Timtofly
Well-Known Member
At that time and to this day, Israel is scattered across every single continent. Yes, Israel is the whole world, not just the Roman Empire, and especially not just Judaea.
Last edited:
22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
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!
- Status
Davy
Well-Known Member
What you're asking is just silly. How can one answer what one teaches of all those who do recognize the Revelation 20 "thousand years"? You 3 topics above don't even begin to cover the vague territory of your question, simply because there are MORE EVENTS WRITTEN ELSEWHERE IN GOD'S WORD about the time AFTER Christ's future that ALIGN with Revelation 20. So you need to get real, and stop those silly vague questions that only serve as attempted traps, like "are you still beating your wife?"
But YES, Christ will establish His future Kingdom here on earth when He returns. Revelation 11:15-18 with the 7th Trumpet even shows this, all the kingdoms of this world becoming those of The Father and of His Christ. That idea is even a repeat of the Daniel 2:44 events about God establishing His future Kingdom in the days when the final beast kingdoms are destroyed. Even Matthew 25 reveals Jesus separating the nations between His sheep and the goats, when He comes to sit upon His inherited throne from His father David. These Scripture declarations of His future Kingdom at His appearance is all over the place in God's Word, both in The Old Testament and The New Testament.
Earthly throne, YEP! Written of in Genesis 49:10 when Jesus ("Shiloh") comes; written in Matthew 19:28 with also mention of His 12 Apostles each sitting upon a throne over the 12 tribes of Israel, pointing to His future thousand years reign. Again written of in Matthew 25:31. Also per Acts 2:29-35 pointing to Christ's future reign on His father David's throne, which is an earthly throne by the way.
As you can see, the Revelation 20 Chapter CANNOT BE separated from the REST of The Bible like YOU WANT TO DO.
No physical (flesh) humans after the LAST DAY of this world when Jesus comes, and God's consuming fire hits on that "day of the Lord" per 2 Peter 3:10. But there will... still be MORTAL SOULS on earth, still liable to perish in the future "lake of fire" that will happen at the END of the "thousand years" of Revelation 20, as written.
I can’t follow you there. I think people in Israel knew that the world was larger than just their own country. They knew Egypt was there, Africa, and many other countries. So…the world they knew was larger than just Israel. I think it’s one of the weakest points I’ve read in the thread (though I only read the first 3 pages) to say the Pharisees meant only Israel when they said the whole world. I’m not sure why you can’t see the weakness in your assertion there.
Last edited:
Truth7t7
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 11,969
- 3,752
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Millennialist use Revelation 20:1-6 and the words (Thousand Years) as a foundation for the false teaching in a future Millennial Kingdom on this earth at the return of Jesus Christ
Millennialist then move from Revelation 20:1-6 and take the words (Thousand Years) and use the Old Testament showing the "Eternal Kingdom" and they claim it represents their false Millennial Kingdom on this earth
Examples Eternal Kingdom
Zechariah 14, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 65, Ezekiel 47-48
Last edited:
in Zech 14, the 16th and 17th verses are a bit tricky to your assertion (if I’m understanding correctly?) that this is after the day of the Lord and return of Christ. God punishes people on the new heavens and earth with no rain who don’t go to worship Him and sends plagues on nations?
Also, Isaiah 65:20 says if someone dies at 100 years old, they will be thought a child still at that age. So if this is after the new heavens and earth, there will still be at least some death there?
Also, in Ez 47, the seas will still exist and people will be giving birth and having children. But we read in revelation that there will no longer be a sea on the new heaven and earth.
so…if these describe the new heaven and earth, and after the judgement, it would have at least some death still existing, seas still existing, and marriage, pregnancy and birth still existing.
Last edited:
Let us look at the challenging aspect of Isaiah 65:20. It says, “the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” This verse has confused many Bible students over the years because of its seeming contradictory wording. Whilst Premillennialists normally advance Isaiah 65 and 66 to support their millennial viewpoint, neither chapter makes the slightest reference to an earthly millennium kingdom after the second coming. Rather, both commence by speaking of this presence age and terminate by speaking of the new heaven and the new earth. Neither chapter knows anything of a future millennium. Whilst it is difficult to dissect every minute detail in a passage like this, we know that the information in view in this prophetic reading is definitely describing the period of the “new heavens and a new earth.”
Death on the new earth???
Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.
לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after
לֹא־
lō-
Not
יִֽהְיֶ֨ה
yih-yeh
Be
מִשָּׁ֜ם
miš-šām
Hence
ע֗וֹד
‘ō-wḏ,
More
ע֤וּל
‘ūl
an infant
יָמִים֙
yā-mîm
[of] days
וְזָקֵ֔ן
wə-zā-qên,
an old man
אֲשֶׁ֥ר
’ă-šer
After
What is this telling us?
Basically: a child will never become old on the new earth.
לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die
לֹֽא־
lō-
Not
יְמַלֵּ֖א
yə-mal-lê
Fulfill
אֶת־
’eṯ-
Your
יָמָ֑יו
yā-māw;
Days
כִּ֣י
kî
Inasmuch
הַנַּ֗עַר
han-na-‘ar,
a child
בֶּן־
ben-
Old
מֵאָ֤ה
mê-’āh
Hundred
שָׁנָה֙
šā-nāh
Years
יָמ֔וּת
yā-mūṯ,
Die
What is this telling us?
The exact same thing, only in different terms.
This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.
This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.
The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.
Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.
No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.
This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Like I said before, you cannot... try to separate the Revelation 20 chapter away from the REST of God's Word. It is totally ignorant to try and do that. That's why you have absolutely NO basis for your argument at all, because you want to try and argue against ALL those other Scriptures as if non-amill folks just made them up!
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
It also tells us there is procreation. You deny procreation in your version of the new heavens and earth.
This is exactly what you do. You make Rev 20 contradict numerous climactic Scripture that shows the return of Christ to be the end. To enable your beliefs: you insert 1000 years everywhere the Holy Spirit forgot to. Adding unto Scripture is forbidden in the sacred text.
Davy
Well-Known Member
I don't make up stuff. That is what those whom you follow do.
You can't debate all those Scriptures outside Revelation 20 that point to the events Revelation 20, so why not admit the charlatans you heed failed to prepare you for that.
Yes, I noticed that the gentleman did that. I asked for an explanation of how he could do that but I don’t think he gave one, although I was very tired last night when I commenced the conversation. But this was the problem I found 10 years ago or so too - ALL of the views do some things with verses and passages that don’t make sense to me. I looked then for a man who didn’t do that, or who could at least see the weak parts of his assertion (no matter his view or leaning), but I didn’t find one. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one, just that I didn’t find him. But I have to reiterate that this was among ALL views I tried to grasp. They ALL did strange things in trying to…jam things where they couldn’t fit and I saw they were trying to defend a view they had chosen rather than going where things led. It’s actually understandable that they would go to men to explain it all because it’s quite confusing. My own first puzzlement was over how some verses suggest God removes the righteous before His wrath and others seemed to say He leaves the righteous in place and removes the wicked. But I eventually saw with scripture the two reapings and some of it clicked into place anyway. The other thing that helped me was seeing how prophecy in the OT jumps forwards and backwards (in time) and also jumps from the literal world to the heavenly realm and how (this was a key piece too) Jesus stopped suddenly where He was reading from, so it also stops for a time in places. That took me from just an inkling to full surety that there were places that I couldn’t see in which a jump forward in time, back in time, or a gap of time had been made. And men aren’t good at seeing that. They see things in a more rapidly sequential way and don’t see those things. They can’t make their mind stop working that way.
You come across as a very angry and bitter person. I understand your frustration at not being able to present us with any corroboration for your opinion of Rev 20 but there is no need for your venomous attacks.
Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
The same idea is intended in Isaiah 60:21-22, where the prophet instructs, in relation to the New Earth, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
Amos 5:1-4 says, "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up. For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel."
Is this a literal or figurative thousand?
Davy
Well-Known Member
Not used to rebuke from pushing men's doctrines, are you? You've got a lot to learn then. I'm not the only one around that has studied God's Word for theirself with His help, so I ain't easy prey like you're used to.
You duck every issue because Premil is devoid of biblical support. The classic old adage is true: If you cannot attack the message attack the messenger.
BTW, there is no such word as "ain't"!
Davy
Well-Known Member
Oh, so now we're down to just ANY NUMBER written in God's Word could be just an imaginary expression!
So the Ten Commandments, really don't mean TEN Commandments afterall? How could the Israelites not know?
Your false Amill assumptions about numbers are truly silly.
Gah! I couldn’t follow that. Here’s my translation.
20 “No longer will babies die when only a few days old.
No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.
No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!
Only the cursed will die that young!
To me, this is ample evidence that a jump backwards has been made that we weren’t alerted to and that it’s talking of a greatly improved time and a period once again where men live hundreds of years but still not yet the very end, where death, the last enemy, is done away with by being thrown into the lake of fire.
So it begins by talking of the new heavens and earth but it has markers that show a jump backward must have been made.
Davy
Well-Known Member
I have countered the baloney your Amill false believes very well here so far. Kind of makes you angry, doesn't it?
When are you going to cover the timing for the Zechariah 14:16-19 verses?
When are you going to cover the timing of the Matthew 25:31-33 verses?
When are going to cover the timing of Jesus reigning over the nations with a rod of iron per the Psalms 2, Revelation 2:7, Revelation 12:5, and Revelation 19:15 Scripture?
- Status
Similar threads
