Irrefutable biblical proof that death is abolished at the second coming

[Spiritual Israelite]

I have no choice to if Premil is Biblical but Amil isn't.

That's the problem. You interpret Revelation 21 and 22 with doctrinal bias instead of taking an objective approach to it and seeing what you discover. I don't understand that kind of thinking. Clearly, Revelation 21 and 22 describe a time when there is no more death, sorrow, crying or pain (Rev 21:4), so how can that describe the thousand years?

It's not like the NHNE don't begin with the 2nd coming. There is no way around that though most Premils think there is. Meaning that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming.

It boggles my mind that you can recognize this but still be a Premil. I mean, I think my brain is literally melting right now just trying to figure out how someone can think that the NHNE is ushered in at the second coming and still be a Premil. Could Revelation 21:4 possibly be more clear that in the NHNE there will be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain and that the former things (like death, sorrow, crying and pain) are passed away there? Yet, you, as a Premil, have death, sorrow, crying and pain happening in the NHNE which blatantly contradicts what John indicated in Revelation 21. Huh? I just don't get it.

What is your view of the following in Isaiah 60, meaning what are you applying it to? I apply it it what Revelation 21-22 is applying it to. And in that same context is Isaiah 60:12.

Isaiah 60:11-21

It makes zero sense, that if verses 11, 13-21 are involving the same NHNE Revelation 21-22 are involving but verse 12 isn't. Why is it included in that context? Clearly, verse 12 is meaning before the GWTJ not after. Which has to mean the same has to be true for verses 11, 13-21 as well, otherwise one is cherry picking.

Once again, I have to remind you that the NT sheds light on the OT, not the other way around. That's something you don't, and may never, understand, but it's true. Let me make something clear! I'm not saying the OT is invalid and we should ignore it and only look at the NT. That's what you always think I'm saying, but it's not. I'm saying that the OT prophecies are explained in the NT. So, if the NT doesn't teach what you think you see being taught in the OT, that's a major problem that you need to reconcile. Because the NT authors understood the OT prophecies far better than you or I do and if they didn't teach anything that agrees with your understanding of the OT prophecies, then you need to rethink how you understand them.

With all that said, I'm not really seeing your point here. Verse 12 is referring to what happens to unbelievers at that point. Instead of inheriting the NHNE, they will be cast into the lake of fire. So, the eternal fate of unbelievers is being contrasted with the eternal fate of believers. I'm not seeing what your issue is there.

By the way, I edited this to not include the text of Isaiah 60:11-21 that you quoted because I didn't want to have to break up this post into two posts and that's the only reason. With that text included, this post was over the limit of 10,000 characters.

As to Isaiah 2:4, it it Amils making Jesus a liar per their interpretation. And here is why.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


Versus what Jesus said in Matthew 24:7.

Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

In what universe do the following mean the exact same thing? nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom

You never look at the whole story. You didn't even address the point I made about that passage (Isaiah 2:2-4). It relates directly to the last days. According to scripture, the last days refer to the time period between Christ's first and second coming (Acts 2:16-21, 2 Peter 3:3-4). Why did you not address that? The last days had already begun before the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21) and they last until Jesus comes again because that time period is marked by a time when scoffers scoff at the promise of His second coming. Obviously, once He comes no one will be scoffing after that, so His coming marks the end of the last days. He will come on the last day of the last days and will raise the dead who believe in Him on that day (John 6:40, 1 Thess 4:14-17, 1 Cor 15:22-23).

You are missing the context of each of those verses (Isaiah 2:4 and Matthew 24:7). The context of Isaiah 2:4 is in relation to God's people in particular, not all people. We are taught to be peacemakers, not troublemakers who start wars. Matthew 24:7 has a completely different context from that. That verse simply refers to things that would happen in the future from that time.

Obviously then, both can't be true at the same time. Which means the former can't be true until the latter is no longer true. Surely you understand what a contradiction is?

Surely, I understand that Isaiah 2:4 is not meant to be taken literally to be speaking about all people. Just like Joel 2:28-32 saying that God would pour out His Spirit on all people does not mean He would literally pour out His Spirit on all people, but that He would pour out His Spirit on all believers. Isaiah 2:4 only applies to believers. It may not be obvious from the text itself, just like what I said about Joel 2:28-32 is not obvious from the text itself. That's why you need spiritual discernment about these things and not just take text like that literally without considering the context.

The solution is simple. The last days have a last day obviously, but the last day is not a 24 hour period of time or less, it is an era of time involving more than 24 literal hours or less.

You always say that and you have no evidence to back it up. How about you stop saying that until you can back that up?

At least it can explain passages such as Matthew 19:28, unlike Amil that can only make nonsense out of that passage since Amil doesn't have a period of time after Christ returns for this prophecy to fit during.

What are you talking about?

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The judgment will occur in the realm of eternity, as Revelation 20:11 indicates because of the fact that it will not take place on earth or in heaven. The judgment does not occur during the last day, it occurs once the last day comes. The last day is a 24 hour day during which, at some point during that day, Jesus will come unexpectedly like a thief in the night and His people will be gathered to Him and He will physically destroy His enemies. Then eternity is ushered in and the judgment then takes place. To think that the judgment happens in the realm of time is ludicrous. It would take a ridiculous amount of time for Jesus to judge billions of people in the realm of time. That is not going to happen.

Judging the twelve tribes of Israel has nothing to do with ruling over them for a thousand years, it has to do with taking part in the judgment. The tribes of Israel will be judged by those who followed Jesus in the sense that the actions of the tribes of Israel will be judged and compared against the actions of true believers. You can see the contrast between the two in Matthew 25:31-46. Anyone who is shown to be a true believer based on their actions of following Jesus and helping the needy (the least of these) because they love Jesus and want to obey Him will inherit eternal life in the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world. Those who did not follow Jesus and did not obey Him by loving others and helping the needy (the least of these) will instead be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Your understanding of Matthew 19:28 is completely flawed.

In some cases I feel Amils are doing the right thing by doing that. But not every time, though. But I don't agree with Amil's interpretation of Acts 2:29-36, nor I do I agree with any Premils if they are taking it to mean the same literal throne that David sat on. He will be sitting on a throne, though. Meaning once He returns to the earth. I just don't know what that might look like.

I don't know why you disagree with Amil's interpretation of Acts 2:29-36. The passage is very straightforward and clearly indicates that the way in which Jesus ascended to the throne of David was by way of His resurrection. Peter said so explicitly.

If you think that Jesus will be sitting on some literal throne when He comes, but it's not the one David sat on, then how does your interpretation match up with the prophecy that says one in David's line, which we know is Jesus, would sit on his (David's) throne?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How can they be the same? How can you possibly equate the millennial earth to the new heavens and new earth? They are polar opposites. This is absolutely ridiculous. You have to argue this because Premil contradicts Scripture at every turn. One Premil argument takes out another. All you do every time your doctrine is exposed is run from the debate. That is your modus operandi.

The millennial earth you profess contains sin.
The new earth does not contain sin.

The millennial earth you profess contains death.
The new earth does not contain death.

The millennial earth you profess contains corruption.
The new earth does not contain corruption.

The millennial earth you profess contains war and terror.
The new earth does not contain war.

The millennial earth you profess contains tears.
The new earth does not contain tears.

The millennial earth you profess contains Satan.
The new earth does not contain Satan.

The millennial earth you profess contains the wicked.
The new earth does not contain the wicked.

The millennial earth you profess contains rebellion and anarchy.
The new earth does not contain rebellion and anarchy.

Yep. Agree completely. He knows he can't deny that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in when Jesus comes since scripture teaches that so clearly. But, he wants to cling to Premil so badly that instead of acknowledging the truth of Amil that most people do when they recognize that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in when Jesus comes, he instead comes up with this nonsense that the new heavens and new earth is ushered in and is followed by a thousand years of time plus another little season of time during which death, crying, sorrow and pain occur. Even though scripture very clearly says that there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain on the new earth. It just makes no sense at all.

 

[Davidpt]

Yep. Agree completely. He knows he can't deny that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in when Jesus comes since scripture teaches that so clearly. But, he wants to cling to Premil so badly that instead of acknowledging the truth of Amil that most people do when they recognize that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in when Jesus comes, he instead comes up with this nonsense that the new heavens and new earth is ushered in and is followed by a thousand years of time plus another little season of time during which death, crying, sorrow and pain occur. Even though scripture very clearly says that there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain on the new earth. It just makes no sense at all.

Unless I consider Premil as a valid option many passages in both the OT and NT make zero sense to me if Amil is the only valid option. You just don't seem to get that.

 

[Keraz]

No one is doing that. We're simply calling you out for butchering those verses and making them say what you want them to say. You have no clear scripture to support your doctrine so you have to resort to twisting scriptures like those to keep your false doctrine afloat.

But you do and have; ignored and dismissed those Prophesies.

Until I see a valid and sensible explanation of them, other than how they refer to the 2000 year Church age and the 1000 year reign of Jesus, then I will be considered to have won. Time will vindicate it and all who have fought against the true rendition and meaning of these verses and other Prophesies, will be ashamed and unrewarded.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Unless I consider Premil as a valid option many passages in both the OT and NT make zero sense to me if Amil is the only valid option. You just don't seem to get that.

You're wrong. I get that there are passages that you are not able to reconcile with Amil. But, there are also passages that you are not able to reconcile with Premil, which you have admitted. So, why do you take a strong stance either way when it comes to Amil and Premil, knowing that there are many holes in your Premil view? Why not instead just take the stance that you are neither Premil nor Amil until you determine which one is true, if you ever do?

As long as you continue to claim to be a Premil you will continue to interpret scripture with doctrinal bias which never leads to the truth. Try studying these things objectively for once and see what conclusions you come to instead of assuming that Premil is true which leads to you twisting scriptures to fit your Premil belief despite the fact that those scriptures clearly do not support Premil. Such as 2 Peter 3:10-13, for example.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But you do and have; ignored and dismissed those Prophesies.

Wrong. I interpret them differently than you do. That is not a case of ignoring and dismissing them. Do you have nothing else to offer but these lies that you tell about me?

Until I see a valid and sensible explanation of them, other than how they refer to the 2000 year Church age and the 1000 year reign of Jesus, then I will be considered to have won.

LOL! There is absolutely no reference to a 2000 year church age or future 1000 year reign of Jesus in those passages. You have won nothing. The only thing you have done is proven that you have no clear scripture to support your doctrine, so you have to resort to twisting verses like Hosea 6:2 to fit your doctrine instead. You have nothing else. Amil, meanwhile, has many clear scriptures to support it such as Matthew 12:28-29, Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Matthew 24:35-39, Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 28:18, John 5:28-29, Ephesians 1:19-23, 1 Thess 4:14- 5:3, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13 and Revelation 1:5-6.

Time will vindicate it and all who have fought against the true rendition and meaning of these verses and other Prophesies, will be ashamed and unrewarded.

That will be a sad time for you.

 

[grafted branch]

There is absolutely no reference to a 2000 year church age or future 1000 year reign of Jesus in those passages. You have won nothing. The only thing you have done is proven that you have no clear scripture to support your doctrine, so you have to resort to twisting veres like Hosea 6:2 to fit your doctrine instead.

I think @Keraz puts a literal one day in heaven being equal to a literal thousand years on earth. A major problem with this is he then has to figure out where to place the creation of NHNE. If our current creation took seven thousand years then NHNE, using the same reasoning, would take seven thousand years to complete.

In John 14:2 Jesus says “I go to prepare a place for you”. That statement was made approximately two thousand years ago which would mean He is only on day two of the NHNE creation. Keraz has to have about a four thousand year period of time after the millennium before NHNE is ready to be occupied, assuming Jesus rests during that supposed future millennium.

 

[WPM]

Unless I consider Premil as a valid option many passages in both the OT and NT make zero sense to me if Amil is the only valid option. You just don't seem to get that.

Talk about avoiding the issues!!!! You have to do this to sustain your teaching.

 

[Davidpt]

Talk about avoiding the issues!!!! You have to do this to sustain your teaching.

Should I just flat out lie then? Would that be better? Where I then say Amil makes sense of all prophecies in both the OT and NT to me. Which would be me lying about that since it is not how I see it. Therefore, in my mind Premil is still relevant until someone can reasonably explain these prophecies in question and why and how it is a better fit for Amil than Premil.

But the problem with that is, when someone is spiritualizing everything, one interpreter takes it to mean this, another takes it to mean that, so on and so on. And before you know it there are over 100 ways or more to understand it, depending on which interpreter you are talking to at the time. That's a red flag to me thus tells me I'm wasting my time trying to find another way to understand some of these things because these interpreters can't even agree with each other as to how the prophecies in question should be understood to begin with.

 

[Keraz]

I think @Keraz puts a literal one day in heaven being equal to a literal thousand years on earth. A major problem with this is he then has to figure out where to place the creation of NHNE. If our current creation took seven thousand years then NHNE, using the same reasoning, would take seven thousand years to complete.

If the Bible makes a plain statement, like in 2 Peter 3:8, backed up with Psalms 90:4, then anyone who thinks it is wrong, or doesn't mean it literally, it is up to them to give a proper explanation and good reasons why. All I see from AMill's, is just flat dismissal and rude rejection of those who do believe in the Millennium reign of King Jesus.
Plus other issues, like the forthcoming Sixth Seal world changer. THATS going to shock everyone!

I used to post here, for the reason of helping the undecided and those willing to learn Bible truths.
But this forum is dominated by people with fixed agendas, with no intention of changing, despite having their errors exposed.
So now, I won't participate so much, just look now and again, to get a laugh at the arrant foolishness and intransigence seen here.

 

[grafted branch]

If the Bible makes a plain statement, like in 2 Peter 3:8, backed up with Psalms 90:4, then anyone who thinks it is wrong, or doesn't mean it literally, it is up to them to give a proper explanation and good reasons why. All I see from AMill's, is just flat dismissal and rude rejection of those who do believe in the Millennium reign of King Jesus.
Plus other issues, like the forthcoming Sixth Seal world changer. THATS going to shock everyone!

I used to post here, for the reason of helping the undecided and those willing to learn Bible truths.
But this forum is dominated by people with fixed agendas, with no intention of changing, despite having their errors exposed.
So now, I won't participate so much, just look now and again, to get a laugh at the arrant foolishness and intransigence seen here.

I’m not saying it’s impossible to have one day in heaven equal one thousand years on earth. I’m saying if we go that route then an explanation of when NHNE gets created needs to be taken into consideration.

Personally I don’t see any the scriptures giving any evidence of a large period of time after the millennium. If you know of a verse that points to this then I would like to take a look, otherwise it doesn’t seem likely to me that you have an interpretation that agrees with all scripture.

 

[Davidpt]

I’m not saying it’s impossible to have one day in heaven equal one thousand years on earth. I’m saying if we go that route then an explanation of when NHNE gets created needs to be taken into consideration.

Personally I don’t see any the scriptures giving any evidence of a large period of time after the millennium. If you know of a verse that points to this then I would like to take a look, otherwise it doesn’t seem likely to me that you have an interpretation that agrees with all scripture.

IMO, too many interpreters are trying to make 2 Peter 3:8 more complicated than it is. It simply means, the same way 24 hours and one day are the exact same thing, so is a thousand years and one day the exact same thing.

For example, 12am to 12 am = 24 hours, thus equals one day.

1900 AD to 2000 AD = 1000 years, thus equal one day. Not a 24 hour day, though. One day is simply another way to express a literal thousand year era of time, the same way one day is simply another way to express a literal 24 hour era of time.

But even so, we still have to use common sense and not conclude that every time the Bible mentions days it is meaning an era of time involving a thousand years.

For example, the 6 days of creation. It is not reasonable to conclude each creation day involved 1000 years, that it took God 6000 years to create and form everything. Because clearly these creation days are connected with the beginning of things, and 6000 years later it would not still be in the beginning. That assuming each creation day consisted of 1000 years. And then when you get to day 2, 1000 years have already passed. Except it can't still be in the beginning 1000 years later. But it would still be in the beginning 24 hours later. Thus each creation day involved 24 hours each.

 

[grafted branch]

IMO, too many interpreters are trying to make 2 Peter 3:8 more complicated than it is. It simply means, the same way 24 hours and one day are the exact same thing, so is a thousand years and one day the exact same thing.

For example, 12am to 12 am = 24 hours, thus equals one day.

1900 AD to 2000 AD = 1000 years, thus equal one day. Not a 24 hour day, though. One day is simply another way to express a literal thousand year era of time, the same way one day is simply another way to express a literal 24 hour era of time.

But even so, we still have to use common sense and not conclude that every time the Bible mentions days it is meaning an era of time involving a thousand years.

For example, the 6 days of creation. It is not reasonable to conclude each creation day involved 1000 years, that it took God 6000 years to create and form everything. Because clearly these creation days are connected with the beginning of things, and 6000 years later it would not still be in the beginning. That assuming each creation day consisted of 1000 years. And then when you get to day 2, 1000 years have already passed. Except it can't still be in the beginning 1000 years later. But it would still be in the beginning 24 hours later. Thus each creation day involved 24 hours each.

In Genesis 1:1-5 when God divided light from darkness, the evening and the morning were the first day. It’s not until day three that earth is created so the first day was from God’s perspective, although that really can be very much debated as to how many hours or years the initial days of creation were.

For those people who insist the first seven days were each actually one thousand years long, they have to reconcile that with the creation of NHNE. Since you are agreeing that the first day of creation was 24 hours long then that would be proof that a verse such as 2 Peter 3:8 can’t be taken literally.

 

[WPM]

Should I just flat out lie then? Would that be better? Where I then say Amil makes sense of all prophecies in both the OT and NT to me. Which would be me lying about that since it is not how I see it. Therefore, in my mind Premil is still relevant until someone can reasonably explain these prophecies in question and why and how it is a better fit for Amil than Premil.

But the problem with that is, when someone is spiritualizing everything, one interpreter takes it to mean this, another takes it to mean that, so on and so on. And before you know it there are over 100 ways or more to understand it, depending on which interpreter you are talking to at the time. That's a red flag to me thus tells me I'm wasting my time trying to find another way to understand some of these things because these interpreters can't even agree with each other as to how the prophecies in question should be understood to begin with.

This is all Premil noise. It is duplicity. The greatest spiritualizers are Premils. They explain away numerous clear and literal passages in Scripture to fit their error. I am willing to address these. Premils built their doctrine on a twisting of Rev 20 and a misrepresentation of the OT predictions. That is it. That is all they have.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think @Keraz puts a literal one day in heaven being equal to a literal thousand years on earth.

Yes, he does. That is not at all what verses like Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 mean, though. What those verses mean is that the Lord is not affected by time. He is eternal. So, no amount of time, including one day or a thousand years, makes any difference to Him. Because of that, no one can say that He's being slow to keep His promise to come again (2 Peter 3:8-9). From His eternal perspective, He is not being slow to fulfill His promise even if it may seem that way to some from the human perspective of time.

A major problem with this is he then has to figure out where to place the creation of NHNE. If our current creation took seven thousand years then NHNE, using the same reasoning, would take seven thousand years to complete.

In John 14:2 Jesus says “I go to prepare a place for you”. That statement was made approximately two thousand years ago which would mean He is only on day two of the NHNE creation. Keraz has to have about a four thousand year period of time after the millennium before NHNE is ready to be occupied, assuming Jesus rests during that supposed future millennium.

Right. It just makes no sense. Which is why you don't see anyone but him making these kinds of claims.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If the Bible makes a plain statement, like in 2 Peter 3:8, backed up with Psalms 90:4, then anyone who thinks it is wrong, or doesn't mean it literally, it is up to them to give a proper explanation and good reasons why. All I see from AMill's, is just flat dismissal and rude rejection of those who do believe in the Millennium reign of King Jesus.
Plus other issues, like the forthcoming Sixth Seal world changer. THATS going to shock everyone!

I used to post here, for the reason of helping the undecided and those willing to learn Bible truths.
But this forum is dominated by people with fixed agendas, with no intention of changing, despite having their errors exposed.

You are so hypocritical. You are describing yourself. YOU have a fixed agenda with your nonsensical 7000 year theory with no intention of changing despite having your errors exposed.

So now, I won't participate so much,

That's good news.

just look now and again, to get a laugh at the arrant foolishness and intransigence seen here.

Look in the mirror. You are again talking about yourself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But the problem with that is, when someone is spiritualizing everything, one interpreter takes it to mean this, another takes it to mean that, so on and so on.

Who is spiritualizing everything? This is the classic false accusation that Premils make towards Amils. It's a joke. You are the one who spiritualizes passages like Matthew 24:15-21 and 2 Peter 3:10-12, but you try to say that Amils spiritualize everything? Ridiculous.

And before you know it there are over 100 ways or more to understand it, depending on which interpreter you are talking to at the time. That's a red flag to me thus tells me I'm wasting my time trying to find another way to understand some of these things because these interpreters can't even agree with each other as to how the prophecies in question should be understood to begin with.

What are you even talking about here? Of course, there is no consensus on how certain passages should be interpreted. Why does that tell you that you're wasting your time trying to find a way to understand these things? The truth is not meant to be hidden, so it can be understood if you take a humble approach and rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding. Don't let what others think dictate whether you think you can understand the truth or not. If you feel unsure about it, then ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

IMO, too many interpreters are trying to make 2 Peter 3:8 more complicated than it is. It simply means, the same way 24 hours and one day are the exact same thing, so is a thousand years and one day the exact same thing.

That is not at all what 2 Peter 3:8 is saying. You are acting as if the verse is written like this:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord equal to a thousand years, and a thousand years equal to one day.

But, that is not how it is written. Instead, it says this:

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.

It doesn't say one day equals a thousand years to the Lord and a thousand years equals one day. You are changing the text to fit your doctrine. It says one day is with the Lord AS a thousand years, and a thousand years AS one day. That means, to the Lord, there is no difference between one day and a thousand years. Which makes sense when you consider that He is eternal. From His eternal perspective, no amount of time has any effect on Him and makes any difference to Him, including one day and a thousand years.

For example, 12am to 12 am = 24 hours, thus equals one day.

1900 AD to 2000 AD = 1000 years, thus equal one day.

No. 1000 years equals 1000 years, not one day. You are taking 2 Peter 3:8 completely out of context and making complete nonsense out of it.

Not a 24 hour day, though. One day is simply another way to express a literal thousand year era of time, the same way one day is simply another way to express a literal 24 hour era of time.

Total nonsense. In no way, shape or form is one day equal to a thousand years. From the Lord's eternal perspective, there is no difference between one day and a thousand years. That is what 2 Peter 3:8 means.

But even so, we still have to use common sense and not conclude that every time the Bible mentions days it is meaning an era of time involving a thousand years.

Common sense says that one day is not equal to a thousand years, so how are you using common sense?

 

[Davidpt]

Since you are agreeing that the first day of creation was 24 hours long then that would be proof that a verse such as 2 Peter 3:8 can’t be taken literally.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

What kind of argument is that? That would be like arguing, since this passage above, for example, is involving literal 24 hour days, therefore, this proves that a verse such as 2 Peter 3:8 can’t be taken literally. Which then ignores the point I made in regards to using common sense to decide how a day should be understood. For one, context helps us decide that. And in some cases, common sense helps us decide that as well. Are you going to argue that in the Bible when it mentions day or days, it always means literal 24 hour days thus never means an era of time involving numerous days, numerous years even?

What about the last days? Does or does that not sound like an era of time involving numerous days, numerous years even? Thus an era of time and not a literal couple of 24 hour days. Then there is the last day of the last days to contend with where it is not even logical that everything that must be fulfilled after Christ returns before Corinthians 15:28 can be fulfilled, can even be fulfilled in single 24 hour day. Therefore, the last day might be a era of time thus the thousand years per Revelation 20 explaining it.

 

[grafted branch]

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

What kind of argument is that? That would be like arguing, since this passage above, for example, is involving literal 24 hour days, therefore, this proves that a verse such as 2 Peter 3:8 can’t be taken literally. Which then ignores the point I made in regards to using common sense to decide how a day should be understood. For one, context helps us decide that. And in some cases, common sense helps us decide that as well. Are you going to argue that in the Bible when it mentions day or days, it always means literal 24 hour days thus never means an era of time involving numerous days, numerous years even?

What about the last days? Does or does that not sound like an era of time involving numerous days, numerous years even? Thus an era of time and not a literal couple of 24 hour days. Then there is the last day of the last days to contend with where it is not even logical that everything that must be fulfilled after Christ returns before Corinthians 15:28 can be fulfilled, can even be fulfilled in single 24 hour day. Therefore, the last day might be a era of time thus the thousand years per Revelation 20 explaining it.

Let me clarify what I meant, interpreting “one day with the Lord is as a thousand years” as one day is always as a thousand years would be a literal interpretation.

Interpreting “one day with the Lord is as a thousand years” as one day may or may not be a thousand years, it just depends on the context, would be a non-literal interpretation.

Are there any places in the Bible, besides 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 where we can determine by the context that a day is meant as one thousand years exactly? If not then there would be no application for the interpretation you’re proposing.

If we interpret 2 Peter 3:8 as a day could mean any length of time or an unknown length of time then your point about the last days being an unknown length of time would be a direct application for 2 Peter 3:8.

So, can you provide an example of one day being equal to exactly one thousand years in the Bible?