22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Truther]

No, the point was that it's symbolic. That's why I bolded the word "symbolic" in that definition.

What is the thousand/a thousand years found in Rev 20 symbolic of exactly?

If you cannot give an exact answer, you are a fraud.

 

[Truther]

You clearly have never read Revelation 20 carefully while keeping in mind that you should not contradict any other scripture when interpreting it. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts many other scriptures which talk about the timing of Christ's reign, the timing of Satan's binding and the timing of the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgment.

The key to redefining Rev 20 is to read it "carefully"?

This means to let the imagination kick in line by line?

Can you imagine what the human brain can conjure up?

 

[Truther]

Another goofy teaching from preterists is when Jesus said "heaven and earth will pass away", they think Jesus was using code words for the "temple and Jews will pass away"....LOL

 

[WPM]

Same thing

Revelation 13:1 shows the “beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns.”

• Do the 7 heads belong to the beast/antichrist?
• Do the 10 horns belong to the beast/antichrist?

 

[WPM]

Pop a question 1 at a time and I will gladly answer it.

Clogging up a single, page long post causes folks to miss main points.

Nonsense. The answer are the same. You interpret the whole of Scripture by your skewed view of one symbolic chapter - Revelation 20 - in the most obscure setting in Scripture.

 

[WPM]

Another goofy teaching from preterists is when Jesus said "heaven and earth will pass away", they think Jesus was using code words for the "temple and Jews will pass away"....LOL

I agree. That is why i am not a Preterist.

 

[WPM]

What is the thousand/a thousand years found in Rev 20 symbolic of exactly?

A long period of time.

Let us take the phrase “a thousand years.” There is a big difference between “a thousand years” (which Scriptures states) and "one thousand years" (as you keep stating). The number 'one' is not included in the narrative, you must insert it in. Rather it is the more general thousand.

The figure a “thousand years” is employed ten times in Scripture – twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. Significantly, of the eight mentions in the New, six are found in the same book of the Bible – Revelation. And of even greater note, all are disproportionately found together within the same chapter – the one currently under examination – Revelation 20. The two other New Testament references are found in the book of 2 Peter 3. In all the references, they indicate a large unspecific indefinite time period.

The two Old Testament passages are found in Psalm 90 and Ecclesiastes 6. And in both references the figure ‘a thousand years’ is used in a symbolic or figurative sense to denote an indefinite time-span. The first mention is in Psalm 90:3-5, where we read, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.”

This passage is often advanced by Premillennialists as proof of a literal physical future earthly millennium. Such people confidently advance it in such a way, as if it states, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as tomorrow which is yet to come’. However, a careful reading of this inspired narrative reveals that it rather in stark contrast declares, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” This passage therefore does not in the slightest allude to the future, never mind to some supposed impending earthly post Second Advent temporal period, but clearly to the past. This passage simply reveals profound truth about God and His infinite view of time rather than any misconceived earthly idea about a future millennium.

The thousand years are notably "as yesterday" rather than 'as tomorrow' or 'as a future period after Christ's Coming'.

A ‘thousand years’ is here used to describe God’s eternal view of time, which is in stark contrast to man’s limited understanding. This text teaches us that time is nothing with the Lord. God lives in eternity and His perspective of time far exceeds the finite mind of man. A ‘thousand years’ in this life is but a flash in the light of eternity. This reading goes on then to describe the solemn reality of the fleetingness of time and the brevity of life, saying, “we spend our years as a tale that is told” (v 9).

No wonder the Psalmist humbly prays to God, “teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psalm 90:12).

In Ecclesiastes 6:3,6-7 we find the second Old Testament reference to a thousand years. Here the term is simply used to represent an idea rather than outlining a specific measurable period of time. It reads, “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he…Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.”

This text is not remotely suggesting that a person could actually live to be a thousand years multiplied by two (or 2,000 years), such is, and has always been since the fall, a naturally impossibility. Rather, the text expresses a deep spiritual truth that even if someone lives to an incomprehensible age outside of Christ and hope, this life is completely meaningless. The term a 1000 multiplied by 2 therefore represents a hypothetically number, which spiritually impresses the important reality of the brevity and futility of carnal life. No man in Scripture, or since, has ever lived to the age of 2,000 years old.

 

[WPM]

What is the thousand/a thousand years found in Rev 20 symbolic of exactly?

Interestingly, the only place outside of Revelation 20 that the term a thousand years is mentioned in the New Testament is in 2 Peter 3. There, it is significantly used in an entirely figurative sense. In this chapter, Peter is specifically addressing the cynics who live in the last days that doubt the appearing of the Lord at His Second Advent and indeed harbour the foolish notion that He will not come at all. It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters, saying, “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” (2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter, however, says in response, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (vv 5-9).

This familiar passage closely parallels the reading that we have just analysed in Psalm 90, indicating the same spiritual truth – that God is not limited to time. Again, notably, the contrast between the number one and a thousand is employed to simply represent an important divine truth.

Some theologians mistakenly attempt to use this passage to argue that one of God’s eternal days represents a literal thousand earthly years and that the commencement occurs at the time of Second Advent. However, they do err in their assumption, in that, this text simply indicates the briefness of time with God. 2 Peter 3 does not in anyway indicate a future earthly millennium kingdom anywhere in this reading. Peter is simply reminding such people that time is absolutely nothing to the King of glory. He ultimately sits outside of time in the realm of eternity. Time is but a blink to His infinite mind and to the eternal state.

Christ speaks of the unprepared state of many professing believers, who are exposed for their unpreparedness in Luke 12:45-46, saying, “if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”

It is in this context that he addresses these misguided doubters. Peter says in response, “beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Peter thus outlines two distinct yet contrasting time equations in this passage for the sole purpose of expressing a deep spiritual truth. Notwithstanding, and not surprisingly, the Premillennialist are swift to selectively advance the first aspect of this calculation as supposed evidence that one of God’s heavenly days represents a thousand literal temporal earthly years. However, whilst they unquestionably address, and happily literalise, the first part of this calculation they are understandably careful to side step the second part of the sum. Evidently, such is for the reason that it doesn’t fit their flawed hyper-literalist mode of interpretation.

Significantly, this reading in no place suggests the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years. The Premillennialist forces that into the reading. In the above passage it simply indicates “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v 8).

Those who take the aforementioned verses to support a future 1,000-year millennium of peace are faced with an insurmountable inconsistency when they examine the detail of the remainder of the chapter, and try and get it to fit their paradigm. 2 Peter 3:10-13 continues, “the day of the Lord will come (or arrive) as thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall ‘go or pass away, or perish’ with a great noise, and the elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be ‘burned up utterly or consumed wholly’. Seeing then that all these things shall be ‘dissolved, loosened or broke up’ … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be ‘dissolved, melted or loosed’, and the elements shall ‘melt by being set on fire’?” Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

This passage is so clear, final and all-consummating that one wonders how anyone could remotely imagine that creation could survive such an all-consummating fiery event. One also wonders how the Holy Spirit could have possibly advanced more explicit language to indicate the idea of total devastation. Whatever way you look at this chapter there is absolutely no allowance made or possibility for a future post-Second Coming millennial kingdom on this earth. Peter knows of no other coming of Christ other than that which eradicate the heavens, elements and the earth in one stupendous conflagration.

Anyone who contends that this passage supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of these last verses. This vivid account of complete devastation and utter destruction that occurs in this final day totally destroys any credence for the advancement of the Premillennial supposition. If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.

Here is your answer!

 

[WPM]

You are treading in shark infested waters, as you redefine the literal passage.

Your assignment is to find signs, not redefine.

You failed the class this morning.

Unfortunately, Premils constantly spiritualize the literal and literalize the spiritual to support their error. This is horrible hermeneutics.

 

[St. Joseph]

My bad. The church is not mentioned in 4th chapter. It is there that the church is raptured

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are treading in shark infested waters, as you redefine the literal passage.

Your assignment is to find signs, not redefine.

You failed the class this morning.

LOL. Do you have anything to offer besides useless nonsense like this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Pop a question 1 at a time and I will gladly answer it.

Clogging up a single, page long post causes folks to miss main points.

You can answer them one at a time if you want. This isn't difficult. And, this time, pay attention to what is actually being asked.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Rev 20 is boring?

I guess that is why Amils redefine the chapter?

That isn't what was said and you know it. Is this just a game to you? He was clearly saying that your obsession with Revelation 20 is boring, not Revelation 20 itself. You don't offer any supporting scripture for your interpretation of Revelation 20. Your interpretation is based on assumptions (that it's literal and what it describes follows what is described in Rev 19 chronologically) and nothing more.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you only redefine Rev or do you also redefine the rest of the prophecies?

Do you only misinterpret the book of Revelation or do you also misinterpret the rest of the prophecies?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What is the thousand/a thousand years found in Rev 20 symbolic of exactly?

If you cannot give an exact answer, you are a fraud.

It's symbolic of the time period during which Satan is bound while Christ reigns. He started reigning after His resurrection when Satan was bound from preventing the light of the gospel from spreading throughout the world. There will be a "little season" after the thousand years ends that will lead up to the day of His return.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The key to redefining Rev 20 is to read it "carefully"?

I'm not redefining it. I'm careful not to interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. But, you are not. For example, other scripture indicates that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection. Do you take that into account when interpreting Revelation 20? Clearly not. Other scripture, like John 5:28-29, indicates that all of the dead, saved and lost, will be resurrected at generally the same time. Do you take this into account when interpreting Revelation 20? Clearly not.

This means to let the imagination kick in line by line?

Not at all. Stop wasting time making things up. You're coming across like a clown here.

Can you imagine what the human brain can conjure up?

Judging by you, it seems that the list is endless.

 

[WPM]

My bad. The church is not mentioned in 4th chapter. It is there that the church is raptured

Ahhh!!! We are getting places.

Pretribs passionately argue that the rapture of the Church occurs in Revelation 4:1, yet, the word “Church” is notably not mentioned anywhere in Revelation 4 (or 5).

We can immediately identify a major discrepancy in the Pretrib rationale. If the non-mention of the word "Church" between chapters 4 &19 is their main justification for arguing the Church can’t be present on the earth during that period (which they say is a 7-year tribulation) then we should apply that same logic to the non-mention of the word in Revelation 4 – which is their proof text in Revelation for a rapture before the tribulation.

If Prettrib is consistent in their reasoning on the absence of the word “church” then their argument relating to chapters 4 &19 must be equally applied to their understanding of Revelation 4 also. Significantly, if it is, then they have absolutely no basis whatsoever for locating the Church in Revelation 4, as they do, and therefore arguing for a secret rapture of the Church in that chapter. On the basis of this logic we can safely assume that the Church isn’t remotely in view or can it participate in the happenings of this chapter.

Pretrib hermeneutics actually end up destroying the Pretrib doctrine. When consistently applied, it pulls apart the whole foundation of Pretrib.

Of course, this isn’t the main basis upon which many reject such a theory, although, it is somewhat ironic that it is Pretribulationalism’s own uniquely constructed form of reasoning here that ultimately demolishes its own theology. It is this defective method of interpretation that completely destroys any tenuous validation for believing in a Pretrib secret rapture in Revelation 4:1. Such an approach exposes the actual duplicity of the Pretrib position. This, surely, is the fairest way of testing the authenticity and consistency on any system of interpretation. On this simple measure the Pretrib paradigm again completely falls apart.

The main reason many Bible students reject a Pretrib rapture in Revelation 4:1 is because it isn’t remotely speaking of Christ’s return or any supposed rapture of God’s elect. In actual fact, neither Revelation 4:1 or any other verse in chapters 4 and 5 make the slightest reference to a future coming of Christ (or any supposed secret rapture), but is simply a straightforward record of John being caught up in the Spirit into heaven 2,000 years ago to receive a remarkable supernatural insight into the spiritual realm, and particularly the future. This is then fully revealed in Revelation 6 – 19.

 

[St. Joseph]

Ahhh!!! We are getting places.

Pretribs passionately argue that the rapture of the Church occurs in Revelation 4:1, yet, the word “Church” is notably not mentioned anywhere in Revelation 4 (or 5).

We can immediately identify a major discrepancy in the Pretrib rationale. If the non-mention of the word "Church" between chapters 4 &19 is their main justification for arguing the Church can’t be present on the earth during that period (which they say is a 7-year tribulation) then we should apply that same logic to the non-mention of the word in Revelation 4 – which is their proof text in Revelation for a rapture before the tribulation.

If Prettrib is consistent in their reasoning on the absence of the word “church” then their argument relating to chapters 4 &19 must be equally applied to their understanding of Revelation 4 also. Significantly, if it is, then they have absolutely no basis whatsoever for locating the Church in Revelation 4, as they do, and therefore arguing for a secret rapture of the Church in that chapter. On the basis of this logic we can safely assume that the Church isn’t remotely in view or can it participate in the happenings of this chapter.

Pretrib hermeneutics actually end up destroying the Pretrib doctrine. When consistently applied, it pulls apart the whole foundation of Pretrib.

Of course, this isn’t the main basis upon which many reject such a theory, although, it is somewhat ironic that it is Pretribulationalism’s own uniquely constructed form of reasoning here that ultimately demolishes its own theology. It is this defective method of interpretation that completely destroys any tenuous validation for believing in a Pretrib secret rapture in Revelation 4:1. Such an approach exposes the actual duplicity of the Pretrib position. This, surely, is the fairest way of testing the authenticity and consistency on any system of interpretation. On this simple measure the Pretrib paradigm again completely falls apart.

The main reason many Bible students reject a Pretrib rapture in Revelation 4:1 is because it isn’t remotely speaking of Christ’s return or any supposed rapture of God’s elect. In actual fact, neither Revelation 4:1 or any other verse in chapters 4 and 5 make the slightest reference to a future coming of Christ (or any supposed secret rapture), but is simply a straightforward record of John being caught up in the Spirit into heaven 2,000 years ago to receive a remarkable supernatural insight into the spiritual realm, and particularly the future. This is then fully revealed in Revelation 6 – 19.

Homosexual and a lot of other words are not used specifically,but people should be intelligent enough to figure it out without having to be told.
Like asked before. Who wears robes and crowns.
God bless

 

[WPM]

Homosexual and a lot of other words are not used specifically,but people should be intelligent enough to figure it out without having to be told.
Like asked before. Who wears robes and crowns.
God bless

That is not true. The Bible calls them sodomites!!! Hello! Your doctrine is obviously falling apart.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (NKJV) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

[WPM]

Homosexual and a lot of other words are not used specifically,but people should be intelligent enough to figure it out without having to be told.
Like asked before. Who wears robes and crowns.
God bless

Can you address the facts presented, instead of diverting?