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

[Davidpt]

I don't get this at all. Do you not claim that the NHNE arrives with the second coming of Christ? You don't think 2 Peter 3:10-12 relates at all to the arrival of Christ at His second coming? If so, is that what you think of this passage as well...

What I'm saying is, 2 Peter 3:10-12 has to be fulfilled first. Maybe it only involves 1 hour, maybe 10 hours, maybe a full day, maybe a cpl of days, who knows? The point is, the NHNE don't begin in the meantime, regardless how short or how long 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving. Once that part is over, that is when what is recorded in Matthew 19:28 begins since it would be absurd for them to be doing those things, regardless what the following looks like when being fulfilled, sitting upon thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the midst of what is taking place in regards to 2 Peter 3:10-12 at the time. Therefore, what is recorded in Matthew 19:28 has to follow what is recorded in 2 Peter 3:10-12, not parallel nor precede it. This shouldn't be rocket science.

As if it makes sense, the fact it's undeniable that Matthew 19:28 can't even get fulfilled until Christ returns first, yet Matthew 19:28 is meaning prior to the DOTL, or it is paralleling the DOTL. Yeah, right. How about this instead? It follows the DOTL. Keeping in mind, the context per Matthew 19:28 pertains to regeneration. Somehow you are trying to conflate that with what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving. And once again, as if it makes sense, that during what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving, they are sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Makes it even more bizarre per Amil, the fact Amil has the entire planet literally engulfed in flames during what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving.

To try and clarify further: But I still take 2 Peter 3:10-12 to be involving His 2nd coming. I just don't take Matthew 19:28 to be meaning prior to the DOTL nor paralleling it. So, IOW, both 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Matthew 19:28 require that Christ has to have bodily returned in order for those things to be fulfilled. Except there is chronology to factor in here in regards to the latter in relation to the former.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What I'm saying is, 2 Peter 3:10-12 has to be fulfilled first. Maybe it only involves 1 hour, maybe 10 hours, maybe a full day, maybe a cpl of days, who knows?

How about 1 second, if that? How long do you think it took for Sodom and Gomorrah to be burned up? But, this is completely beside the point, anyway. I never said that 2 Peter 3:10-12 doesn't have to be fulfilled first before the new heavens and new earth appear.

The point is, the NHNE don't begin in the meantime, regardless how short or how long 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving.

I never said otherwise.

Once that part is over, that is when what is recorded in Matthew 19:28 begins since it would be absurd for them to be doing those things, regardless what the following looks like when being fulfilled, sitting upon thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the midst of what is taking place in regards to 2 Peter 3:10-12 at the time.

I never said otherwise. You're making yet another straw man argument here.

Therefore, what is recorded in Matthew 19:28 has to follow what is recorded in 2 Peter 3:10-12, not parallel nor precede it. This shouldn't be rocket science.

LOL. Show me exactly where I said otherwise? Good luck.

What we're discussing here is how long it takes for the new heavens and new earth to be fully established once it is initially established. In the Amil view, it is fully established immediately. In your view, it takes a thousand years to establish it to the point where it is a place where there is no more death, crying, sorrow or pain like it says in Revelation 21:4. So, where does scripture indicate that in the beginning of the new heavens and earth, it is not immediately as described in Revelation 21:1-4?

 

[WPM]

What I'm saying is, 2 Peter 3:10-12 has to be fulfilled first. Maybe it only involves 1 hour, maybe 10 hours, maybe a full day, maybe a cpl of days, who knows? The point is, the NHNE don't begin in the meantime, regardless how short or how long 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving. Once that part is over, that is when what is recorded in Matthew 19:28 begins since it would be absurd for them to be doing those things, regardless what the following looks like when being fulfilled, sitting upon thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the midst of what is taking place in regards to 2 Peter 3:10-12 at the time. Therefore, what is recorded in Matthew 19:28 has to follow what is recorded in 2 Peter 3:10-12, not parallel nor precede it. This shouldn't be rocket science.

As if it makes sense, the fact it's undeniable that Matthew 19:28 can't even get fulfilled until Christ returns first, yet Matthew 19:28 is meaning prior to the DOTL, or it is paralleling the DOTL. Yeah, right. How about this instead? It follows the DOTL. Keeping in mind, the context per Matthew 19:28 pertains to regeneration. Somehow you are trying to conflate that with what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving. And once again, as if it makes sense, that during what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving, they are sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Makes it even more bizarre per Amil, the fact Amil has the entire planet literally engulfed in flames during what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving.

It happens suddenly. It is also wholesale destruction. None shall escape to inherit your imaginary future millennium. You have never accepted what Scripture says on this. You duck around the detail of God's Word. You have to. It forbids your carnal reasoning and AI inspired illogical reasoning.

All you can do is spiritualize away literal detail. That is why you have won no converts over the years but many have abandoned Premil online. Your posts serve a purpose for we Amils. They expose the impotence, duplicity and manipulation of the Premil belief.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As if it makes sense, the fact it's undeniable that Matthew 19:28 can't even get fulfilled until Christ returns first, yet Matthew 19:28 is meaning prior to the DOTL, or it is paralleling the DOTL. Yeah, right. How about this instead? It follows the DOTL. Keeping in mind, the context per Matthew 19:28 pertains to regeneration. Somehow you are trying to conflate that with what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving. And once again, as if it makes sense, that during what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving, they are sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Makes it even more bizarre per Amil, the fact Amil has the entire planet literally engulfed in flames during what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving.

Okay, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Show me exactly how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 with as much detail as possible. Why do you say that 2 Peter 3:10-12 cannot be referring to the entire planet being literally engulfed in flames? Keep in mind, as I've said many times, I don't believe it's talking about the earth being completely burned up and annihilated, but rather believe it's talking about the entire surface of the earth being burned up and renewed.

To try and clarify further: But I still take 2 Peter 3:10-12 to be involving His 2nd coming. I just don't take Matthew 19:28 to be meaning prior to the DOTL nor paralleling it. So, IOW, both 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Matthew 19:28 require that Christ has to have bodily returned in order for those things to be fulfilled. Except there is chronology to factor in here in regards to the latter in relation to the former.

I need to clear something up here so that we're actually talking about the same thing. What is your understanding of the word "regeneration"? To me, that's talking about the regeneration of the heavens and the earth and I believe that will be done by way of fire. So, I see 2 Peter 3:10-12 as referring to that. But, right after that the judgment occurs. Matthew 19:28 refers to the same event as Matthew 25:31-46. That happens right after 2 Peter 3:10-12 occurs. That's why I do allow that it might take place on the new earth, but not on this earth as we know it since Revelation 20:11 does not allow for that possibility.

So, the real issue here is that you somehow see the judging referenced in Matthew 19:28 as ruling for a thousand years instead. Why are you trying to change judging to ruling? Again, Matthew 19:28 is referring to the same judgment as Matthew 25:31-46. In some way, shape or form Jesus's disciples will be taking part in the judging there. Other scripture even says that we (the church) will judge the world and even angels (1 Cor 6:2-3). Do you see Matthew 25:31-46 as an ongoing event throughout the thousand years?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They also teach a totally false and non-biblical concept, saying that the human spirit is "dead" until it receives eternal life from God,​

You really need to stop pretending as if you know what I believe and have the authority to tell everyone what I believe. You are too ignorant to speak for me. I do not teach this. I believe we are spiritually dead in our sins before we become saved because scripture explicitly teaches that (Ephesians 2:1-6). But, that doesn't mean I believe our spirits are literally dead and resurrected to life. No, the human spirit never literally dies. Being dead in sins is a figurative expression representing the fact that we are spiritually lost and are dead in our sins in the sense of being separated from God because of our sins before we are born again and saved.

but SCRIPTURE says of the human spirit that exists even without having received eternal life which is IN CHRIST:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 12:7-8).​

Never said otherwise. Again, you should not try to speak for me. You are way too ignorant to think you can speak for anyone but yourself.

The gospel-corrupters cannot understand WHY when the body dies, the created human is DEAD, and considered dead and called dead in biblical scripture, regardless of the fact that scripture tells us that the soul detached from the body continues to exist and continues to be aware of itself and its surroundings and (in THAT sense) "awake".

LOL!!! So, you think the soul that is "aware of itself and its surroundings" is "awake" but at the same time "is dead". Hilarious. You just have no idea how nonsensical your beliefs are.

IN THE PROCESS these gospel corrupters DISHONOR Christ, because through their false doctrines they diminish THE PURPOSE for which SCRIPTURE tells us Christ came into the world and went through all He did:

"For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao: lived again in a body that is not dead], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive in a body that is not dead]." (Romans 14:9).​

Context means nothing to you, obviously. That is only speaking of those who are bodily dead and bodily living. Jesus died bodily and rose again from the dead bodily so that we too could have eternal bodily life. This says nothing about the state of the souls of those who are bodily dead. You acknowledge that their souls are conscious, but then ludicrously try to say their souls are also dead. Conscious, but dead? LOL. That is total nonsensical lunacy.

 

[claninja]

It's unbelievable to me that you are making no attempt to see my point. It's not apples and oranges in the sense that you you to use the text from English translations to support your understanding of Isaiah 65:20, but when I do that for Daniel 7:13-14, you just dismiss it as if it's not a valid point.

Because I was talking about A TEXTUAL VARIANT found in the OG Greek text, in regards to Daniel 7, not a paraphrase.

Do you believe a paraphrase is the same thing as a textual variant?

That's not my point. Are you being purposely dense? I'm only talking about the English translations here. You are making it apples and oranges because you're trying to bring oranges into a point being made about apples. I'm simply saying that you disagree with what the text says for Daniel 7:13-14 in English translations and he disagrees with what the text says in Isaiah 65:20 in English translations, but somehow it's okay for you to do that, but not him.

You are still not understanding. So let’s try this —>

There is a textual variant in Daniel 7:13, found in the OG text. When translated into English it says: “the son of man comes on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days”. It contains the Greek word for “like” instead of “to” - A TEXTUAL VARIANT. This differs from the theodotion text, which contains the Greek word for “to” instead of “like”. The theodotion text reads “the son of man comes on the clouds TO the ancient of days”. My entire point on the whole Daniel 7:13 passage on CF was that there is A TEXTUAL VARIANT. The scholarly hypothesis, from the paper I provided, is that Matthew may have been alluding to the OG textual variant in the olivet discourse.

I was talking about A TEXTUAL VARIANT, as provided in the scholarly paper, not my own personal paraphrase.

Me discussing a textual variant that changes the meaning of a passage compared to other texts (apples) is completely different than WPM paraphrasing a Hebrew passage to change its meaning (oranges).

Was WPM discussing a textual variant of Isaiah 65:20 that changes the meaning of the passage compared to other texts?

 

[claninja]

LOL. No, that has not been your point. Your point has been that he rearranged the words as they are in the original Hebrew text, which he did not do. You thinking he changed the meaning of the text/translation is just your opinion that he is misinterpreting the text and nothing more.

What in the world are you talking about? When I asked why he was removing/rearranging the Hebrew words, I was talking about his paraphrase of the Hebrew. I even asked him to clarify, with this:

you appear to be arguing - “not be hence more an infant of days and old man after” should be understood as “no longer will an infant become like an old man”

And you seem to be arguing that “not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old a hundred years die” should be understood as “no longer will a child reach one hundred and die”

And when WPM wouldnt address my clarifying question i responded:

you appear to be arguing - “not be hence more an infant of days and old man after” should be understood as “no longer will an infant become like an old man” AND you seem to be arguing that “not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old a hundred years die” should be understood as “no longer will a child reach one hundred and die”

Why are you moving “not fulfill his days” from stanza 1 to stanza 2 and applying it to the child?

By doing this you change the meaning from “no longer will an infant live but a few days nor an old man not fulfill his days” to “an infant will not become an old man”.

By doing this you also change “a child dies at a hundred years old” to “no longer will a child die at a hundred”.

I can’t find one English translation that agrees with this change.

I asked him this because he put the word “lo” into his paraphrase in post 43.

His paraphrase is just that. A paraphrase. An interpretation. You have been claiming that he rearranges the words in the original text. No, he's not. He is showing his understanding of what the original text means.

His paraphrase removes/moves around the words of the original text to give it a different meaning. My intention was to figure out how he came to that conclusion of the paraphrase based on reading the original Hebrew.

 

[claninja]

Are you being purposely obtuse and purposely missing my point? Most premils do not see the resurrection of the rest of the dead as including believers. So, where would they say that the resurrection and glorification of those who die during the thousand years is referenced?

Why not? How would those who believe during that time be able to avoid the fire that comes down from heaven and how would they have the kind of bodies that are necessary to live in the eternal new heavens and new earth without a 2nd glorification and 2nd rapture?

That's not what a vast majority of them believe. They don't believe that no one is saved during the thousand years.

Premils, in general, believe in 2 resurrections separated by 1000 years. In general, it’s the first resurrection- to life (just) and 1,000 years later, after the millennium, the 2nd resurrection to judgement (unjust)

So where do the converts During the millennium fit in? How can they, now believers, be a part of the resurrection to judgement (unjust). They would have to invent another glorification for these millennial converts. Though a 2nd rapture still doesn’t make sense here.

Of course not all premils are this strict. Some premils holds the church is raptured, then the first resurrection is only certain saints, while 2nd resurrection is general, just as amil believes the 2nd resurrection is general. So I don’t think the OP really addresses this.

LOL. That's my point. I'm saying it should be understood similar to that. Did Lot just hang around in Sodom while the fire came down on it or did he need to leave their first before it came down? The latter obviously. My point is that the saints need to be taken out of the way somehow before the fire comes down, so that's why I'm taling about a second rapture needing to occur at htat itme from the premil perspective.

It was intended to be. But, you didn't answer my question. What is your understanding of how the saints would avoid being affected by the fire?

God burning the enemies while the saints are unscathed. I don’t think them being raptured would be required for God to miraculously burn his enemies, while they remain unscathed. God protected Daniel from the furnace, no?

 

[Zao is life]

You really need to stop pretending as if you know what I believe and have the authority to tell everyone what I believe. You are too ignorant to speak for me. I do not teach this. I believe we are spiritually dead in our sins before we become saved because scripture explicitly teaches that (Ephesians 2:1-6). But, that doesn't mean I believe our spirits are literally dead and resurrected to life. No, the human spirit never literally dies. Being dead in sins is a figurative expression representing the fact that we are spiritually lost and are dead in our sins in the sense of being separated from God because of our sins before we are born again and saved.


Never said otherwise. Again, you should not try to speak for me. You are way too ignorant to think you can speak for anyone but yourself.


LOL!!! So, you think the soul that is "aware of itself and its surroundings" is "awake" but at the same time "is dead". Hilarious. You just have no idea how nonsensical your beliefs are.


Context means nothing to you, obviously. That is only speaking of those who are bodily dead and bodily living. Jesus died bodily and rose again from the dead bodily so that we too could have eternal bodily life. This says nothing about the state of the souls of those who are bodily dead. You acknowledge that their souls are conscious, but then ludicrously try to say their souls are also dead. Conscious, but dead? LOL. That is total nonsensical lunacy.

OK well despite your, and @WPM's projections, and despite your own misrepresentations of what I believe and your pride, insults, etc etc, I've been nice: I made a list of your and @WPM 's false doctrines (the false doctrines always taught or asserted by all Amillennialists) HERE.

You don't have to thank me. Quite a few people already have.

 

[claninja]

And what point do you think that is, keeping in mind that there will be no death in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:4)?


You are doing nothing but just sharing your interpretation of the verse here which is exactly what he is doing as well. Why are you thinking that the verse implies that there will be death in the new heavens and new earth, but that it's saying people will live longer lives at that point when that would contradict Revelation 21:4 which says there will be no more death in the new heavens and new earth?

See post 162

 

[Zao is life]

LOL at you thinking that Keraz knows what he's talking about. The all being made alive referenced in verse 22 refer to believers and are clearly those who are Christ's at His coming in verse 23. Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from seeing that.

All humanity died in Adam - verse 22. All humanity who died in Adam will be raised in Christ - verse 22.

Those who belong to Christ at His coming will be raised at His coming - verse 23.

Verse 23 identifies one particular group and says nothing about the rest of the dead who in died in Adam (which is referring to Adam's death that came upon all humanity).

Not sure what you think your point is but I'm not going to argue the point about this with you too. You have enough other holes in your Amil ship not to concentrate on this one too, trying to patch it with tissue paper. I'm letting you off the hook.

 

[Zao is life]

He is a projectionist. He describes himself in his childish rants.

Naah that would be you again. Your voice talking to yourself again. You do that a lot in these forums.

 

[WPM]

Because I was talking about A TEXTUAL VARIANT found in the OG Greek text, in regards to Daniel 7, not a paraphrase.

Do you believe a paraphrase is the same thing as a textual variant?



You are still not understanding. So let’s try this —>

There is a textual variant in Daniel 7:13, found in the OG text. When translated into English it says: “the son of man comes on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days”. It contains the Greek word for “like” instead of “to” - A TEXTUAL VARIANT. This differs from the theodotion text, which contains the Greek word for “to” instead of “like”. The theodotion text reads “the son of man comes on the clouds TO the ancient of days”. My entire point on the whole Daniel 7:13 passage on CF was that there is A TEXTUAL VARIANT. The scholarly hypothesis, from the paper I provided, is that Matthew may have been alluding to the OG textual variant in the olivet discourse.

I was talking about A TEXTUAL VARIANT, as provided in the scholarly paper, not my own personal paraphrase.

Me discussing a textual variant that changes the meaning of a passage compared to other texts (apples) is completely different than WPM paraphrasing a Hebrew passage to change its meaning (oranges).

Was WPM discussing a textual variant of Isaiah 65:20 that changes the meaning of the passage compared to other texts?

I gave you a direct word for word translation. You wanted to be difficult and ignore that and home in on the paraphrase, which was not the foundation of my argument. It was there for all to see. This is called nitpicking.

 

[WPM]

OK well despite your, and @WPM's projections, and despite your own misrepresentations of what I believe and your pride, insults, etc etc, I've been nice: I made a list of your and @WPM 's false doctrines (the false doctrines always taught or asserted by all Amillennialists) HERE.

You don't have to thank me. Quite a few people already have.

You have been unable to highlight one single error in Amil. If you had it you would present it. But you have nothing. You are playing evasive games because you have nothing. Your doctrine has been totally exposed on here. That is why no Premil can actually address the Op of any Amil thread. It is amusing to watch them duck and dive. They habitually evade the evidence. All they are left with is ad hominem and avoidance.

For Premils to address it would cause them to become Amils.

 

[WPM]

OP Note

Note how no Premil has been able to lay a punch upon this Op. Why? Because it exposes the contradictions that attach itself to Premil. It is a non-corroborative doctrine. It enjoys no other biblical support. This is witnessed in the fact that Premils have to steal passages that apply to "the last days" and "the NHNE" and dump them into their imaginary invented future millennium (that Scripture knows nothing about).

Each Premil thread is easily refuted because it is built upon sand. Amils directly address it and exhaustively refute it.

All Premils have is their taunts, chides, childishness and avoidance. Check any recent thread on this forum, and you will see it for yourself.

 

[talons]

How do any mortals survive Armageddon in light of what it says here:

Revelation 19:15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written King of kings and Lord of lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

This shows Jesus destroying "all people, free and slave, great and small" at that time. How does that allow for any mortal survivors?

We know there will be mortal survivors by what we are told above in Rev19:15 .

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

" he shall rule them with a rod of iron " If no one is left there would no one to rule .

More verses , Rev2:25-27 , about the "Rule with a rod of iron " during the millennial reign . We who are left will rule with a rod of iron .

25But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

 

[claninja]

I gave you a direct word for word translation. You wanted to be difficult and ignore that and home in on the paraphrase, which was not the foundation of my argument. It was there for all to see. This is called nitpicking.

Right, I chose one part of your argument to discuss, because I was curious as how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "no longer shall an infant die at a few days nor an old man not live out his days" should be understood "no (lo) longer shall an infant become an old man" AND the phrase "a youth at 100 years old shall die", should be understood as "no (lo) longer shall a child die at 100 years old".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because I was talking about A TEXTUAL VARIANT found in the OG Greek text, in regards to Daniel 7, not a paraphrase.

Do you believe a paraphrase is the same thing as a textual variant?

No, I don't believe that. You are getting upset that I'm not addressing what you want to address, but you are not addressing what I want to address. So, I'm done with this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

OK well despite your, and @WPM's projections, and despite your own misrepresentations of what I believe and your pride, insults, etc etc, I've been nice: I made a list of your and @WPM 's false doctrines (the false doctrines always taught or asserted by all Amillennialists) HERE.

You don't have to thank me. Quite a few people already have.

You are lying about me misrepresenting what you believe. You couldn't even give one example of that. You say that the soul of a bodily dead person is conscious, but is not alive (is dead). That's a fact. That's what you said. And you expect anyone to take that nonsense seriously? You don't live in reality.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We know there will be mortal survivors by what we are told above in Rev19:15 .

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

" he shall rule them with a rod of iron " If no one is left there would no one to rule .

If only you read a bit further and also looked at Psalm 2:8-9.

After Revelation 19:15 John wrote this...

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

What were you saying again about mortal survivors? What mortals are not included in "all people, free and slave, great and small"?

Your understanding of ruling with a rod of iron is also flawed.

Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

See here how ruling with a rod of iron has to do with breaking/destroying them like a potter's vessel being dashed into pieces? How do you expect those who have been destroyed to be rule over in the sense that you think they will be?