Then there's Peter's statement regarding the time coming when they will no longer believe sound doctrine but will heap up teachers for themselves teaching the things that their itching ears want to hear. I would be careful to boast about any great move away from sound doctrine.
Peter and Jude both link the time of the imprisonment of these angels to the days of Noah, and their being put in prison in the abyss at that time is not written about anywhere else in the Bible. The only other book that speaks about that, is the book of Enoch, which places it at the same time.
In Revelation 9 "locusts" are coming up out of the pit. In Revelation 20:2 something is going into the pit, and getting locked up in it.
The way you link Peter and Jude's statements to Revelation 20:2 (which they
clearly do not belong with) is once again proof that you are preaching unsound doctrine for the sake of forcing your symbolic millennium to comply with scripture. Terrible hermeneutic. Typical Amillennial hermeneutic.
Nonsense. Peter and Jude are both
clearly linking the imprisonment of those angels to a time long before the first coming of Christ. So I ask, why, if your Amil doctrine is true, do you need to ignore the context of the scripture and then teach the false doctrine that your brushing aside of the context produces?
2 Peter 4
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who secretly will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.
2 And many will follow their pernicious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness they will use you for gain with well-turned words; for whom judgment from of old does not linger, and their destruction does not sleep.
4
For God did not spare the angels who sinned, but thrust them down into Tartarus, and delivered them into chains of darkness, being reserved to judgment.
5
And He did not spare the old world, but saved Noah the eighth one, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.
6
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, He condemned them with an overthrow, setting an example to men intending to live ungodly.
Jude
5 But I intend to remind you, you once knowing these things, that the Lord
having delivered a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed the ones not believing.
6
And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;
7
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.
The context says
nothing about what took place after Christ came. It's your lie. (Because it is a lie you told).
Nonsense. It says only that they have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit.
It does not say Satan was there with them.
Why do you lie about what the scripture says?
Proverbs 15:11
"Sheol and destruction
['ăbaddôn] are before Jehovah, Surely also the hearts of the sons of men."
Revelation 9
11 And they had a king over them,
the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in Greek his name is Apollyon.
In the Revelation you have a star fallen from heaven given the key to the bottomless pit and
it does not say that star fallen from heaven is inside it. (unless you want to lie about what the scripture says- as you have done so far in your post I have been quoting).
In Revelation 20:2-3 it says Satan is
put into the pit.
It says nothing about him coming out.
You've already - how shall we put it - 'adjusted' what the Word of God says in order to attempt to make it comply with Amil, and done so a number of times.
How can Amils take scripture that speaks about certain angels being bound in a certain time and twist what it's saying and the time it happened, which is given by the context, all out of proportion and then say it means Satan was bound with them? You don't even realize that you are saying that Satan was bound in the days of Noah, so determined are you to change what the scripture is saying.
Nonsense. Satan was not married to the angels who sinned in the days of Noah.
Why can't you see how your false claim about just one portion of scripture has had a domino affect on all your other interpretations?
Nonsense. The New Testament does not say that. It says Satan will be
bound, not "limited". You are lying about what the New Testament is saying again.
Satan's activity has
always been limited to how much God will permit. What are you talking about?
Satan is not more powerful than the Holy Spirit, and He is
not more powerful than Christ, and Christ was able to bind Satan over and over at will - and then give His apostles the power to do the same - and the above was all done even before He was crucified - hence - even before
you say Satan was "
bound for a thousand years so that he is unable to deceive the nations until the thousand years are fulfilled".
You do not even realize in your clumsy 'adjusting' of the meaning of Christ's words that you are
actually implying that each time Christ or His apostles cast out demons, Satan was being bound for a thousand years and shut up in the abyss and a seal placed on him so that he was unable to deceive the nations until the thousand years are fulfilled.
That is indeed what you are implying.
There are no reasonable grounds in scripture to come to the conclusion that all the above clumsy adjustments you have made to the meaning of Christ's words, what Peter and Jude wrote about the imprisonment of fallen angels, and everything else you have false claimed, means that Satan was bound at the time of Calvary, shut up in the abyss, and a seal placed on him so that he could - note the reason - deceive the nations no more till the thousand years are fulfilled.
And it's noteworthy that you have not attempted to refute even one of the scriptures I quoted in my previous post which clearly and unambiguously warn the saints about Satan's activity in the world, and the fact that there is not even ONE scripture you can provide which unequivocally declared Satan to already be bound.
All your "reasons" you have given as to why you believe Satan has already been bound is pure conjecture - and they are all the same as every Amillennialist gives every time.