Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[WPM]

Do you ever think of saying that Christians disagree about the interpretation of scriptures concerning prophecy and the end times but we can disagree and still be brothers in Christ?

What have I said that disagrees with that? Why do you take me challenging your doctrine as an attack upon you?

 

[WPM]

You chose to wave away the meaning with an interpretation attempt. It did not fit the spirit of the passage. You have to make the guy who died not real. You have to make any dying not real. You have to make the age he died not real. You have to make his sex not real. You have to make the people looking at the dead guy and saying he was still but a child not real.


A better way to view the passages is that it is the millennium where people are still able to die

The plants will grow fast (a hand full of corn planted high on a mountain will grow lots of fruit) We also know there will be no war. So yes it is quite fine to refer to that time as a paradise.

Really?

All you are doing is revealing the impotence of the Premillennial position. Because you have zero support elsewhere in Scripture, you apply passages that pertain to "the new heavens and new earth" (which comes after the millennium according to Revelation) and also "the last days* (which relates to the here and now) to your imaginary future millennium.

You obviously have nothing to support your understanding of Revelation 20, nothing. It is corroboration that totally destroys the Premillennial position.

My interpretation here (1) reflects the wording of the original Hebrew, (2) agrees with the context of the passage (which is describing the new heavens and new earth) and (3) correlates with multiple Scripture, including Revelation 20, which shows the second coming to be climatic - ushering in eternity.

 

[CadyandZoe]

He identifies who "all Israel" is in Romans 9

I disagree. He does not define "all Israel" in Romans 9.

God removes ungodliness from Jacob in the same manner as He removes it from everyone else:

That is not true. The prophets are not talking about spiritual transformation; they are talking about physically removing ungodly people from among Israel.

He has not broke His promise to save His believing elect faithful remnant.

You still don't understand. The promise was to save Israel.

His choice is the individuals of faith and obedience in His remnant.

This is not true. God creates faith and obedience in those whom he chooses.

He declares that God will save His faithful remnant.

God chooses who will be counted among the remnant.

It didn't change His mind about His promise to save His remnant.

He didn't promise to save a remnant. He promised to save Israel.

God's Israel is a spiritual Israel saved by faithfulness and obedience to Him and His Son.

That is not true. Israel consists of the descendants of Jacob.

Your Israel is a racialized Israel whom you claim is saved by DNA.

You mischaracterize what I say and for the moment, I will forgive your inattention.

God is not a racist.

God chose a race.

I don't get my definition from a dictionary.

You get your definition from your belief system, which isn't Biblical. You system is in error because it understands terms and words in unusual ways that aren't taken from the Bible.

I get it from Scripture.

That isn't true. Your system is a kluge job, which attempts to account for the fact that Israel didn't exist for 2000 years. But it came back into existence in 1948, which belies your system.

 

[dad]

Really?

All you are doing is revealing the impotence of the Premillennial position. Because you have zero support elsewhere in Scripture, you apply passages that pertain to "the new heavens and new earth" (which comes after the millennium according to Revelation) and also "the last days* (which relates to the here and now) to your imaginary future millennium. You obviously have nothing to support your understanding of Revelation 20, nothing. It is corroboration that totally destroys the Premillennial position.

If a prophesy exists in a passage then you choose total disbelief and to ignore it. OK
The passage in Isa deals with someone dying. That does not happen in heaven, sorry.

Now you mention Rev 20 again? What about it?

My interpretation here (1) reflects the wording of the original Hebrew, (2) agrees with the context of the passage (which is describing the new heavens and new earth) and (3) correlates with multiple Scripture, including Revelation 20, which shows the second coming to be climatic ushering in eternity.

Rev shows nothing of the sort. You conflate all events in 1000 years together

As for the context of the Isa verse it is about some men dying and being considered young at 100

 

[WPM]

I disagree. He does not define "all Israel" in Romans 9.

That is not true. The prophets are not talking about spiritual transformation; they are talking about physically removing ungodly people from among Israel.

You still don't understand. The promise was to save Israel.

This is not true. God creates faith and obedience in those whom he chooses.

God chooses who will be counted among the remnant.

He didn't promise to save a remnant. He promised to save Israel.

That is not true. Israel consists of the descendants of Jacob.

You mischaracterize what I say and for the moment, I will forgive your inattention.

God chose a race.

You get your definition from your belief system, which isn't Biblical. You system is in error because it understands terms and words in unusual ways that aren't taken from the Bible.

That isn't true. Your system is a kluge job, which attempts to account for the fact that Israel didn't exist for 2000 years. But it came back into existence in 1948, which belies your system.

Your fight is with Scripture. Romans 9 demolishes everything you were saying here:

6¶Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

God is committed to a spiritual people under the New Covenant, not a natural people. That does not mean the whole natural Israel will experience salvation. But that they must come the same way as any other nation, tribe or people. They must come by way of the Lord Jesus Christ, the cross and faith.

 

[WPM]

If a prophesy exists in a passage then you choose total disbelief and to ignore it. OK
The passage in Isa deals with someone dying. That does not happen in heaven, sorry.

Now you mention Rev 20 again? What about it?



Rev shows nothing of the sort. You conflate all events in 1000 years together

As for the context of the Isa verse it is about some men dying and being considered young at 100

It is saying the opposite to what you're saying. It is actually teaching us that there will be no more death for people in the new heavens and new earth. This agrees with Revelation 21 and 22, which it correlates with. John simply expands in more detail and with more clarity on what Isaiah was presenting (as is common with the fuller revelation).

Read my post again. You seem incapable of addressing the evidence in your posts. All I see is avoidance, and chiding.

You've already shown that you have no prooftext for Pretrib. You're now showing that you have zero corroboration for your opinion of Revelation 20.

Your whole eschatological doctrines are bereft of scriptural support. It is time to embrace the truth.

 

[WPM]

I called it that.

That sums up your eschatology. It is in your head not in the Book.

 

[dad]

It is saying the opposite to what you're saying. It is actually teaching us that there will be no more death for people in the new heavens and new earth. This agrees with Revelation 21 and 22, which it correlates with. John simply expands in more detail and with more clarity on what Isaiah was presenting (as is common with the fuller revelation).

Let's look at the verse.

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.

After the 1000 years, there will be no sinners. During them there will be (as well as death) Gotcha!

 

[dad]

That sums up your eschatology. It is in your head not in the Book.

The bible tells of that time as one with plenty for all an no more war etc. That is not in my head. Try not to call everything you choose to disbelieve and ignore in the heads of other people.

 

[WPM]

Let's look at the verse.

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.

After the 1000 years, there will be no sinners. During them there will be (as well as death) Gotcha!

I went through the Hebrew word for word and you totally ignored it. You have to. It totally forbids your position.

 

[WPM]

The bible tells of that time as one with plenty for all an no more war etc. That is not in my head. Try not to call everything you choose to disbelieve and ignore in the heads of other people.

Lol. There you go again! You're now quoting passages that relate to "the last days" and dumping them into your imaginary future millennium. No text is safe with your ad hoc manner of interpretation. You're totally butchering God's Book! This show's how bias your hermeneutics are. Anything goes in your interpretation of Scripture. Anything that will support what you have been taught.

None of these texts describes 2 resurrection days, 2 judgment days, the binding of Satan at the second coming and his losing after a thousand years to deceive billions of his followers on a millennial earth.

This is one manipulated theory that has deceived many.

 

[dad]

I went through the Hebrew word for word and you totally ignored it. You have to. It totally forbids your position.

You were wrong. Nothing needs to mean the twisted Hebrew interpretation you do. There is no death as you were told in heaven. There is death in Isa 65. There are no sinners in heaven. There is a sinner in Isa 65. Which part of 'gotcha' are you missing here?

 

[WPM]

You were wrong. Nothing needs to mean the twisted Hebrew interpretation you do. There is no death as you were told in heaven. There is death in Isa 65. There are no sinners in heaven. There is a sinner in Isa 65. Which part of 'gotcha' are you missing here?

I refer you back to the evidence. Even if you don't want it, others can see it for themselves.

 

[dad]

Lol. There you go again! You're now quoting passages that relate to "the last days" and dumping them into your imaginary future millennium.

If the millennium is not future what is it, past?

No text is safe with your ad hoc manner of interpretation. You're totally butchering God's Book! This show's how bias your hermeneutics are. Anything goes in your interpretation of Scripture. Anything that will support what you have been taught.

No text is safe from unbelief with you

None of these texts describes 2 resurrection days,

? Some rose when Jesus did! Others rise after the 1000 years. Others rise in the air, the dead and living believers at the Rapture. The old testament saints and tribulation saints rise when Jesus returns. Probably the millennium saints rise before God destroys the rebels surrounding them. What is this '2' business?!

2 judgment days,

There is the final judgment. There is the judging of nations when He returns. There is the judgment seat of Christ for rewards for believers. Again you stick the number 2 in there.

the binding of Satan at the second coming and his losing after a thousand years to deceive billions of his followers on a millennial earth.

You can't escape that one. It is belief or unbelief.

 

[dad]

I refer you back to the evidence. Even if you don't want it, others can see it for themselves.

You ignore that there can be no sinners in eternity. Reflect on this word slowly and for a good long time...Gotcha!

 

[WPM]

If the millennium is not future what is it, past?

No text is safe from unbelief with you

? Some rose when Jesus did! Others rise after the 1000 years. Others rise in the air, the dead and living believers at the Rapture. The old testament saints and tribulation saints rise when Jesus returns. Probably the millennium saints rise before God destroys the rebels surrounding them. What is this '2' business?!

There is the final judgment. There is the judging of nations when He returns. There is the judgment seat of Christ for rewards for believers. Again you stick the number 2 in there.

You can't escape that one. It is belief or unbelief.

In your false teaching:

• The last day = the millennium.
• The millennium = the millennium.
• The new heavens and new earth = the millennium.

The whole thing is an incredible theological manipulation.

 

[RLT63]

What have I said that disagrees with that? Why do you take me challenging your doctrine as an attack upon you?

Not me. You haven’t attacked me and you probably don’t know enough to know what my doctrine is. I’m glad that you have that attitude and you are just debating different doctrines.
I just noticed you start a lot of threads on this subject and the arguments get pretty heated.

 

[dad]

In your false teaching:

• The last day = the millennium.

In your false statement maybe. In reality, the 1000 year period is part of the day of the Lord.

• The millennium = the millennium.

Ya think? What do you think it equals?

• The new heavens and new earth = the millennium.

Another strawman falsehood. The new heavens are after the millennium

You seem incredibly confused.

 

[WPM]

In your false statement maybe. In reality, the 1000 year period is part of the day of the Lord.

Ya think? What do you think it equals?

Another strawman falsehood. The new heavens are after the millennium

You seem incredibly confused.

You are quoting unrelated passages that expressly relate to "the last days" (Isaiah 2 and Micah 4) and a "new heavens and a new earth" passage in Isaiah 65 to support your supposed future millennium.

Context, location and time period does not seem to matter to you. Anything goes with your type of ad-hoc hermeneutics. As long as it justifies what you been taught.

Can you see how absurd your whole doctrine is and how convoluted and contradictory your hermeneutics are?

That is because you have no support elsewhere in Scripture for your opinion of Revelation 20. That is because your interpretation of that highly symbolic passage that relates to the intra-Advent period is ongoing.

 

[covenantee]

I disagree. He does not define "all Israel" in Romans 9.

Romans 9
6 For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
8 That is...

Can you read?

That is not true. The prophets are not talking about spiritual transformation; they are talking about physically removing ungodly people from among Israel.

Salvation is spiritual transformation.

Acts 4
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

That's not the name(s) of any prophet(s).

You still don't understand. The promise was to save Israel.

Romans 9
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

This is not true. God creates faith and obedience in those whom he chooses.

Romans 10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

God chooses who will be counted among the remnant.

Romans 9
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

That's the entire remnant.

He didn't promise to save a remnant. He promised to save Israel.

Romans 9
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

That is not true. Israel consists of the descendants of Jacob.

The remnant consists of faithful obedient Jews and Gentiles.

God chose a race.

You choose a race. God chose and chooses a faithful obedient remnant comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

Because my God is not a racist.

You get your definition from your belief system, which isn't Biblical. You system is in error because it understands terms and words in unusual ways that aren't taken from the Bible.

Unusual to you because it is ununderstood by you.

Not unusual to those who understand it.

I've told you repeatedly to leave it for those who understand it.

But you don't understand even that.

That isn't true. Your system is a kluge job, which attempts to account for the fact that Israel didn't exist for 2000 years. But it came back into existence in 1948, which belies your system.

Your system is a cultic modernist revisionist zionist racist travesty of the "faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints" (Jude 3) and proclaimed for 17 centuries by the historical true Christian Church.

Your system is an abomination of desecration.