ancient of Days? I made a similar point to you about Daniel 7:13-14 and you just completely dismissed it. But, now, you suddenly trust those translations to be accurate? LOL! Hilarious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The basis of your argument is:





So, where have I "moved words around to render Isaiah 65:20 differently" and where is my "rearrangement of the text"?

He can't even answer simple questions. But, this is the word order that he said he is going by: Isaiah 65:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

So, if he wasn't rude and obnoxious, instead of accusing you of moving words around, he would instead politely ask you why the word order you showed is different than what is shown there on that site.

 

[WPM]

He can't even answer simple questions. But, this is the word order that he said he is going by: Isaiah 65:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

So, if he wasn't rude and obnoxious, instead of accusing you of moving words around, he would instead politely ask you why the word order you showed is different than what is shown there on that site.

The order is the exact same. The punctuation is slightly different. There is no punctuation in the Hebrew.

 

[Davidpt]

Thinking out loud here, thinking outside of the box, thus food for thought if nothing else.

Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.


Verse 22 says this---for as the days of a tree are the days of my people. Trees are not connected with eternity, though. While trees might live for ages they certainly don't live for ever. The only tree connected with eternity is the tree of life. Per this context the tree of life couldn't possibly be meant. It's just describing trees in general. Which means that maybe we should interpret verse 20 in light of this---for as the days of a tree are the days of my people.

The way it looks to me, if taking to mean what it appears to be saying, would mean that this---for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed---is contradicting this--- nor an old man that hath not filled his days

The text says there won't be an old man that hath not filled his days. Yet, if this happens to some---for the child shall die an hundred years old---how does that equal this---nor an old man that hath not filled his days?

In our day and time, to live to be a hundred years old equals being an old man. The era of time involving verse 20, when one has reached a hundred years of age, they are still in their infancy. I can't help but think how ' a thousand years can maybe help us out here.

If we assume a thousand years, to be 100 at the time would be like being 10 years old at the time if we compare to a hundred years pertaining to the here and now. What I'm doing here is comparing a hundred years involving the here and now with that of a thousand years pertaining to the future.

In the here and now, a hundred years would look like this.

When someone is 10 years old they are still in their youth. When someone is a hundred years old, assuming they live that long, they are an old man or an old woman and are literally at the end of their life.

If we assume a thousand years, pertaining to Isaiah:65:17-20, it would look like this.

When a person has reached 100 years of age, it would be as if they are only 10 years old at the time, thus still youthful. And when they reached 200 years of age, it would be as if they are only 20 years old at the time, thus still youthful but growing into an adult. Since you should be able to see where I'm going with this, I'm not going to do this for when they are 300, 400, etc. Just do the math, it's simple math.

So, when they live to be 1000, it's as if they are 100 at the time, thus an old man that has filled his days, Keeping in mind, when comparing to the here and now, when one has reached 100, they are an old man or old woman at that point, actually even before that point, such as, as of 60 or 70 years of age. But that is beside the point.

In the here and now it would look like this. 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80, 90, 100 years of age. In the future 100 years of age would be like being 10 years old in the here and now. In the future 500 years of age would be like being 50 years old in the here and now. And in the future 1000 years of age would be like being 100 years old in the here and now.

If anyone can follow my logic, though I doubt Amils can since they likely see it being absurd that a thousand years can have anything to do with this one way or the other, the logic is this.

To be 10 years old in the here and now would be considered to be youthful still. To be 100 years old in the here and now would be considered to be old, to be at the end of one's life, assuming they lived that long. To be 100 years old in the future would be like being 10 years old in the here and now, thus still youthful. To be be 500 years old in the future would be like being 50 years old in the here and now, thus at mid life. Keeping in mind, per the here and now there is no such thing as reaching 500 years of age to begin with. But this wasn't always true. Anyone that has read the OT knows that in beginning of time it was not uncommon for some to live 500 years and even older in some cases.

 

[WPM]

Thinking out loud here, thinking outside of the box, thus food for thought if nothing else.

Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.


Verse 22 says this---for as the days of a tree are the days of my people. Trees are not connected with eternity, though. While trees might live for ages they certainly don't live for ever. The only tree connected with eternity is the tree of life. Per this context the tree of life couldn't possibly be meant. It's just describing trees in general. Which means that maybe we should interpret verse 20 in light of this---for as the days of a tree are the days of my people.

The way it looks to me, if taking to mean what it appears to be saying, would mean that this---for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed---is contradicting this--- nor an old man that hath not filled his days

The text says there won't be an old man that hath not filled his days. Yet, if this happens to some---for the child shall die an hundred years old---how does that equal this---nor an old man that hath not filled his days?

In our day and time, to live to be a hundred years old equals being an old man. The era of time involving verse 20, when one has reached a hundred years of age, they are still in their infancy. I can't help but think how ' a thousand years can maybe help us out here.

If we assume a thousand years, to be 100 at the time would be like being 10 years old at the time if we compare to a hundred years pertaining to the here and now. What I'm doing here is comparing a hundred years involving the here and now with that of a thousand years pertaining to the future.

In the here and now, a hundred years would look like this.

When someone is 10 years old they are still in their youth. When someone is a hundred years old, assuming they live that long, they are an old man or an old woman and are literally at the end of their life.

If we assume a thousand years, pertaining to Isaiah:65:17-20, it would look like this.

When a person has reached 100 years of age, it would be as if they are only 10 years old at the time, thus still youthful. And when they reached 200 years of age, it would be as if they are only 20 years old at the time, thus still youthful but growing into an adult. Since you should be able to see where I'm going with this, I'm not going to do this for when they are 300, 400, etc. Just do the math, it's simple math.

So, when they live to be 1000, it's as if they are 100 at the time, thus an old man that has filled his days, Keeping in mind, when comparing to the here and now, when one has reached 100, they are an old man or old woman at that point, actually even before that point, such as, as of 60 or 70 years of age. But that is beside the point.

In the here and now it would look like this. 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80, 90, 100 years of age. In the future 100 years of age would be like being 10 years old in the here and now. In the future 500 years of age would be like being 50 years old in the here and now. And in the future 1000 years of age would be like being 100 years old in the here and now.

If anyone can follow my logic, though I doubt Amils can since they likely see it being absurd that a thousand years can have anything to do with this one way or the other, the logic is this.

To be 10 years old in the here and now would be considered to be youthful still. To be 100 years old in the here and now would be considered to be old, to be at the end of one's life, assuming they lived that long. To be 100 years old in the future would be like being 10 years old in the here and now, thus still youthful. To be be 500 years old in the future would be like being 50 years old in the here and now, thus at mid life. Keeping in mind, per the here and now there is no such thing as reaching 500 years of age to begin with. But this wasn't always true. Anyone that has read the OT knows that in beginning of time it was not uncommon for some to live 500 years and even older in some cases.

This exposes the main difference between Amillennialism and Premillennialism. You're constantly explaining away the New Testament by the Old. You should be doing the opposite. You can understand Isaiah 65 by reading Revelation 21 and 22. Simple!

The question you will not answer because it exposes your position is: when does Revelation say that the new heavens and new earth appear, before or after the millennium?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The order is the exact same. The punctuation is slightly different. There is no punctuation in the Hebrew.

So, it seems that you simply see the punctuation differently than he does rather than it being a case of you purposely rearranging the words, as he falsely accuses you of doing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thinking out loud here, thinking outside of the box, thus food for thought if nothing else.

The box includes Revelation 21:1-4 and 2 Peter 3:13, so why would you want to only think outside of it? Why would you want to try to interpret Isaiah 65:17-25 without the aid of other scripture while making sure your interpretation of it doesn't contradict any other scripture?

Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.


Verse 22 says this---for as the days of a tree are the days of my people. Trees are not connected with eternity, though. While trees might live for ages they certainly don't live for ever. The only tree connected with eternity is the tree of life. Per this context the tree of life couldn't possibly be meant. It's just describing trees in general. Which means that maybe we should interpret verse 20 in light of this---for as the days of a tree are the days of my people.

Does it not occur to you that the text could be figurative rather than literal? Also, why would should verse 20 be interpreted in light of verse 22, but not in light of verses 18 and 19?

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Notice in verse 18 that it refers to rejoicing forever in that which God creates, which is the new heavens, new earth and new Jerusalem. The word "forever" there shows that it's talking about something eternal.

Also, notice that verse 19 talks about no more weeping and crying. Why would you want to take verse 20 to be literally talking about death occurring at that point when that would mean no one would weep or cry when their loved ones died, which obviously does not make any sense?

The way it looks to me, if taking to mean what it appears to be saying, would mean that this---for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed---is contradicting this--- nor an old man that hath not filled his days

The text says there won't be an old man that hath not filled his days. Yet, if this happens to some---for the child shall die an hundred years old---how does that equal this---nor an old man that hath not filled his days?

It's figurative text representing eternity. For someone to still be considered a child at 100 shows that there is no aging going on there, which represents eternity since we know that no one will age in eternity.

In our day and time, to live to be a hundred years old equals being an old man.

In any day and time living to be 100 years old equals being an old man. That includes the day and time long ago when some people lived for hundreds of years. A 100 year old was not considered a child in that day and time. So, think about that when reading Isaiah 65:20. It can't be taken literally since a 100 year old would not be a child if it was referring to an actual period of time instead of eternity.

The era of time involving verse 20, when one has reached a hundred years of age, they are still in their infancy. I can't help but think how ' a thousand years can maybe help us out here.

If we assume a thousand years, to be 100 at the time would be like being 10 years old at the time if we compare to a hundred years pertaining to the here and now. What I'm doing here is comparing a hundred years involving the here and now with that of a thousand years pertaining to the future.

In the here and now, a hundred years would look like this.

When someone is 10 years old they are still in their youth. When someone is a hundred years old, assuming they live that long, they are an old man or an old woman and are literally at the end of their life.

If we assume a thousand years, pertaining to Isaiah:65:17-20, it would look like this.

When a person has reached 100 years of age, it would be as if they are only 10 years old at the time, thus still youthful. And when they reached 200 years of age, it would be as if they are only 20 years old at the time, thus still youthful but growing into an adult. Since you should be able to see where I'm going with this, I'm not going to do this for when they are 300, 400, etc. Just do the math, it's simple math.

So, when they live to be 1000, it's as if they are 100 at the time, thus an old man that has filled his days, Keeping in mind, when comparing to the here and now, when one has reached 100, they are an old man or old woman at that point, actually even before that point, such as, as of 60 or 70 years of age. But that is beside the point.

In the here and now it would look like this. 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80, 90, 100 years of age. In the future 100 years of age would be like being 10 years old in the here and now. In the future 500 years of age would be like being 50 years old in the here and now. And in the future 1000 years of age would be like being 100 years old in the here and now.

If anyone can follow my logic, though I doubt Amils can since they likely see it being absurd that a thousand years can have anything to do with this one way or the other, the logic is this.

To be 10 years old in the here and now would be considered to be youthful still. To be 100 years old in the here and now would be considered to be old, to be at the end of one's life, assuming they lived that long. To be 100 years old in the future would be like being 10 years old in the here and now, thus still youthful. To be be 500 years old in the future would be like being 50 years old in the here and now, thus at mid life. Keeping in mind, per the here and now there is no such thing as reaching 500 years of age to begin with. But this wasn't always true. Anyone that has read the OT knows that in beginning of time it was not uncommon for some to live 500 years and even older in some cases.

Do you think that when Noah was 100 years old he was considered to be a child? I sure don't. If you agree, then that shows what you're saying here makes no sense. If a 100 year old was not considered a child in the time when some people lived for hundreds of years then why would a 100 year old be considered a child if they live during the supposed future thousand years? Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, so he came close to living for a thousand years. Do you think he was considered to be a child when he was 100 years old?