Surely Premils must invent 2 future glorifications days and 2 future raptures separated by 1000 years+?

[claninja]

LOL. I am! Hello!

You are speaking for Isaiah through the lens of your interpretation on revelation, hence you had to remove words and move around the “lo” in Isaiah 65:20.

 

[claninja]

So, if I'm understanding you right here, you are trying to say that the meaning of the passage (Isaiah 65:17-25), which undeniably refers to the new heavens and new earth, is to indicate that things will return again to how they were long ago when people lived for hundreds of years? If so, how do you reconcile that with what is written in Revelation 21:1-5 about the new heavens and new earth where there will be "no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."?

No, I’m saying I think Isaiah is prophesying about a future new heavens and earth, veiled by imagery his audience would have familiar (long lives of prediluvian patriarchs, etc…) under the context of the old covenant.

Ellicot
“There shall be no more thence . . .—The prophet sees in the restored city not so much an eternal and a deathless life as the return of the traditional longevity of the prediluvian and patriarchal age (Genesis 5, 11), Life will not be prematurely cut off, as it had been, by pestilence and war. (Comp. Zechariah 8:4.) He who dies at the age of a hundred will be thought of as dying young; even the sinner, dying before his time as the penalty of his guilt, shall live out the measure of a century. The noticeable fact is that sin is thought of as not altogether extinct—as still appearing, though under altered conditions, even in the restored Jerusalem.”

Benson
“Thus “the prophet describes this renovation of the world as a paradisiacal state, and such as the patriarchs enjoyed before the flood, when men commonly lived nearly a thousand years. So he that died at a hundred years of age would have been looked upon as dying in the age of childhood, and be judged to have been cut off in the beginning of his years, as a punishment for some great sins he had committed.”

Barnes
“in this verse the image is, that the inhabitants would reach a great age, and that the comparatively happy times of the patriarchs would be restored;”

Cambridge
“The expression of the thought is unaccountably laboured and obscure.

an infant of days] must mean one who lives only a few days.

nor an old man … days] (cf. Genesis 25:8; Exodus 23:26; Job 5:26), i.e. none shall become prematurely old; each shall attain the allotted measure of life according to the standard which shall then be normal.

for the youth shall die an hundred years old &c.] These two cases must be regarded as hypothetical merely. Death at the age of 100 years (if such a thing took place) would be looked on as an untimely death in extreme youth, and as a special mark of the Divine anger on a career of wickedness (Job 15:32; Job 20:5). The possibility of a hardened sinner being actually found in the Messianic community cannot be seriously contemplated (see ch. Isaiah 60:21).”

Pulpit
“There shall be no more thence an infant of days; i.e. there shall not go from the new Jerusalem into the unseen world any infant of a few days old. On the contrary, even "the youth" shall reach a hundred; i.e. one who dies when he is a hundred shall be regarded as cut off in his youth. The general rule shall be, that old men shall "fill their days," or attain to patriarchal longevity. Even the sinner, who is under the curse of God, shall not be cut off till he is a hundred.”

 

[claninja]

Do you agree that there is only one new heavens and one new earth (some try to say there are two) and that there will be no more death when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in?

In a literal sense yes. In an ancient near eastern sense, where earth and heaven shattering language was often employed in a hyperbolic/metaphorical sense to describe the ruin of kingdoms and nations, no.

 

[grafted branch]

Do you agree that there is only one new heavens and one new earth (some try to say there are two) and that there will be no more death when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in?

I’m surprised you don’t have two NHNEs. From a previous conversation we had, you have two kingdoms of heaven.

New Jerusalem comes down and is in NHNE in Revelation 21, yet we have currently come to the heavenly Jerusalem. Having only one NHNE should show that there is an overlap where OHOE exists at the same time NHNE exists which is why people can come to New Jerusalem prior to OHOE passing away. But based on previous conversations you think the OHOE must pass away prior to the NHNE being created. It doesn’t make sense to me. Where is New Jerusalem right now? It can’t be in OHOE if it passes away, right?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. If you were talking about Premils then I have the right to respond for all Premils because I'm a Premil.​

Okay, Mr. Premil Representative.

Your argument is getting more ridiculous and your personal accusations are piling up. But coming from you it's like water off a ducks back when aimed at me,

And of all people you cannot talk about not looking at Greek words when you look at Greek words and change their meaning whenever the meaning does not comply with your faith in your Amil theology.​

Blah blah blah. Nothing but hot air from you.

​

You believe Christ was speaking hypothetically I suppose:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Mat.10:28.

According to you God cannot destroy the soul in hell because the soul is immortal, so Jesus was speaking hypothetically.​

So, do you believe that the souls of dead people are conscious and alive or not? You can't seem to make up your mind on what you believe about soul sleep. Just because God is able to destroy the soul doesn't mean he does. What is your point here? Do you think the soul ever dies? If so, when does it die and where is the scripture which speaks of it being resurrected from the dead?

I don't know what you believe about the soul and body and the lake of fire, but I really don't care,​

LOL. That's great, buddy.

because the word zoe (not zao) in the New Testament refers to life and eternal life.

The word zao does not mean the same thing as the word zoe,​

Never said it did. What is the name of the straw man you're talking to here? Your arguments are such a joke.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In a literal sense yes. In an ancient near eastern sense, where earth and heaven shattering language was often employed in a hyperbolic/metaphorical sense to describe the ruin of kingdoms and nations, no.

Talking to preterists is just painful. Let me word the question a different way. Do you agree that Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-5 speak of the same new heavens and new earth?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What points did he provide? When asked what English translations agreed with his rearrangement, he just responded “read the Hebrew”.

After some back and forth with him not providing much of anything, he responded with revelation. His interpretation of revelation gives him the authority to rearrange words and change the meanings of OT passages.

I’m curious if WPM or you would let it slide if a premil changed the order and meaning of an OT passage to align with their interpretation of revelation?

I'm not seeing that he changed the order. He said he understands the placement of the punctuation differently than you do. There's no punctuation in the original Hebrew text.

Apples and oranges. This response is kind of shocking. It seems you are still unaware of the difference between a manuscript variant and translation/interpretation.

LOL! This response is not shocking at all. You just dismiss every valid argument that I make. It's a joke. You try to say that showing how a verse is translated in English translations supports your point, but when I do that same thing, somehow it's apples and oranges. LOL! You can't be taken seriously.

The variant in Daniel 7 from the original Greek text is not an “interpretation”. It’s a textual variant. It contains literally different words than the theodotion text. It’s not a case of me personally going I think Daniel 7:13-14 means this.

You disagree with how that passage reads in the English translations. He disagrees with how Isaiah 65:20 reads in the English translations. But, somehow, your argument is valid and his is not. Ridiculous.

It’s a case of there being variant in the original Greek manuscript containing a literal different Greek word than the text and thus having a different English translation than the theodotion text.

This is completely different than WPM and I are discussing.

You are trying to support your point with how Isaiah 65:20 is translated in English translations. But, if I do the same for Daniel 7:13-14, somehow it's not valid to do so. That's ludicrous. None of your babbling here can convince me that your argument is somehow valid in relation to Issaiah 65:20 while mine somehow is not in relation to Daniel 7:13-14.

We are not discussing a textual variant in Isaiah 65:20. We are discussing why wpm is interpreting the same exact words and order differently than 20 plus English translations.

But, you don't want to discuss why you interpret Daniel 7:13-14 differently than those same translations do. It's okay for you to have an interpretation of a verse that's different than the English translations do, but it's not okay for him. I see how it is.

 

[Davidpt]

Where is New Jerusalem right now?

Speaking for myself, I tend to think the following is meaning the NJ in question and where it currently is now.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare(hetoimazo) a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.


This English word 'prepare' is the following Greek word.

hetoimazo
het-oy-mad'-zo
from etoimoV - hetoimos 2092; to prepare:--prepare, provide, make ready. Compare kataskeuazw - kataskeuazo 2680.


It is used in the following passages which appear to be connected to verse 2 and 3 above. At least in my opinion anyway.

Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made(hetoimazo) herself ready(hetoimazo)

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared(hetoimazo) as a bride adorned for her husband.

In light of all the above, this NJ is still in heaven, and that during Jesus' ascension, He then goes to prepare a place for the saved, apparently meaning this same NJ that comes down from God out of heaven, and when He comes again, He receives the saved unto Himself, that where He is, there the saved may be also.

Even though I'm Premil, I disagree with Premils that Revelation 21:2 is meaning a thousand years and little season post the 2nd coming. That makes total nonsense out of Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 by Premils applying the former to the 2nd coming, then applying the latter to much later. That would be like a bride making herself ready, then getting married soon after, but then it not being until 20 years later, for example, that she is finally adorned for her husband. Total nonsense. When she has made herself ready that is when she is adorned for her husband, not decades later, per the example I used. Premils don't even have a logical connection between Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 per their view. But not all Premils, yet most Premils.

Yet more reasons I feel the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE. Either that or Amil is the correct position. Except I'm not even remotely convinced that Amil is the correct position. Nor am I remotely convinced that most Premils are making sense of Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2.

 

[WPM]

You are speaking for Isaiah through the lens of your interpretation on revelation, hence you had to remove words and move around the “lo” in Isaiah 65:20.

Where did I remove it? Where did I move it? More false accusations!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Looks like we may have different takes on what the resurrection means, and this may be part of the problem.

That's often the problem with you and me. We look at everything very differently.

I think the resurrection involves glorification. For example Lazarus was raised from the dead, but not resurrected in the sense of glorification. Paul states the body that is raised is not what is sown. What is sown is natural what is raised is spiritual. So glorification is intrinsically linked to the final resurrection imho.

While 1 Cor 15:50-54 indicates that the glorification (change of the body to be immortal) happens "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in my view it still happens right after their bodies are resurrected first. It all happens fast, but there's still an order to in my view and I would not exactly equate the resurrection with the glorification similar with how I would not exactly equate the glorification with the rapture even thoug hthey happen at almost the same time because the rapture refers to people being caught up which happens after they are glorified first.

Anyway, regardless of any of that, there is no mention anywhere besides 1 Cor 15:50-54 of anyone being glorified at any other time besides at the last trumpet, which is the point. Premills have to just assume it happens again after the thousand years despite nothing in scripture saying anything about that.

So, from my perspective there’s no need to invent 2 glorifications if revelation mentions 2 resurrections. The first being the saints, the second being a general resurrection of ALL the dead.

You just don't get it. Who cares about your perspective? Not me. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the Premill perspective. They believe people's bodies are glorified at Christ's second coming. Where is the mention of anyone's bodies being glorified at any point after that? Nowhere. Most Premills do not see the resurreciton of the rest of the dead as a general resurrection of all the dead, including believers, but rather as a resurrection of dead unbelievers. So, with that being the case, for those Premills, where do they see anything about those who are believers during the thousand years being glorified?

In regards to the rapture. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the rapture for the church, and not for those who take place in the first, to remain on earth, or the second resurrection? If that’s the case why would there be a second rapture?

I already explained this. What do you think, that those who are in "the camp of the saints" should just stay there on the earth while fire is coming down on it? What do Premills think has to happen in order for the fire not to harm those saints? Wouldn't they need to be taken off of the earth? Or, at the very least, they would need to be glorified quickly before the fire comes down. But, imagine them being glorified and then the fire coming down on them, but not harming them. Seems rather ridiculous. I would think they would be removed out of the way first which is exactly whwat I believe will happen at Chirst's return.

Everyone in the church will be glorified and caught up to meet the Lord in the air and then fire will come down on the entire earth. But, where is the scripture that says anything about people being glorified 1,000+ years after people are glorified at the last trumpet? Nowhere. Paul said we all will be changed at the last trumpet. All except those who live after that? That's apparently what Premills believe, but I think that's completely ridiculous and is a case of adding something to scripture which is not there.

As to the fire, it just says it comes down and consumes the enemies. Why would there need to be a rapture?

Becaues it makes no sense for believers to remain there while fire comes down on the earth. What is your understanding of that? You think individual beams of fire will come down on each unbeliever while leaving believers unscathed?

finally, if you already know that premils believe revelation reveals new information about the chronology of the eschaton beyond what the NT epistles and gospels demonstrate, why do you keep attempting to debate premils’ eschatological chronology by using the epistles and gospels?

Not all Premils do that. In the case of those who do, it's to show them that they are wrong for thinking that way and that their view contradicts other scripture. If they think that even Jesus Himself didn't have the full revelation and they can't even trust what Jesus Himself said about the resurrection of the dead and other things, then that is just foolish. But, not all Premills claim that Revelation reveals new information not found in the epistles and gospels. That's why they twist what is said in the epistles and gospels to fit their view. They think it's there in the epistles and gospels, but they manipulate the text to make it seem as if it's there.

 

[Davidpt]

No, I’m saying I think Isaiah is prophesying about a future new heavens and earth, veiled by imagery his audience would have familiar (long lives of prediluvian patriarchs, etc…) under the context of the old covenant.

Ellicot
“There shall be no more thence . . .—The prophet sees in the restored city not so much an eternal and a deathless life as the return of the traditional longevity of the prediluvian and patriarchal age (Genesis 5, 11), Life will not be prematurely cut off, as it had been, by pestilence and war. (Comp. Zechariah 8:4.) He who dies at the age of a hundred will be thought of as dying young; even the sinner, dying before his time as the penalty of his guilt, shall live out the measure of a century. The noticeable fact is that sin is thought of as not altogether extinct—as still appearing, though under altered conditions, even in the restored Jerusalem.”

Benson
“Thus “the prophet describes this renovation of the world as a paradisiacal state, and such as the patriarchs enjoyed before the flood, when men commonly lived nearly a thousand years. So he that died at a hundred years of age would have been looked upon as dying in the age of childhood, and be judged to have been cut off in the beginning of his years, as a punishment for some great sins he had committed.”

Barnes
“in this verse the image is, that the inhabitants would reach a great age, and that the comparatively happy times of the patriarchs would be restored;”

Cambridge
“The expression of the thought is unaccountably laboured and obscure.

an infant of days] must mean one who lives only a few days.

nor an old man … days] (cf. Genesis 25:8; Exodus 23:26; Job 5:26), i.e. none shall become prematurely old; each shall attain the allotted measure of life according to the standard which shall then be normal.

for the youth shall die an hundred years old &c.] These two cases must be regarded as hypothetical merely. Death at the age of 100 years (if such a thing took place) would be looked on as an untimely death in extreme youth, and as a special mark of the Divine anger on a career of wickedness (Job 15:32; Job 20:5). The possibility of a hardened sinner being actually found in the Messianic community cannot be seriously contemplated (see ch. Isaiah 60:21).”

Pulpit
“There shall be no more thence an infant of days; i.e. there shall not go from the new Jerusalem into the unseen world any infant of a few days old. On the contrary, even "the youth" shall reach a hundred; i.e. one who dies when he is a hundred shall be regarded as cut off in his youth. The general rule shall be, that old men shall "fill their days," or attain to patriarchal longevity. Even the sinner, who is under the curse of God, shall not be cut off till he is a hundred.”

One thing is for certain, if death is still taking place in Isaiah 65:17-20, the era of time it is involving cannot be post the fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:28, but must be meaning prior to the fulfilling of that. The reason I bring 1 Corinthians 15:28 up is because it is obvious, thus no one would be disputing that 1 Corinthians 15:28 is meaning after the GWTJ is fulfilled and in the past. IOW, there is no longer any such thing as death once the GWTJ has been fulfilled. And certainly not once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled. The question is, where does the NHNE and NJ fit in here? Can it only fit after the GWTJ has been fulfilled first? I tend to have my doubts since I tend to think the NHNE is a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus something not instantaneous , the same way, for example, creation in the beginning was not instantaneous. It was a process involving 6 days.

 

[Zao is life]

So, do you believe that the souls of dead people are conscious and alive or not?

One last time: Conscious, and the person whose soul is detached from his body is not alive [zao] - he's dead. God created human beings each with a body, a soul, and a spirit.

If the person died in Christ he will have eternal life IN Christ and his soul will be with Christ until the resurrection of the dead. Paul said: Christ will bring with Him all those who have fallen asleep in Him, and they will rise from the DEAD first. Paul did not say they will rise from the LIVING first.

The other souls will be in hades and they too will be among THE DEAD.

You cannot refer to any of the above as "living" souls, or souls that are "alive". For someone to be called "alive" [zao] in the Bible he needs to be alive in his body, because that's how God created human beings - with a body, a soul, and gave it a spirit.

Pity you do not understand these things. Because your ignorance makes you a very bothersome and argumentative person in your prideful broadcasting of your lack of understanding.

 

[grafted branch]

Speaking for myself, I tend to think the following is meaning the NJ in question and where it currently is now.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare(hetoimazo) a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.


This English word 'prepare' is the following Greek word.

hetoimazo
het-oy-mad'-zo
from etoimoV - hetoimos 2092; to prepare:--prepare, provide, make ready. Compare kataskeuazw - kataskeuazo 2680.


It is used in the following passages which appear to be connected to verse 2 and 3 above. At least in my opinion anyway.

Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made(hetoimazo) herself ready(hetoimazo)

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared(hetoimazo) as a bride adorned for her husband.

In light of all the above, this NJ is still in heaven, and that during Jesus' ascension, He then goes to prepare a place for the saved, apparently meaning this same NJ that comes down from God out of heaven, and when He comes again, He receives the saved unto Himself, that where He is, there the saved may be also.

Even though I'm Premil, I disagree with Premils that Revelation 21:2 is meaning a thousand years and little season post the 2nd coming. That makes total nonsense out of Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 by Premils applying the former to the 2nd coming, then applying the latter to much later. That would be like a bride making herself ready, then getting married soon after, but then it not being until 20 years later, for example, that she is finally adorned for her husband. Total nonsense. When she has made herself ready that is when she is adorned for her husband, not decades later, per the example I used. Premils don't even have a logical connection between Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 per their view. But not all Premils, yet most Premils.

Yet more reasons I feel the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE. Either that or Amil is the correct position. Except I'm not even remotely convinced that Amil is the correct position. Nor am I remotely convinced that most Premils are making sense of Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2.

I agree with your assessment of John 14:2-3, those verses cross reference with the verses about New Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem. I would say Jesus going to prepare a place signified His role as the mediator and the work He accomplished through His death, resurrection, and ascension. I personally see a direct connection between New Jerusalem and the new covenant.

I’m not Premil but maybe we can agree on the mechanics of how all the moving parts work together concerning New Jerusalem and NHNE.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Speaking for myself, I tend to think the following is meaning the NJ in question and where it currently is now.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare(hetoimazo) a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.


This English word 'prepare' is the following Greek word.

hetoimazo
het-oy-mad'-zo
from etoimoV - hetoimos 2092; to prepare:--prepare, provide, make ready. Compare kataskeuazw - kataskeuazo 2680.


It is used in the following passages which appear to be connected to verse 2 and 3 above. At least in my opinion anyway.

Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made(hetoimazo) herself ready(hetoimazo)

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared(hetoimazo) as a bride adorned for her husband.

In light of all the above, this NJ is still in heaven, and that during Jesus' ascension, He then goes to prepare a place for the saved, apparently meaning this same NJ that comes down from God out of heaven, and when He comes again, He receives the saved unto Himself, that where He is, there the saved may be also.

Even though I'm Premil, I disagree with Premils that Revelation 21:2 is meaning a thousand years and little season post the 2nd coming. That makes total nonsense out of Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 by Premils applying the former to the 2nd coming, then applying the latter to much later. That would be like a bride making herself ready, then getting married soon after, but then it not being until 20 years later, for example, that she is finally adorned for her husband. Total nonsense. When she has made herself ready that is when she is adorned for her husband, not decades later, per the example I used. Premils don't even have a logical connection between Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 per their view. But not all Premils, yet most Premils.

Yet more reasons I feel the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE. Either that or Amil is the correct position. Except I'm not even remotely convinced that Amil is the correct position. Nor am I remotely convinced that most Premils are making sense of Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2.

Why are you convinced at all that Premil is the correct position when you have to resort to claiming that "the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE" despite Revelation 21 saying that the there is no death on the new earth? Clearly, there is death during the thousand years and Satan's little season, so how does your view line up with what Revelation 21 says about the new heavens and new earth? Revelation 21:1 makes it clear that the new heavens and new earth is not ushered in until the first heaven and first earth are passed away. The first heaven and first earth don't pass away at the beginning of the thousand years, they pass away after the thousand years (and Satan's little season) end.

 

[Davidpt]

You cannot refer to any of the above as "living" souls, or souls that are "alive".

To further prove your point, imagine before God ever breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, He said Adam was already a living soul. Except He did not say Adam was already a living soul before the breath of life entered him. He said that after the breath of life entered him. Therefore, just like you said, the Biblical definition of a living soul is body, soul and spirit, and not soul and spirit, nor soul and body, nor soul alone. Amils then use God as an argument, that He is alive(zao) but does not possess a body. So what? We are talking about humans here not God.

None of this means souls die upon death with the body, therefore, neither you or me are advocating soul sleep. It simply means that the Biblical definition of a living soul is according to Genesis 2:7, for one.

 

[Davidpt]

Why are you convinced at all that Premil is the correct position when you have to resort to claiming that "the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE" despite Revelation 21 saying that the there is no death on the new earth? Clearly, there is death during the thousand years and Satan's little season, so how does your view line up with what Revelation 21 says about the new heavens and new earth? Revelation 21:1 makes it clear that the new heavens and new earth is not ushered in until the first heaven and first earth are passed away. The first heaven and first earth don't pass away at the beginning of the thousand years, they pass away after the thousand years (and Satan's little season) end.

I'm not the only Premil on the planet that has arrived at that conclusion. What choice do I have when I'm not convinced that Amil is the correct position, but do agree with Amils that the NHNE begin during the 2nd coming? Nor am I convinced most Premils are making sense out of Revelation 21:2 in light of Revelation 19:7.

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made(hetoimazo) herself ready(hetoimazo)

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared(hetoimazo) as a bride adorned for her husband.

In light of all the above, this NJ is still in heaven, and that during Jesus' ascension, He then goes to prepare a place for the saved, apparently meaning this same NJ that comes down from God out of heaven, and when He comes again, He receives the saved unto Himself, that where He is, there the saved may be also.

Wow. Best interpretation I've ever read. Don't know (or care anymore) about what others think of the above, but it makes total sense to me, anyway. I've never heard or read the explanation you just gave above, anywhere. So I'm really glad I saw this. Hope I don't forget what you said here.

Even though I'm Premil, I disagree with Premils that Revelation 21:2 is meaning a thousand years and little season post the 2nd coming. That makes total nonsense out of Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 by Premils applying the former to the 2nd coming, then applying the latter to much later. That would be like a bride making herself ready, then getting married soon after, but then it not being until 20 years later, for example, that she is finally adorned for her husband. Total nonsense. When she has made herself ready that is when she is adorned for her husband, not decades later, per the example I used. Premils don't even have a logical connection between Revelation 19:7 and Revelation 21:2 per their view. But not all Premils, yet most Premils.

I've noticed that myself too, as well as the fact that "The throne of God is among them, and all tears will be wiped from their eyes". is said both about those who came out from great tribulation at the end of the age (Revelation 7:13-17), and about the bride of Christ - New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2-4).

I don't see why that same theme would be talking about two different periods in time separated by a thousand years.

Nor do I see why Jesus would exclaim, "It is done!" both at the time of Armageddon (Revelation 16:15-17) AND when He says, "Behold, I make all things new." (Revelation 21:5-6). To me all these things indicate that the New heavens and new earth and New Jerusalem coming down follow with or immediately after the return of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

One last time: Conscious, and the person whose soul is detached from his body is not alive [zao] - he's dead. God created human beings each with a body, a soul, and a spirit.

Conscious, but not alive? That's complete nonsense. This is why I say you believe in soul sleep because you say the soul without a body is not alive. That's what soul sleep means.

Jesus said that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You say that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not alive right now because their souls are not attached to their bodies. So, you say they are dead right now. That would mean God is not their God right now because He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are making the same mistake that the Sadducees made in the sense of believing that someone can't be alive without a body. You don't believe people cease to exist when they physically die like they did, but you still are making the same mistake they did in one sense.

You don't understand that Jesus was telling them that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive in heaven and God was their God since He is not the God of the dead. By showing that, there was no basis to believe that they would not be bodily resurrected in the future. Only if they were not alive at all and ceased to exist at all could someone think they could not be resurrected.

If the person died in Christ he will have eternal life IN Christ and his soul will be with Christ until the resurrection of the dead. Paul said: Christ will bring with Him all those who have fallen asleep in Him, and they will rise from the DEAD first. Paul did not say they will rise from the LIVING first.

Their bodies will rise from the dead. Where does it say their souls will rise from the dead? And why would you even think their souls will rise from the dead when you say you don't believe in soul sleep?

You cannot refer to any of the above as "living" souls, or souls that are "alive". For someone to be called "alive" [zao] in the Bible he needs to be alive in his body, because that's how God created human beings - with a body, a soul, and gave it a spirit.

How am I supposed to believe you don't believe in soul sleep when you don't believe someone can be alive without a body? Soul sleep is the belief that a person is dead in every way without a body. That seems to be what you believe.

Pity you do not understand these things.

LOL. I understand that you believe in total nonsense such as trying to say that people's souls are conscious but not alive, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Because your ignorance makes you a very bothersome and argumentative person in your prideful broadcasting of your lack of understanding.

Look in the mirror. You are describing yourself perfectly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not the only Premil on the planet that has arrived at that conclusion.

I could not care less about that. That just means you're not the only one believing in something that makes no sense.

What choice do I have when I'm not convinced that Amil is the correct position, but do agree with Amils that the NHNE begin during the 2nd coming? Nor am I convinced most Premils are making sense out of Revelation 21:2 in light of Revelation 19:7.

You have the choice to be neither Premil nor Amil til you get this all figured out, if you ever do. Why do you feel the need to commit to either one when you are not fully convinced of either one being true?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wow. Best interpretation I've ever read. Don't know (or care anymore) about what others think of the above, but it makes total sense to me, anyway. I've never heard or read the explanation you just gave above, anywhere. So I'm really glad I saw this. Hope I don't forget what you said here.

I've notice that myself too, as well as the fact that "The throne of God is among them, and all tears will be wiped from their eyes". is said both about those who came out from great tribulation at the end of the age (Revelation 7:13-17), and about the bride of Christ - New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2-4).

I don't see why that same theme would be talking about two different periods in time separated by a thousand years.

Nor do I see why Jesus would exclaim, "It is done!" both at the time of Armageddon (Revelation 16:15-17) AND when He says, "Behold, I make all things new." (Revelation 21:5-6). To me all these things indicate that the New heavens and new earth and New Jerusalem coming down follow with or immediately after the return of Christ.

I actually agree with what you're saying, but it says there will be no more death at that point (Rev 21:4). Why do you guys have death occurring after that?