The Second Death Destroys Man's False Amill Theory

[Spiritual Israelite]

Agreed. But what we were specifically talking about is. <smile> But... we can agree to disagree on that, too. <smile>

Yes, we can. And we will. <smile>

I never said I knew you. But I can tell some things about you.

That's great. Congratulations on that.

Okay, well, so am I. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But you seem to be ~ or get ~ mad at anybody who disagrees with you, because ~ I think...

• you feel like they're telling you you're stupid for thinking that. And some here probably are, but not me. <smile>
• or... you just think or feel they're making you look that way. Which, again, some here probably are, but not me... but it may be just a you thing. <smile>.

You're thinking too hard here. It's not nearly as complicated as all that. But go ahead with your overanalyzing of me if that's what you insist on doing, Dr. PinSeeker. You're going to do what you're going to do no matter whether anyone wants you to or not.

Hmmmmm. Okay. <smile> Maybe you just have to get the last word, and that then means you won. <smile>

LOL. Remember when I said you're hypocritical sometimes? Yeah, this is one of those times. <smile>

LOOK AT THAT! A little humor! Good for you, SI!!! <smile>

Not that there was any doubt, but congratulations on proving again that you don't know me at all. I make jokes on here fairly often, but you act as if that was the first time I ever did. <sigh> <ugh> <what a joke> <this guy doesn't know me at all> <why am I still talking to him> <because he cracks me up> <oh yeah, that's right>

Sin is sin, SI. It's all really bad (to put it mildly).

Never said otherwise.

I have never been nasty on this board. I take care not to. Some of the things you've said to others on this board have been nasty.

You have a poor memory. You have been nasty to me before. And I don't really care what you think about what I say. I don't answer to you. I like to tell things as they are and some people don't like that.

Whenever and wherever you think me to be nasty, call me on it.

I have. You just don't remember past discussions we've had for some reason where you were plenty nasty.

What you say and how you say it says some things about you, SI. That's true of all of us here.

Yep. Thanks again, Dr. PinSeeker.

Yet again, I never said I did. But... well, we can probably both discern some small things about each other. To think otherwise is, well, kind of silly, really. I mean hey, you can tell some things about Davy from a lot of the things he says, right? You caaaaaaaaannnnn <smile>

This is so boring at this point. We know very little about each other personally. If you can't admit that, so be it. There is a lot more about you that I don't know than what I can see here, I'm sure. And that's the case for me as well. You really know very little about me. So, please don't act otherwise.

I don't think anything, really "of you." But I can discern some things about you from what you have said and how you have said it.

Do you not get tired of saying basically the same thing over and over? I'm getting a bit tired of it.

Ah, I'm remembering Al Franken on Saturday Night Live, and his character Stuart Smalley:

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" <smile>

LOL. That's a good reference.

Stuart Smalley: Well, good for you! Good for you! Um, Michael.. I know there must be a lot of pressure for you to play very well, and I can imagine that the night before a game, you must lie awake thinking, “I’m not good enough.. everybody’s better than me.. I’m not going to score any points.. I have no business playing this game..”
Michael Jordan: Well.. not really.
Stuart Smalley: Michael, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

Michael just couldn't bring himself to admit that he had a lot of trouble putting the ball in the basket.

And maybe hearing those distant strains of The Boxer, by Simon and Garfunkel in 1968: "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest... mm-mm-mmmmm..." <smile>

<yawn>

I can't remember who it was now... Davidpt, I think... but you said, referring to Amills ~ more than once ~ "we believe" and "we claim." And in doing so, you were presumably speaking for all Amills... because you didn't say, "some (or most) of us believe" or "some (or most) of us claim."

Get over it.

So maybe you meant differently from what you actually said, but... well, what you said was what you said.

Okay, Dr. PinSeeker. So, if you do something similar, which you did, then we can just ignore that, right? <sigh>

Yes, it will be far better than we can even imagine right now. Agreed. I can't really imagine a world absolutely without sin. Yes, we agree on that. But... <smile>

Great. We agree on something. This might be a good place to end this discussion and move on then. <hurray for agreement>

 

[PinSeeker]

You didn't think this one through very carefully, PS. If I'm lying about not caring because I replied to you, then that would mean you were lying about not caring by replying to me. So, are you also going to claim that you think you were lying since you replied to me or are you going to admit that your reasoning here is flawed?

<eye roll>

You don't have to say it specifically. Your words imply it.

Ah, so you're putting words in my mouth. And implicitly saying I'm lying. I see...

LOL. Go ahead and think you what you want. I don't care. Truly.

Truly. <smile>

You should think twice about accusing me of lying about that. <big smile>

I didn't. I said I thought maybe you were. And you could just be kidding yourself... or even lying to yourself. But that's your deal, not mine.

Yeah, I noticed that when you told me that. <smile>

Hmmm, yes, so no comment to the substance of what I said there. Hm. Okay.

Yeah. So, hey, should we just repeat things that we've already said over and over again? Sound fun? Or should we try to wrap this up?


This is such a waste of time at this point. You deny that you say what I think you're saying and vice versa. So, we're not on the same page, which makes this discussion just ridiculous. Let's get this wrapped up so we both stop wasting our time.

Nobody's making you stay...

Ridiculous. You are so hypocritical sometimes.

Ahhh, there's the nastiness coming out. I mean, this is milder than some of the other things you have said to me and others, but still...

No, we're not on the same page.

All I meant when I said that was concerning the millennium and the lake of fire and such.

The context is different. 2 Peter 3:10-12 is talking about physical fire burning things up and dissolving things, including on the earth.

Yeah, no he's not.

That has nothing to do with the lake of fire...

Not immediately, no... Peter is writing about things, and John is writing about people. You can disagree with what I say, and that's fine with me, but I say that Peter is speaking of this dissolving in the sense that there will be no place left to hide, that all sin will be fully exposed, and in His coming and the final Judgment, all sin will be done away with and everything will be perfectly purified. I reject the idea that any part of God's creation will be obliterated, or annihilated, or dissolved in a wooden, physical sense.

which relates to the judgment that will occur...

Yes, absolutely. I mean, the lake of fire is the place of eternal punishment (and we agree, I think, that it is not a literal lake of fire). Ergo, the "on the same page" comment. But Peter is referring to the final Judgment, and John is too in Revelation 20:11-15. And I think ~ maybe not, but I think ~ you agree with that.

after the physical destruction occur when Jesus returns.

Disagree on the physical destruction. But that's... okay. Right? I mean, no need to argue or get mad; we can agree to disagree, right?

Let me put it this way. You are trying to equate what is described in Revelatoin 20:9, which is physical fire coming down upon the earth and physically destroying living unbelievers on the earth, with what is described in Revelation 20:15, which is symbolic fire that those whose names are not written in the book of life will experience. But, they are not the same thing.

Ugh. Well... <smile> I say, that the fire (coming) down from heaven and (consuming) them" in Revelation 20:9 is Jesus. And the destroying is not in the physical sense but of total defeat and ruination. To be "thrown into the lake of fire" will be to be totally immersed in God's everlasting judgment. <shudder> I mean, you actually sound like a dispensationalist, here, SI. No offense intended, but... yeah.

No, I don't see how this relates to 2 Peter 3:10-12 at all...

I understand. I mean, you still may reject it, but think about it. It's not hard. You're obviously a very intelligent person.

...that passage is talking about literal, physical fire that will literally burn things up and dissolve things.

Yep, no. Well, I say no. Again. See above. We disagree on that.

Peter describes in detail the "sudden destruction" from which those in spiritual darkness "shall not escape"...

Right, sudden and absolute destruction in the sense of total ruination, not annihilation. I mean, you're not an annihilationist, SI; you've said that many time. And yes, they "shall not escape," in the sense that there will be no place to hide... God will expose all evil and banish it forever.

that Paul said would occur on the day the Lord comes as a thief in the night.

It will be sudden, for sure.

Do you not think that Jesus will be physically destroying unbelievers on the day He returns?

Nope. Not physically. I'm no annihilationist, and I think ~ but hey, maybe I'm wrong, but I think ~ you're not, either...

If not, then what exactly do you see happening on that day?

I think I've been pretty clear here. There is no speculation. Jesus graphically portrays what will happen on that day in Matthew 7 and 25. He will say to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23)... "'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'... And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Mathew 25:41-46).

Continued? <sigh>

That's up to you... <smile>

Grace and peace to you!

 

[PinSeeker]

You're thinking too hard here. It's not nearly as complicated as all that. But go ahead with your overanalyzing of me if that's what you insist on doing, Dr. PinSeeker. You're going to do what you're going to do no matter whether anyone wants you to or not.

Hmmmm... <smile>

LOL. Remember when I said you're hypocritical sometimes? Yeah, this is one of those times. <smile>

We all are from time to time.

Not that there was any doubt, but congratulations on proving again that you don't know me at all.

I never said or insinuated that I did. But, yet again, I can tell some things about you from the way you react to things and from what you say and how you say it. And keep saying these same things. <smile>

I make jokes on here fairly often, but you act as if that was the first time I ever did.

That was a joke, SI.

<sigh> <ugh> <what a joke> <this guy doesn't know me at all> <why am I still talking to him> <because he cracks me up> <oh yeah, that's right>

<chuckles>

Never said otherwise.

Sin is sin, yes, but you had said, "What did I do that could be compared to taking the Lord's name in vain?" As if what I may have done (which was just a perception of yours) was far worse than anything you have done. Sin is sin. It's all bad. I'm glad you agree.

You have a poor memory.

Well, I am getting on in years... But no, I have a pretty good memory...

You have been nasty to me before...

Okay, well, give me an example. Quote me. I'd like to know. And, if I was nasty, I'll be delighted to apologize for it.

And I don't really care what you think about what I say.

You obviously do.

I don't answer to you.

No, you don't. Nor I to you.

I like to tell things as they are and some people don't like that.

It's probably not that people "don't like it," except (probably) in the sense that they don't like how you "tell things as they are," the manner in which you do it. Probably, for the most part. I mean, we can all be this from time to time, SI, but... and I don't mean to offend you with this, but... you are quite often very... abrasive... and condescending... belittling... and... You get the idea.

I have. You just don't remember past discussions we've had for some reason where you were plenty nasty.

And so again, give me an example. One. I remember past discussions. Not verbatim; very few people do, but yes, I remember.

Yep. Thanks again, Dr. PinSeeker.

You're welcome. <smile>

This is so boring at this point. We know very little about each other personally.

I've never said or insinuated otherwise.

If you can't admit that, so be it.

Nothing to admit.

There is a lot more about you that I don't know than what I can see here, I'm sure. And that's the case for me as well. You really know very little about me.

Sure.

So, please don't act otherwise.

I never have.

Do you not get tired of saying basically the same thing over and over?

I do, but I only do so, because you do. <smile> I make some kind of point, and you mangle my point, so I restate what I said, and then you mangle it again, and... again, and again... Yes, I do get tired of it. But whose fault is it really? <smile>

I'm getting a bit tired of it.

Well quit it! LOL!

Get over it.

Ah, so you admit it ~ speaking generally for all "Amills" ~ albeit implicitly. Good.

Okay, Dr. PinSeeker. So, if you do something similar...

But I didn't.

, which you did, then we can just ignore that, right? <sigh>

I mean yeah, you can ignore anything you want, sure. <smile>

Great. We agree on something. This might be a good place to end this discussion and move on then. <hurray for agreement>

Sure. Like I said, up to you. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

<eye roll>

LOL. You know I'm right about what I said. If it's a lie for me to say I don't care then it only follows that it's a lie for you to say you don't care as well. You prove how much you care by continuing to respond to me.

Ah, so you're putting words in my mouth. And implicitly saying I'm lying. I see...

You'd rather I explicitly say that you're lying? I can do that. You were lying. In my opinion. And you have accused me of lying as well. How nice. Fun times. <yippee>

I didn't. I said I thought maybe you were. And you could just be kidding yourself... or even lying to yourself. But that's your deal, not mine.

Okay, Dr. PinSeeker.

Hmmm, yes, so no comment to the substance of what I said there. Hm. Okay.

I've commented plenty on the substance of things you've said, so you really can't complain about that.

Ahhh, there's the nastiness coming out. I mean, this is milder than some of the other things you have said to me and others, but still...

Ahhh, that's what you were waiting for. One of those gotcha moments. But, what exactly is wrong with pointing out the truth. You are hypocritical sometimes. Do you know what hypocrisy is? Telling others that something they're doing is wrong while you do it yourself. And you do that sometimes. That's a fact. I know the truth hurts, but telling the truth is not a case of being nasty.

Not immediately, no... Peter is writing about things, and John is writing about people. You can disagree with what I say, and that's fine with me, but I say that Peter is speaking of this dissolving in the sense that there will be no place left to hide, that all sin will be fully exposed, and in His coming and the final Judgment, all sin will be done away with and everything will be perfectly purified. I reject the idea that any part of God's creation will be obliterated, or annihilated, or dissolved in a wooden, physical sense.

I'm not talking about the entire earth itself being annihilated, just to be clear (picture the Death Star in Star Wars blowing up...I'm not saying it will be like that). Just the things on the surface of the earth. The earth will be renwed by fire, not annihilated. So, what about the evil things in the world that God obviously doesn't approve of? Strip clubs, bars, drug houses, and so on. They will just remain on the earth forever? If not, then how exactly will they be removed if not by physical fire?

Please explain what exactly you think will happen when Jesus returns and how. What will it look like from your perspective for everything to be perfectly purified? How will that happen?

You know that lots of things on the earth were destroyed by the flood in Noah's day, right? So, what makes you think that God would not destroy any part of His creation when He has already done it once before with water instead of fire?

Yes, absolutely. I mean, the lake of fire is the place of eternal punishment (and we agree, I think, that it is not a literal lake of fire).

We do agree on that. Hallelujah that we agree on something. Woo!



Of course, we agree on a number of things, but we seem to focus on the things that we disagree on. <smile>

Ergo, the "on the same page" comment. But Peter is referring to the final Judgment, and John is too in Revelation 20:11-15. And I think ~ maybe not, but I think ~ you agree with that.

Where exactly are you saying that Peter is referring to that? I don't believe he is referring to that in 2 Peter 3:10-12. I think I made it pretty clear that I see that as physical destruction and I clearly pointed out that it has a different context than the lake of fire. Paul wrote about the same event and described it as "sudden destruction" from which those in spiritual darkness "shall not escape". And he indicated that this "sudden destruction" would occur unexpectedly like a thief in the night while people are saying "peace and safety". Unbelievers aren't going to be saying "peace and safety" at the judgment while they await their sentencing.

Disagree on the physical destruction. But that's... okay. Right? I mean, no need to argue or get mad; we can agree to disagree, right?

Of course we can, dude. When have I ever said otherwise? Never. You get it in your own head that I demand that you agree with me or else. That's not my fault. I have no problem at all with agreeing to disagree. That's why I've already said that maybe we should just agree to disagree and wrap this up. But, it's clear to me that you're not actually interested in doing that as evidenced by the fact that you keep replying to me. I know you think I want the last word (not true), so are you just continuing to reply to try to prevent that or what? <laugh>

Ugh.

Another thing we can agree about. Ugh indeed.

Well... <smile> I say, that the fire (coming) down from heaven and (consuming) them" in Revelation 20:9 is Jesus. And the destroying is not in the physical sense but of total defeat and ruination. To be "thrown into the lake of fire" will be to be totally immersed in God's everlasting judgment. <shudder> I mean, you actually sound like a dispensationalist, here, SI. No offense intended, but... yeah.

No offense intended. LOL. Sure, buddy. What in the world? We definitely need to end this discussion soon if you don't want me to become what you perceive as being nasty. I am very far from being a dispensationalist. Out of all the ridiculous things you've said in our discussions, that's now at the top of the list for being the most ridiculous. I truly have no idea of why you're even saying that. You make no sense.

I understand. I mean, you still may reject it, but think about it. It's not hard. You're obviously a very intelligent person.

As if I haven't yet thought about it? If you really think I'm "a very intelligent person", then why would you think that I haven't already thought about this? It wouldn't be very smart of me to talk about this without already having put some thought into it, right? But, anyway, thanks for the compliment. I don't take any credit for anything. My goal when it comes to understanding scripture is to allow the Holy Spirit to teach me Human wisdom amounts to nothing when it comes to understanding the deeper things in scripture (1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

Yep, no. Well, I say no. Again. See above. We disagree on that.

Yes, we do. And I'm fine with that. No reason to discuss it any further.

Right, sudden and absolute destruction in the sense of total ruination, not annihilation. I mean, you're not an annihilationist, SI; you've said that many time. And yes, they "shall not escape," in the sense that there will be no place to hide... God will expose all evil and banish it forever.

I already explained this above, so I'll just say briefly again that I believe the destruction is physical, but I believe it will be to the entire surface of the earth rather than the earth itself being annihilated like the Death Star in Star Wars. Understand?

Anyway, I do agree that God will expose all evil and banish it forever at that point.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It will be sudden, for sure.


Nope. Not physically. I'm no annihilationist, and I think ~ but hey, maybe I'm wrong, but I think ~ you're not, either...

No, but you don't have to be an annhilationist to believe that it's talking about physical destruction there. Peter compares that event directly to the flood in Noah's day in 2 Peter 3:5-7, so I see no basis for thinking it's talking about anything but physical fire literally burning up the earth there. But just the surface, to be clear. It will be renewed by fire. Scripture says the meek shall inherit the earth. That will be for eternity. This earth will be renewed, resulting in the new earth. That's what I believe, which maybe you didn't know even though I've said that on this forum many times. But, maybe never directly to you before. I don't know how many of my posts that aren't directly in response to you that you read.

I think I've been pretty clear here.

We all think we're always clear, don't we. But, it's not always the case.

There is no speculation. Jesus graphically portrays what will happen on that day in Matthew 7 and 25. He will say to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23)... "'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'... And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Mathew 25:41-46).

Yes, that is what happens after everyone is gathered before Him to be judged, but there's more to it than that. What about before that? Obviously, there are other things that will happen on that day like our being caught up to Christ "in the air" and the resurrection of the dead and such. What about all that? Why do you think we will meet Jesus in the air? Is that where you think the judgment will take place or do you think it takes place on earth? If on earth, why would we meet Him in the air? It can't be on earth, though, because of what it says in Revelation 20:11. And how will Jesus go about removing all the wicked things from the earth? It seems that there's more to this that you haven't thought about.

That's up to you... <smile>

Up to me to continue or not? No, thanks. I'm not too interested in continuing this particular discussion. But, if you come up with something new instead of repeating yourself, I'll read it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That was a joke, SI.

Would be helpful if you did something to indicate as such then. Which you did not.

Sin is sin, yes, but you had said, "What did I do that could be compared to taking the Lord's name in vain?" As if what I may have done (which was just a perception of yours) was far worse than anything you have done. Sin is sin. It's all bad. I'm glad you agree.

I was asking in reference to this particular discussion what I did that could be compared to that and not things that I've ever done in my life. Good grief, man. Surely, I've done worse things in my life than that.

Well, I am getting on in years... But no, I have a pretty good memory...

Not when it comes to past discussions we've had. But, oh well.

Okay, well, give me an example. Quote me. I'd like to know. And, if I was nasty, I'll be delighted to apologize for it.

How can I do that? I didn't save it. I know it's still on here somewhere, but I don't know how I could find it. You obviously think I'm making it up. Why would I do that? I'm not a liar.

You obviously do.

No, you don't. Nor I to you.

I've never said or insinuated otherwise.

Nothing to admit.

Sure.


I never have.

LOL. Now it's my turn to point out that denial isn't just a river in Egypt. Hilarious.

I do, but I only do so, because you do. <smile> I make some kind of point, and you mangle my point, so I restate what I said, and then you mangle it again, and... again, and again... Yes, I do get tired of it. But whose fault is it really? <smile>

Yours. <laugh>

Well quit it! LOL!

No. LOL!

Ah, so you admit it ~ speaking generally for all "Amills" ~ albeit implicitly. Good.

Say what now, Dr. PinSeeker? No, I'm saying to get over your misperception of what I was saying. I am not admitting to speaking generally for all Amills at all. Good grief. You are hilarious. Are you even for real? I'm wondering if you're a bot or something.

 

[Davy]

The Bible does not teach that after you die.... you can still get saved. View attachment 59253

Scripture twisting always leads to false doctrine dude... the smart ones REPENT and get right with the Lord... the slow ones get the devil's reward in the lake of fire.

It's with ADDING men's doctrines that makes God's Word as written unrecognizable, which is what man's FALSE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE THEORY especially does! So you really shouldn't talk out of both sides of your mouth, since you have already shown you believe in that false pre-trib rapture theory. That right there is enough to destroy much of your credibility as a Bible believer.

You do not yet understand about the spiritually "dead" of Revelation 20:5, but you will, once Jesus returns to gather His FAITHFUL Church on the last day of this world. The false pre-trib rapture school has another false doctrine added that hides the meaning of those "dead" not living again until... after the "thousand years" are over, as written. Also as written, ALL... the dead are resurrected on the day of Christ's future 2nd coming, which is the last day of this present world. So that Rev.20:5 verse about those "dead" not living again until after the 1,000 years MUST have to do with why their names will be checked in the Book of Life after the 1,000, showing some of them will have converted to Christ DURING THAT 1,000 YEARS!

You obviously are not yet given to understand that above, but are still enjoying the death-nell of men's scare tactics of fear of hell preaching in attempt to trick the believer into accepting man's false pre-trib rapture fantasy.

 

[Davy]

You never even started doing that. You have disproved NOTHING except that you are a cherry picker who makes scripture say what you want it to say instead of accepting the full counsel of the Word of God.

The Scriptures of God's Word that I have shown, referenced and quoted, WELL PROVE THAT MAN'S AMILL THEORY IS FALSE.

And man's false Amill theories are SO STUPIDLY OPPOSITE of the actual Bible Scriptures, that only people dwelling at an insane asylum could ever come up with such false junk!


The Amill theories are CLEAR INDICTAORS OF SATAN'S HOST AT WORK.

INCLUDED among those of Satan's host are these false Jews which Jesus declared...

Rev 2:9
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
KJV

Rev 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
KJV

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Scriptures of God's Word that I have shown, referenced and quoted, WELL PROVE THAT MAN'S AMILL THEORY IS FALSE.

And man's false Amill theories are SO STUPIDLY OPPOSITE of the actual Bible Scriptures, that only people dwelling at an insane asylum could ever come up with such false junk!


The Amill theories are CLEAR INDICTAORS OF SATAN'S HOST AT WORK.

INCLUDED among those of Satan's host are these false Jews which Jesus declared...

Rev 2:9
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
KJV

Rev 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
KJV

You are unhinged. Applying verses that were directed at unbelievers who were headed for hell to Amills. Unbelievable. Pathetic. May God have mercy on your soul for condemning Christians for no good reason. You make interpreting Revelation 20 the way you do a requirement for salvation, which is completely ludicrous.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

[PinSeeker]

You were lying. In my opinion. And you have accused me of lying as well. How nice. Fun times. <yippee>

Nobody's really lying, per se, SI... you or me. We're probably both... oh... understating things a bit regarding how much we care, and framing the "I don't care" meme in that sense. I think you more so than me, but hey, that doesn't matter.

I've commented plenty on the substance of things you've said...

No, with all due respect, SI, you haven't.

...you really can't complain about that.

Nobody's complaining. Come on, man. Come on. It is what it is.

Ahhh, that's what you were waiting for. One of those gotcha moments.

Nope.

You are hypocritical sometimes.

And you as well. I mean, all this... stuff... we should drop. Can you not do that?

...telling the truth is not a case of being nasty.

That's certainly not what I'm referring to. Here you go... your quote above to "good ol' Davy"... "You are unhinged." Come on, man. That's just not necessary. There's a better way to... well, debate people than that. You're better than that, I know. But, you know, you do you, right?

I love that GIF...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

I'm not talking about the entire earth itself being annihilated...

But some of it you are. Any of it... any of God's creation being annihilated... is not the case.

Just the things on the surface of the earth.

Yeah disagree. Might be interesting to hear what "things," maybe... <smile> But yeah, disagree.

The earth will be renewed by fire, not annihilated.

Right, but ~ yet again, and not just to you have I said this ~ our God is a consuming fire. Thus, He says, "Behold, I am making all things new" (Revelation 21:5).

So, what about the evil things in the world that God obviously doesn't approve of? Strip clubs, bars, drug houses, and so on. They will just remain on the earth forever? If not, then how exactly will they be removed if not by physical fire?

I'd say that will be part of our (meaning human beings in general, not necessarily you or I; we might have other jobs <smile>) work at and after the initiation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Just buildings and houses... I mean, they might be repurposed, or some of them might be torn down and new things built in their places... maybe parks, or... golf courses! <smile> ...or ...possibly any number of solutions, I guess... There will be no more sin, but that doesn't mean anything used for sinful purposes now will be physically destroyed by fire or any other means by God... I mean come on. Yeah? Come on.

Now, bars, though... <smile> I don't frequent bars anymore (never did, really, except occasionally, even in college), but what's really wrong with bars? That they serve alcohol? I think, SI, it will probably be okay to have a beer, or a glass of wine, or a shot of whiskey here and there in the New Heaven and New Earth. Jesus drank wine, you know... <smile> Imbibing is not "bad," so to speak, but getting drunk ~ abusing alcohol ~ is, well, "bad."

Please explain what exactly you think will happen when Jesus returns and how. What will it look like from your perspective for everything to be perfectly purified? How will that happen?

Well, now this is just a bit tongue-in-cheek... <smile> ...but I'll just say that I think God could ~ could ~ just, figuratively speaking, of course, snap His fingers... kind of like Thanos did in "Infinity War"... well, really like Iron Man did in "Endgame"... LOL! ... and do it in an instant...

The fact is that it will happen. And again, in my opinion, there will be no literal fire or physical destruction by fire or any other means to do it. Hey, let's go back to Genesis 1. How did God create the earth and everything in it? Well, He spoke it into existence, right? So, I'm not saying He will at the end of this age speak anything out of existence; I don't believe He will. But He will set all creation back to how it was then, perfect, and absolutely without sin, and, as another great hymn ~ This is My Father's World ~ puts it, "the battle (will be) done, and earth and heaven will be one" (again). How this purification will actually look... Like you say, it's really beyond our imagination.

You know that lots of things on the earth were destroyed by the flood in Noah's day, right? So, what makes you think that God would not destroy any part of His creation when He has already done it once before with water instead of fire?

To this, I would just say ~ again ~ that our God is a consuming fire. I think you know how I would answer this.

Of course, we agree on a number of things...

Right, so, we're on the same page on a number of things. Even the millennium. <smile> I think. <smile>

, but we seem to focus on the things that we disagree on. <smile>

Well, it is a debate forum after all. That's kind of the nature of the beast. So debate is not the problem, but rather one's manner in the debate... <smile> Which is... what I've been saying... <smile>

Continued (maybe).... <smile>

 

[WPM]

But some of it you are. Any of it... any of God's creation being annihilated... is not the case.


Yeah disagree. Might be interesting to hear what "things," maybe... <smile> But yeah, disagree.


Right, but ~ yet again, and not just to you have I said this ~ our God is a consuming fire. Thus, He says, "Behold, I am making all things new" (Revelation 21:5).


I'd say that will be part of our (meaning human beings in general, not necessarily you or I; we might have other jobs <smile>) work at and after the initiation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Just buildings and houses... I mean, they might be repurposed, or some of them might be torn down and new things built in their places... maybe parks, or... golf courses! <smile> ...or ...possibly any number of solutions, I guess... There will be no more sin, but that doesn't mean anything used for sinful purposes now will be physically destroyed by fire or any other means by God... I mean come on. Yeah? Come on.

Now, bars, though... <smile> I don't frequent bars anymore (never did, really, except occasionally, even in college), but what's really wrong with bars? That they serve alcohol? I think, SI, it will probably be okay to have a beer, or a glass of wine, or a shot of whiskey here and there in the New Heaven and New Earth. Jesus drank wine, you know... <smile> Imbibing is not "bad," so to speak, but getting drunk ~ abusing alcohol ~ is, well, "bad."


Well, now this is just a bit tongue-in-cheek... <smile> ...but I'll just say that I think God could ~ could ~ just, figuratively speaking, of course, snap His fingers... kind of like Thanos did in "Infinity War"... well, really like Iron Man did in "Endgame"... LOL! ... and do it in an instant...

The fact is that it will happen. And again, in my opinion, there will be no literal fire or physical destruction by fire or any other means to do it. Hey, let's go back to Genesis 1. How did God create the earth and everything in it? Well, He spoke it into existence, right? So, I'm not saying He will at the end of this age speak anything out of existence; I don't believe He will. But He will set all creation back to how it was then, perfect, and absolutely without sin, and, as another great hymn ~ This is My Father's World ~ puts it, "the battle (will be) done, and earth and heaven will be one" (again). How this purification will actually look... Like you say, it's really beyond our imagination.


To this, I would just say ~ again ~ that our God is a consuming fire. I think you know how I would answer this.


Right, so, we're on the same page on a number of things. Even the millennium. <smile> I think. <smile>


Well, it is a debate forum after all. That's kind of the nature of the beast. So debate is not the problem, but rather one's manner in the debate... <smile> Which is... what I've been saying... <smile>

Continued (maybe).... <smile>

Creation is not eliminated when Jesus comes; it is changed, it is renewed, it is glorified, it is perfected. What is finished is the bondage of corruption. It is purged from creation forever. This is another truth that negates Premil. Creation will be restored so that the redeemed and glorified creature.

When Jesus comes in His glory, Jesus said, in Matthew 19:28, “Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration [Gr. paliggenesia] 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.”

This Greek word paliggenesia simply means renewal, restoration recreation, and regeneration. The word often used to denote the restoration of a thing to its pristine state.

Premils have no answer to the fact that Scripture shows the regeneration of the earth, heavens and elements to occur at Christ’s return, not after some supposed future millennial kingdom blighted with sin and sinners, dying and crying, disease and decay, corruption and crime, riots and rebellion, war and terror and Satan and his minions of the Premil scenario, including the pointless slaughter of countless innocent animals during that period.

The fact is: sin, death, disease, Satan, the wicked, wickedness and decay corrupt this current age, but are banished from the age to come at the end with the regeneration of the whole cosmos.

I agree with what Albert Barnes says on “the regeneration" here: “the word also means any great change, or a restoration of things to a former state or to a better state. In this sense it is probably used here. It refers to that great revolution-that restoration of order in the universe-that universal new birth which will occur when the dead shall rise, and all human things shall be changed, and a new order of things shall start up out of the ruins of the old, when the Son of man shall come to judgment. The passage, then, should be read, ‘Ye which have followed me shall, as a reward in the great day of the resurrection of the dead, and of forming the new and eternal order of things-the day of judgment, the regeneration – be signally honored and blessed’.”

Other translations seem to agree with this conclusion, interpreting this passage:

• "In the new world" ESV
• “In the new creation” Weymouth NT
• "When the world is made new" NLT
• "At the renewal of all things" NRSV

 

[Davidpt]

But some of it you are. Any of it... any of God's creation being annihilated... is not the case.

Didn't he say in one of his posts that the sun gets annahilated during the day of the Lord? Wonder what he does with Psalms 72:17 in that case?

Psalms 72:17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.


A lot of us, but maybe not him for all I know, take the one meant here to be meaning Christ.

This verse starts out in this manner---His name shall endure for ever

Then it goes on to say--- his name shall be continued as long as the sun

What a contradiction his interpretation of Revelation 21:23 causes to happen with this passage. Instead of His name enduring forever just like the text plainly states, per his interpretation of Revelation 21:23 he only has His name enduring until 2 Peter 3:10 is fulfilled, since he apparently thinks that event is going to wipe out the sun altogether, literally.

Some of us can actually interpret Psalms 72:17 and Revelation 21:23 in such a manner where there is zero contradictions, though. He apparently can't, though. Apparently, he couldn't care less, if at times he makes God out to be a liar in the OT based on how he is interpreting some of the NT. Because if he did care, he would be interpreting Revelation 21:23 in context and interpreting Revelation 21:23 in light of Psalms 72:17.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


The context is the city not the earth. The verse says--And the city had no need of the sun. That verse does not say---And the planet earth had no need of the sun

Stick to context at least. Less likely to come to absurd conclusions that way. Not to mention, less likely to contradict something else.

 

[PinSeeker]

Where exactly are you saying that Peter is referring to that? I don't believe he is referring to that in 2 Peter 3:10-12. I think I made it pretty clear that I see that as physical destruction...

Yes. Yes you did. <smile> And I clearly disagreed.

...and I clearly pointed out that it has a different context than the lake of fire.

And I agreed, just regarding the thing itself. You missed my point. Which is not to say "you're stupid," or some ridiculous thing like that, but... yeah, you missed my point, apparently, which, we all do from time to time. I clearly said that the lake of fire in Revelation 20 is the destination of Satan and unbelievers, and yes, and just regarding that, that's not what Peter is immediately talking about. Peter, is not talking about the destination of Satan and unbelievers. But just regarding the fire and dissolving of verse 12 there, and even the melting of the heavenly bodies, that should be ~ well, I'll say that I say it should be ~ understood in the at least roughly the same sense as being "thrown into the lake of fire" in verses 10 and 15 of Revelation 20.

Paul wrote about the same event and described it as "sudden destruction" from which those in spiritual darkness "shall not escape".

Sure. And the prophet Joel. And others. Including Jesus in various places in the gospels.

Of course we can, dude. When have I ever said otherwise? Never. You get it in your own head that I demand that you agree with me or else. That's not my fault. I have no problem at all with agreeing to disagree.

My name is not "dude." <chuckles> But yeah, we can agree to disagree, and you say you're okay with that, but then you keep pounding away ~ again and again ~ on those points, so... agreeing to disagree on them is... not okay... So you keep doing that, and yes, it is your fault.

That's why I've already said that maybe we should just agree to disagree and wrap this up.

That's the very point, SI. I say, "we can agree to disagree," and then you continue to argue. Again and again and again. So if you continue to argue, then I'm probably going to respond, if only to say again, "Disagree," and "We can agree to disagree." It's your fault. If you want it to stop, then stop. And you can do that in a number of very congenial ways.

But, it's clear to me that you're not actually interested in doing that as evidenced by the fact that you keep replying to me.

See above.

I know you think I want the last word (not true), so are you just continuing to reply to try to prevent that or what? <laugh>

See above.

No offense intended. LOL. Sure, buddy.

No offense intended. I do not mean to offend. I do not. And... my name is not "buddy" either. <smile>

What in the world? We definitely need to end this discussion soon if you don't want me to become what you perceive as being nasty.

Ohhhhh, you did that long ago. You seem to have come out of that a bit lately, but... <smile> But, yet again, if you want to end it, then end it. But depending on how you do that (if you do it)... <smile>

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

I am very far from being a dispensationalist.

Right, I'm well aware of that, but what I was saying was, some of the things you are saying are, well, at least in some measure dispensational-istic. That's not a word, of course, but you get what I'm saying. But some of the things you are saying I would at least somewhat expect to hear from... well, some other posters on this forum ~ and you probably know who I'm talking about <smile> ~ rather than you.

Out of all the ridiculous things you've said in our discussions, that's now at the top of the list for being the most ridiculous. I truly have no idea of why you're even saying that.

See above. Now you do, I hope.

You make no sense.

<chuckles>

As if I haven't yet thought about it?

Never insinuated you hadn't, or even might not have. Never. You kinda missed what I was saying.

If you really think I'm "a very intelligent person", then why would you think that I haven't already thought about this?

Yeah see above. I do think, though, that, in reference to 2 Peter 3:10-12 specifically, which is what we were discussing there, you hadn't before now or my last post or two really considered that passage in the light that I'm commenting on it. And that has absolutely nothing to do with your intelligence quotient. Whether I'm right or wrong in thinking that doesn't matter, so no need to argue about that.

My goal when it comes to understanding scripture is to allow the Holy Spirit to teach me Human wisdom amounts to nothing when it comes to understanding the deeper things in scripture (1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

But that doesn't mean we "don't need teachers," as some would say in reference to 1 John 2... which I think you'll agree with... Teaching is a gift of the Spirit, after all, and why sould the Spirit gift some with teaching and knowledge ~ for the common good, as all the gifts of the Spirit are ~ if we didn't need it?

...I'll just say briefly again that I believe the destruction is physical, but I believe it will be to the entire surface of the earth rather than the earth itself being annihilated like the Death Star in Star Wars. Understand?

Yes, and I did before. Why did you feel the need to say it again? <smile>

Anyway, I do agree that God will expose all evil and banish it forever at that point.

Good. <smile>

No, but you don't have to be an annhilationist to believe that it's talking about physical destruction there.

Again, not really what I said. What I said was, SI, that that is an (again, not a word, but you will understand) annihilistic belief.

Peter compares that event directly to the flood in Noah's day in 2 Peter 3:5-7...

Right, in the sense that it will be sudden, not in the wooden, literalistic sense of the thing, be it water or fire. God's judgment will be sudden. And Jesus, in referring to the days of Noah in Matthew and Luke, says the same thing.

...I see no basis for thinking it's talking about anything but physical fire literally burning up the earth there.

I well understand, and not just now. However... <smile>

But just the surface, to be clear. It will be renewed by fire.

Right, and God is the consuming fire... <smile>

Scripture says the meek shall inherit the earth. That will be for eternity.

Absolutely.

This earth will be renewed...

Absolutely.

...resulting in the new earth...

Right, but not new in the sense of never having existed before.

That's what I believe...

Well aware...

We all think we're always clear, don't we. But, it's not always the case.

Sure.

Yes, that is what happens after everyone is gathered before Him to be judged, but there's more to it than that. What about before that?

I'm not sure if it was with you or not, but there have been a lot of threads and discussions on this very thing even in the last short while, and I've commented on it pretty extensively...

Why do you think we will meet Jesus in the air?

When Jesus returns, He will bring all the saints who have gone on before with Him, in tow, as it were. We will go out to meet Him ~ like in many examples in the Bible where a king's loyal subjects go out to meet him... like those who went out to welcome Jesus into Jerusalem as He rode into the city on a donkey on Palm Sunday.

Is that where you think the judgment will take place or do you think it takes place on earth?

On earth.

If on earth, why would we meet Him in the air?

We will meet Him in the air, as Paul says, and join Him in His descent to earth. See above regarding His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

It can't be on earth, though, because of what it says in Revelation 20:11.

Disagree. In verse 11 we see Him "seated" ~ which really means far more than just that He is sitting down ~ on this "great white throne" ~ which means far more than that He is on a white chair, as opposed to any other color. <smile> Yes, it can be on earth, and I say it is. Here again it seems maybe you're ~ inadvertently ~ getting a little dispensationalistic on me... <smile>

And how will Jesus go about removing all the wicked things from the earth?

Well, people. But isn't that rather obvous from Matthew 7:23 and 25:46? Respectively, He will say to unbelievers, "I never knew you; depart from He, you workers of lawlessness," and "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," and they will go away into eternal punishment. Now, 1.) will there be, like, spaceships that transport those people to wherever it is they go? Or 2.) will they be physically thrown, one by one (or all together) to some other world? Or 3.) will some kind of portal open up that they will walk through ~ like in Endgame, when all the good guys (who had been turned to ash when Thanos did his snap in Infinity War) came back for the final battle... <smile> ~ and will then never be seen again? Or 4.) will they just vanish? Well, I guess somewhat closer to number 3 or 4... <chuckles> ...but we cannot possibly know.

It seems that there's more to this that you haven't thought about.

Perception is not always reality. <smile>

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

Up to me to continue or not?

Yes.

No, thanks. I'm not too interested in continuing this particular discussion.

Okay, well, stop. Do what you want to do. <smile>

But, if you come up with something new instead of repeating yourself, I'll read it.

As I said, the only reason I repeat myself is... Yeah it's your fault. <smile> If you quit misconstruing what I say, then yeah, it'll stop. But as long as you keep doing that, I'll probably continue to be compelled to respond, and probably in much the same way(s). If you really want to stop, you have the power. <smile> I get it though; resisting stuff can be really hard... <smile>

Would be helpful if you did something to indicate as such then. Which you did not.

I thought it was pretty obvious. But yeah, it's pretty hard to get non-verbal stuff across in this kind of venue.

How can I do that? I didn't save it. I know it's still on here somewhere, but I don't know how I could find it.

Oh, but don't you have a great memory? You know, as opposed to my poor one? <smile>

You obviously think I'm making it up.

No, I think you're just being defensive. <smile> You do seem to have a fanciful imagination, though... <chuckles> Again, joking... but maybe not completely... <smile>

For me, with regard to "nastiness," I'm willing to admit that I may have, in this forum ~ may have ~ had... a regrettable moment or two. If so, I'd like to know. But somebody just stating, "you have" without referring to anything even sort of specific is, well, empty. Not that they are empty, but just that statement is empty, in that case.

To me, a "liar" is someone who habitually lies, and I would not attribute that to you.

No, I'm saying to get over your misperception of what I was saying. I am not admitting to speaking generally for all Amills at all.

In response to another poster about what "Amills" believe/claim, you said "we." You didn't say "some of us believe/claim," or "most of us believe/claim," or anything like that. You said "we believe/claim." You made no qualification or distinction and by not doing so said in effect that that there is no qualification or distinction. There was no misperception on my part, it was what it was... you said what you said.

Good grief. You are hilarious. Are you even for real? I'm wondering if you're a bot or something.

Ohhhhh boy. <smile> Well that's a little bit nasty... A little bit. LOL!

Grace and peace to you, SI.

 

[PinSeeker]

Didn't he say in one of his posts that the sun gets annahilated during the day of the Lord?

I think so... And as if all "Amills" believe that...

Wonder what he does with Psalms 72:17 in that case?

It's just one Psalm. There are 150 of them. <smile> Okay I'm just poking at you a little bit in good fun, but it's true... <chuckles>

A lot of us, but maybe not him for all I know, take the one meant here to be meaning Christ.

Right. Good find. I thought about Psalm 72 but didn't post it.

Some of us can actually interpret Psalms 72:17 and Revelation 21:23 in such a manner where there is zero contradictions, though. He apparently can't, though.

Ohhhhh, he probably can... <smile>

Apparently, he couldn't care less, if at times he makes God out to be a liar in the OT based on how he is interpreting some of the NT. Because if he did care, he would be interpreting Revelation 21:23 in context and interpreting Revelation 21:23 in light of Psalms 72:17.

Meh. He obviously cares. So, it's... well, something else. <smile>

The context is the city not the earth. The verse says--And the city had no need of the sun. That verse does not say---And the planet earth had no need of the sun

And what is the city, Davidpt? I think you know. Really, who is the city? <smile> Who makes up the city of God?

Stick to context at least. Less likely to come to absurd conclusions that way. Not to mention, less likely to contradict something else.

Well, everybody thinks they're sticking to the context. I don't think that's really the problem in this case.

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And I agreed, just regarding the thing itself. You missed my point. Which is not to say "you're stupid," or some ridiculous thing like that, but... yeah, you missed my point, apparently, which, we all do from time to time. I clearly said that the lake of fire in Revelation 20 is the destination of Satan and unbelievers, and yes, and just regarding that, that's not what Peter is immediately talking about.

LOL. Oh, NOW you say that. Why couldn't you have said that in the first place? I missed your point because you failed to make your point clear.

Peter, is not talking about the destination of Satan and unbelievers. But just regarding the fire and dissolving of verse 12 there, and even the melting of the heavenly bodies, that should be ~ well, I'll say that I say it should be ~ understood in the at least roughly the same sense as being "thrown into the lake of fire" in verses 10 and 15 of Revelation 20.

And now you turn around and act as if 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the same thing as Revelation 20:15. Can you please make up your mind? Or are you purposely trying to confuse me for your own entertainment purposes?

My name is not "dude."

What if it was? That would be funny.

But yeah, we can agree to disagree, and you say you're okay with that, but then you keep pounding away ~ again and again ~ on those points, so... agreeing to disagree on them is... not okay... So you keep doing that, and yes, it is your fault.

As if you are not pounding away again and again on your points? LOL. You are hilarious.

That's the very point, SI. I say, "we can agree to disagree," and then you continue to argue.

As do you. But, somehow, it's only a problem if I do that? LOL. Keep bringings the laughs.

Again and again and again. So if you continue to argue, then I'm probably going to respond, if only to say again, "Disagree," and "We can agree to disagree." It's your fault. If you want it to stop, then stop. And you can do that in a number of very congenial ways.

LOL. So, it's okay for you to say to agree to disagree and still continue to respond, but it's not okay for me. I see. You say if I want it to stop, then stop. Of course. I feel like I do soon but I'll decide that for myself. And so will you. You also seem to want it to stop and, yet...you can't stop. LOL.

No offense intended. I do not mean to offend. I do not. And... my name is not "buddy" either. <smile>

Okay, pal. I'm kidding! This is a real test of your sense of humor here.

I won't call you buddy anymore then.

Ohhhhh, you did that long ago. You seem to have come out of that a bit lately, but... <smile> But, yet again, if you want to end it, then end it. But depending on how you do that (if you do it)... <smile>

I will end it whenever I want, of course. As will you. Apparently, we're not quite ready to end it, eh?

Continued...

The dreaded "Continued". I'm kidding. Lighten up, bu...friend.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Didn't he say in one of his posts that the sun gets annahilated during the day of the Lord? Wonder what he does with Psalms 72:17 in that case?

Psalms 72:17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

Why didn't you ask me yourself? Are you aware that the sun does not contain infinite energy? If given enough time it would eventually run out. And the person you're talking to believes time still exists in eternity, so that means the sun would eventually burn out. So, with that being the case why wouldn't it be annihilated when Jesus returns on the day of the Lord?

Psalm 72:17 is an Old Testament verse, obviously. You need to understand how people in OT times thought. They didn't know back then that the sun did not have infinite energy. So, to say that His name would continue as long as the sun would imply that His name would continue forever because it was thought back then that the sun had infinite energy and would last forever. It's similar to how Isaiah spoke according to how people understood things in Isaiah 65:17-25. What he wrote there gave the impression that people could die on the new earth, but we know from Revelation 21:4 that is not the case. But, Isaiah spoke in a way that people could understand and that is the case for Psalm 72:17 as well. You just do not dig deep enough to discover the truth about these things.

What do you do with verses like these?

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

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

Why would the sun continue to exist when there clearly will be no use for it in eternity?

A lot of us, but maybe not him for all I know, take the one meant here to be meaning Christ.

You could have just asked me about this. I agree that it's referring to Christ.

This verse starts out in this manner---His name shall endure for ever

Then it goes on to say--- his name shall be continued as long as the sun

What a contradiction his interpretation of Revelation 21:23 causes to happen with this passage. Instead of His name enduring forever just like the text plainly states, per his interpretation of Revelation 21:23 he only has His name enduring until 2 Peter 3:10 is fulfilled, since he apparently thinks that event is going to wipe out the sun altogether, literally.

There's no contradiction. You decided to foolishly slander me like this without even bothering to find out how I interpret Psalm 72:17 first.

Tell me how you interpret Revelation 21:23.

Some of us can actually interpret Psalms 72:17 and Revelation 21:23 in such a manner where there is zero contradictions, though.

I am certain you can't, but let's see how you attempt to do it. This should be interesting.

He apparently can't, though.

Really? You didn't even give me a chance. You didn't even bother to find out how I can do it. Ridiculous. How can I take you seriously when you do things like this? It makes it almost impossible.

Apparently, he couldn't care less, if at times he makes God out to be a liar in the OT based on how he is interpreting some of the NT.

NONSENSE! What is wrong with you? You say "apparently" this and "apparently" that without finding out how I interpret something first. That is total laziness and foolishness on your part.

Because if he did care, he would be interpreting Revelation 21:23 in context and interpreting Revelation 21:23 in light of Psalms 72:17.

But, I do. Should I say you don't care because you don't interpret Psalm 72:17 in light of Revelation 21:23 then?

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


The context is the city not the earth. The verse says--And the city had no need of the sun. That verse does not say---And the planet earth had no need of the sun

Stick to context at least. Less likely to come to absurd conclusions that way. Not to mention, less likely to contradict something else.

You rarely properly understand context because you so often don't understand what you're reading because of your carnal way of reading it. You don't understand that the new Jerusalem is not a literal city that will only be located on part of the new earth. The new Jerusalem is "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Revelation 21:9). It is the church. It will encompass the entire new earth wherever the church is. So, the new earth itself will not have any need for the sun. You thinking is so narrow and limited, it's unbelievable to me.

 

[PinSeeker]

LOL. Oh, NOW you say that. Why couldn't you have said that in the first place? I missed your point because you failed to make your point clear.

Again, I didn't think it necessary to spell it out for you.

And now you turn around and act as if 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the same thing as Revelation 20:15.

No, not really the same thing, but the same sort of thing. Which may seem to you like a distinction without a difference or some such, but that would be a misread.

Can you please make up your mind? Or are you purposely trying to confuse me for your own entertainment purposes?

Pish.

What if it was? That would be funny.

What are you, like nine years old? LOL!

As if you are not pounding away again and again on your points?

I'm not. I'm answering your questions. And/or correcting your misstatements concerning some of the things/points I have said/made. I mean, there's no way out of this for you, SI, except to say, "Okay, yeah, I get it," or, instead of putting words in my mouth (whether that's intentional or not), ask me to clarify what I did say. But still, yeah, it's all you.

As do you. But, somehow, it's only a problem if I do that?

I don't. Man. Stop. Stop. Please, stop. Or is that somehow not clear? Just stop.

So, it's okay for you to say to agree to disagree and still continue to respond...

Stop.

You say if I want it to stop, then stop. Of course. I feel like I do soon but I'll decide that for myself. And so will you. You also seem to want it to stop and, yet...you can't stop. LOL.

Wow.

I will end it whenever I want, of course.

Of course. You do you, by all means.

As will you. Apparently, we're not quite ready to end it, eh?

I mean, it seems we both are, but actions speak louder than words, yeah?

The dreaded "Continued". I'm kidding. Lighten up, bu...friend.

"Friend" is not my name either. LOL! Kidding aside, I'm not your friend, which is really only to say friends know each other (in a much greater sense than you were talking about some time back). In other words, friends don't just know who each other in the mere cognitive sense, or even just know about each other to any degree. Friends know each other... which, that too may not be clear to you... and regarding you and me, that's surely not the case.

At any rate, I think it would be reeeeeeeeally hard to be your friend. <chuckles> Or... maybe not, in person... But that's the great thing about the internet, right? One can be as much of an internet bully or a(n)... (fill in blank here) ...as he/she wants, and no one will ever really know. Isn't that just such a great thing? You know, to have a license to beat the heck out people? I mean, yeah, that's just awesome, right? <smile>

Grace and peace to you.