Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[dad]

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.

As explained prophesy can leap forward in a passage. When they talked about a guy dying that was not after the 1000 years. Sorry. When they talked about the sinner, that proves it was not. Just admit it.

That is because you have no support elsewhere in Scripture for your opinion of Revelation 20.

? What part of that chapter do you claim is some sort of challenge for me?

That is because your interpretation of that highly symbolic passage that relates to the intra-Advent period is ongoing.

At least I do not wave away the tribulation, the millennium, the Rapture, and almost all prophesy in the bible!

 

[WPM]

At least I do not wave away the tribulation, the millennium, the Rapture, and almost all prophesy in the bible!

Neither do Amils. But there is nowhere else that teaches what Revelation 20 teaches in regard to a thousand years. There is therefore no contextual reason to take it as a literal thousand years.

When one looks at the highly symbolic location of this passage, the figurative use of numbers in Revelation, and the fact that a thousand years is taught nowhere else, there is no other reason to invent a new age in between this age and the age to come in order to accommodate this time period. Especially when the passage shows us that it starts at the first resurrection, which was the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it finishes at the general resurrection when Jesus comes.

The tribulation started after the resurrection of Christ and will continue until the catching away of the saints at the one and only future common of christ. There is no mention of the word rapture in the Bible.

 

[covenantee]

After that it jumps to the future

Yes. To 70 AD which was centuries in the future.

Can you name the time before He died that 2/3 of Israel died? Ha

Can you name the time when He was dead in heaven?

 

[dad]

Neither do Amils. But there is nowhere else that teaches what Revelation 20 teaches in regard to a thousand years. There is therefore no contextual reason to take it as a literal thousand years.

There is no reason to take it any other way. When it says, '
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Revelation 20:3
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled..'

That is clear. As much as you would like to you do not get to wave it away

Or this

Rev 20:4 -and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Or this

5 "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished"

Or this

6 - when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison

It is then we have that final judgment you seem to have problems with and think happens the day Jesus returned to earth!!!? Ha No wonder you are in a panic to wave it away

When one looks at the highly symbolic location of this passage,

Nonsense. You just call what you do not believe highly symbolic!

the figurative use of numbers in Revelation,

Revelation 11:3
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

--figurative?



Revelation 11:11
And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them

figurative??

No like 'highly symbolic' 'figurative' is just another word for things you do not believe.

and the fact that a thousand years is taught nowhere else,

The period is referred to elsewhere.

there is no other reason to invent a new age in between this age and the age to come in order to accommodate this time period.

There is the fact God told us. Some believe it.

Especially when the passage shows us that it starts at the first resurrection, which was the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it finishes at the general resurrection when Jesus comes.

Total confusion

The tribulation started after the resurrection of Christ

Jesus said no other time was like the Great Tribulation actually. It also says He returns right after it ends. More outright disbelief. What cult are you in?

 

[dad]

Yes. To 70 AD which was centuries in the future.

Remind us when Israel did this?


Zechariah 13:9
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

Never in history since Jesus. Not today. So 70 AD could not have been the prophesy. Period.

Can you name the time when He was dead in heaven?

Chapter and verse of whatever it is you are talking about?

 

[TribulationSigns]

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

Currently, it is present. It has been since the Cross and will end soon when Christ returns. There won't be time for a so-called six years of tribulation or a one thousand-year kingdom.

 

[WPM]

There is no reason to take it any other way. When it says, '
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Revelation 20:3
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled..'

That is clear. As much as you would like to you do not get to wave it away

Or this

Rev 20:4 -and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Or this

5 "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished"

Or this

6 - when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison

It is then we have that final judgment you seem to have problems with and think happens the day Jesus returned to earth!!!? Ha No wonder you are in a panic to wave it away




Nonsense. You just call what you do not believe highly symbolic!


Revelation 11:3
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

--figurative?



Revelation 11:11
And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them

figurative??

No like 'highly symbolic' 'figurative' is just another word for things you do not believe.



The period is referred to elsewhere.

There is the fact God told us. Some believe it.


Total confusion

Jesus said no other time was like the Great Tribulation actually. It also says He returns right after it ends. More outright disbelief. What cult are you in?

If you are adamant in interpreting a thousand years hyper-literally, how long is the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes?

 

[WPM]

There is no reason to take it any other way. When it says, '
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Revelation 20:3
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled..'

That is clear. As much as you would like to you do not get to wave it away

Or this

Rev 20:4 -and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Or this

5 "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished"

Or this

6 - when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison

It is then we have that final judgment you seem to have problems with and think happens the day Jesus returned to earth!!!? Ha No wonder you are in a panic to wave it away




Nonsense. You just call what you do not believe highly symbolic!


Revelation 11:3
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

--figurative?



Revelation 11:11
And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them

figurative??

No like 'highly symbolic' 'figurative' is just another word for things you do not believe.



The period is referred to elsewhere.

There is the fact God told us. Some believe it.


Total confusion

Jesus said no other time was like the Great Tribulation actually. It also says He returns right after it ends. More outright disbelief. What cult are you in?

You have zero corroboration for your theory. You have quoted 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.

 

[dad]

Currently, it is present. It has been since the Cross and will end soon when Christ returns.

So the one thousand years started over 2000 years ago and is still going. Yeah right

There won't be time for a so-called six years of tribulation or a one thousand-year kingdom.

I guess not with your math. We can toss it all out

 

[dad]

If you are adamant in interpreting a thousand years hyper-literally, how long is the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes?

Context

Revelation 17:10
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

We know how long that short space of time is. To the day. So a part of that little time is called one hour here. It is not repeated several times like the thousand years. There is no confusion as to what it is supposed to mean. In fact, in another translation it is clear as day

Revelation 17:10
and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.

You are grasping at straws

 

[dad]

You have zero corroboration for your theory.

I quoted the bible. It is not theory it is black and white letters

You have quoted 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.

I quoted Isa because I referred to that wonderful time as a paradise and some poster did not feel the bible described it like that. He was shown wrong. As for the 1000 years that is repeated several times and the end of the period is illuminated in detail. It is a time Jesus and believers rule earth. A time there is no more war. A time animals are changed and all friendly. A time people live for centuries and there is plenty for all, and all know Jesus. There is no remote chance you can wave it away. You must believe it or not.

 

[TribulationSigns]

So the one thousand years started over 2000 years ago and is still going. Yeah right

Because you have carnal mind by considering everything in the Book of Revelation as literal. Yeah, right back to you.

I guess not with your math. We can toss it all out

I take math from God as He defines it, if you receive it.

The Greek word for thousand is [chilioi] which is in the plural and can mean an uncertain length of time or number. It is to illustrate an unspecified length of time. For God is NOT interested in notifying you or the world of the precise actual length of time which Satan is bound (since we know the start of his binding was at the cross). It is to be mystery to the unfaithful that he is even loosed. That is why they will be eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, because they are unaware that Satan is losoed because they thought Satan won't be bound until sometimes later after the rapture of the church, or the Second Coming.

Sorry no, the number 10, 100, and 1,000 years is used in Scripture as spiritual sense to signifies the FULLNESS OF WHATEVER IS BEING SPOKEN ABOUT! You need to read in Pslams where the Lord God uses it to signify the fullness of hills:

Psa 50:10-11
(10) For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
(11) I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.

Did the Lord talk about a literal number of hills hold his cattle that are His? Does that mean that the cattle on the 1,001st hill, or the cattle upon 1,002nd hill are not His? NO! So quite obviously the number thousand here is not a number to be understood literally! It is a number that God used here to ILLUSTRATE the fullness of hills are his! That is why you need to read verse 11 carefully that "every" beast of the forest is His. It means ALL the cattle are His! Likewise when we read about thousand generations:

Psa 105:8
(8) He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
(9) Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;

Consider wisely, the LORD hath remember His covenant, for how long? FOREVER! That is what He commanded to a "thousand generations!" So is it literal? Is His Word talking bout literal 1,000 generations of about 40 years or 70 years each? Not 1,001th, or 1,002nd generation when you think the LORD will end his covenant? PERISH THE THOUGHT!
So, back to Revelation 20. The thousand years can be:

1.) FOREVER
2.) or a fullness of time of whatever is in view depending on context.

For example:
Rev 20:4
(4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Will the Saints rule with Christ ENDS after only 1,000 literal years? Or are we supposed to reign with Christ FOREVER.

Rev 22:5
(5) And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.


Now what about the thousand years for Satan?

Rev 20:3
(3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Will Satan be in a bottomless pit FOREVER? Of course not. He will be bound until the building of the church is finish, however long it take according to God! That will be when the thousand years for that purpose is finished, however long it take God to secure all of His Elect BEFORE Satan can be loosen, Revelation 14:1-4. We know that Satan was bound at the Cross but we do not know exactly when will Satan be loosed because we won't know when the LAST ELECT will be secured or when Satan will be loosend. God will loosen Satan to be used against His unfaithful congregation (Babylon the Great) as a judgment. This will be the only time we will know by looking at the SIGNS, not figuring out the date on the calendar or looking for literal signs in the sky, blood sea, wars, etc., Selah!

So I am saying not all thousand years in Revelation 20 are speaking about the same period and must be understood spiritually discerned if God give you the wisdom, otherwise, go ahead and enjoy your life eating, drinking, marrying or giving in marriage and expect the rapture when you think the literal battle of Gog and Magog war in the Middle East about to take place or the signing of a peace treaty between some peace-maker from Europe and war-weary Israel. People like you with carnal minds will be surprised and disappointed. Guaranteed!

 

[WPM]

Context

Revelation 17:10
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

We know how long that short space of time is. To the day. So a part of that little time is called one hour here. It is not repeated several times like the thousand years. There is no confusion as to what it is supposed to mean. In fact, in another translation it is clear as day

Revelation 17:10
and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.

You are grasping at straws

Yes, 1 hour is a short time, just like a thousand years is a long time. That is what is called consistent hermeneutics.

You are cherry-picking what is what to fit your beliefs. Your hermeneutics are totally contradictory. They're all over the place. This is more Premil double-standards.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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 under the New Covenant, not a natural people. That does not make it salvation visiting natural Israel again. But they come the same way as any other Nation, tribe or people. They come by the way of the Lord Jesus christ, the cross by faith.

I agree with your assessment of HOW they come, but I disagree with your conclusion that HOW they come changes anything with regard to God's promise to Paul's kinsmen.

I disagree with your interpretation, which hears Paul redefine Israel in terms other than those Paul intended. Your interpretation is incorrect because it fails to consider the first five verses, and it maintains the Greek spirit/flesh dualism.

To understand the question in verse 6, one must consider the premise stated in verse 4.

Premise: (verse 4)
God promised Israel, Paul's kinsmen of the flesh, salvation of their souls.

Question to be answered: (verse 6)
Did God's promise to save Paul's kinsmen fail?

Thesis to be proven:
God's promise to Paul's kinsmen did not fail.

The thing to be proven is God's promise to a natural people (your words), and therefore, he would not argue that God meant to promise salvation to a spiritual people. If Paul had given that response, he would have failed to prove that God had kept his promise.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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

Can you read?

Okay. I see your point.

Salvation is spiritual transformation.

I agree.

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).

Yes, in my previous post, I agreed with your assessment concerning the basis of salvation. I never questioned that we both understood that Jesus alone is the basis of our salvation.

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:

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.

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.

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:

The remnant consists of faithful obedient Jews and Gentiles.

The verses you quoted don't support your conclusion. Nothing is said of the Gentiles in those verses. The topic of discussion is Israel, defined by Paul as his kinsmen of the flesh. Isaiah cried out concerning Paul's kinsmen of the flesh, "A remnant shall be saved." As long as we stay focused on the topic question Paul raised concerning his kinsmen of the flesh, then we will understand his point. As soon as we "spiritualize" Paul's words in order to include Gentiles, we fail to understand Paul's argument.

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

If you don't like the word "race" for some reason, then substitute "family" instead. Review Deuteronomy chapter 4. God chose the family of Jacob to be his people.

As for you second statement, you have it backwards. The order of salvation begins with God choosing an individual to save.

Because my God is not a racist.

Your God is God. Let that sink in. If he wants to focus on a particular family line to serve his purpose of glorifying his name, then he will, and he did.

Unusual to you because it is ununderstood by you.

I understand both sides of the argument. Mine is correct, yours is incorrect.

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.

I don't have a system on which to base my interpretation of the Bible. Sorry, I just don't. I show you what the Bible says. You can agree or disagree.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Talk about twisting Scripture to support your error! This is what the cults do. They butcher the Word of God. No text is safe from your type of approach to biblical hermeneutics. Anything goes. Whatever is needed is done to support what you have been taught.

Insults reveal a weak argument.

 

[WPM]

I agree with your assessment of HOW they come, but I disagree with your conclusion that HOW they come changes anything with regard to God's promise to Paul's kinsmen.

I disagree with your interpretation, which hears Paul redefine Israel in terms other than those Paul intended. Your interpretation is incorrect because it fails to consider the first five verses, and it maintains the Greek spirit/flesh dualism.

To understand the question in verse 6, one must consider the premise stated in verse 4.

Premise: (verse 4)
God promised Israel, Paul's kinsmen of the flesh, salvation of their souls.

Question to be answered: (verse 6)
Did God's promise to save Paul's kinsmen fail?

Thesis to be proven:
God's promise to Paul's kinsmen did not fail.

The thing to be proven is God's promise to a natural people (your words), and therefore, he would not argue that God meant to promise salvation to a spiritual people. If Paul had given that response, he would have failed to prove that God had kept his promise.

This is very clearly meaning that not all natural ethnic Israel are true elect spiritual Israel.

 

[WPM]

I quoted the bible. It is not theory it is black and white letters

I quoted Isa because I referred to that wonderful time as a paradise and some poster did not feel the bible described it like that. He was shown wrong. As for the 1000 years that is repeated several times and the end of the period is illuminated in detail. It is a time Jesus and believers rule earth. A time there is no more war. A time animals are changed and all friendly. A time people live for centuries and there is plenty for all, and all know Jesus. There is no remote chance you can wave it away. You must believe it or not.

Where is all this in Revelation 20, your only proof-text?

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is very clearly meaning that not all natural ethnic Israel are true elect spiritual Israel.

I agree. However, I do not agree with those who suggest that Paul includes Gentiles in elect spiritual Israel.

 

[WPM]

I agree. However, I do not agree with those who suggest that Paul includes Gentiles in elect spiritual Israel.

But, we are grafted into a believing Israeli olive tree. We have taken on the citizenship of true Israel. We are now the children of Abraham by faith. He is not a Jew who is one outwardly. He is a Jew who is one inwardly. Circumcision is that of the heart.