The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Here's how I see it:


2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The world in general does not believe God is coming to make changes to this world. They believe it will continue like it has been since the beginning. These people also have no understanding of a "second coming". They simply deny that God will come at all to punish them. From a Christian's perspective this starts with the second coming and the destruction of the Beast's rule over this world which includes destruction of his army which enabled and enforced that global rule. That leaves the world ready to be ruled by Christ and His heavenly army of angels and immortal saints, leaving the nations unable and unwilling to resist a new rule. Eventually Satan will be released and God will destroy this last rebellion and cast Satan and the unrighteous into the LOF and that's when the biggest change to this world and the Heavens begins, found in Revelation 21. Peter will start discussing that in the next verses:


2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This is a reference to the day of the Great White Throne Judgement (GWTJ) and the LOF and not the second coming. The second coming involved the resurrection of the dead in Christ, rapture, and judgment of the righteous. The above verse speaks of the judgment of the unrighteous who will all be dead then will be resurrected to be judged and then sentenced to perish a second time ie: the lake of fire second death.

Your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:7 completely ignores the context of what Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:3-13, which is the second coming of Christ. The entire passage revolves around His second coming. That is established earlier on when he talks about the scoffers in the last days scoffing at the idea of His second coming. The fire that will come down will come down on people like those scoffers. That couldn't possibly be the case if the fire doesn't even come down until 1,000+ years after His second coming.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well certainly no one post the Cross had even died yet. The OT is the only period where death existed. Your excuse of nonsense to avoid a decent conversation is telling.

Do you have any idea at all of what you're talking about here?

If you don't have any answers to your own claims, and or paranoid you may be wrong, and thus cherry pick your objections, why even have conversations in these forums?

I've backed up my views with scripture many times for many years, so don't talk to me about not providing answers. I can't answer questions or respond to points that are ridiculous and make no sense. Again, no Amils claims that John only saw the OT redeemed. Clearly, a number of NT redeemed had died before he wrote the book of Revelation, so he would have seen their souls as well.

Now is the resurrection in Revelation 20:4 at the start of your own alledged Millennium or not? It is a simple yes or no answer.

Of course it is. Other scripture like Acts 26:23, 1 Corinthians 15:20;22, Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5-6 indicate that the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection. I believe Christ's resurrection is what began the thousand years.

Of course if you claim it is even a resurrection would that not force you to point out more than one?

Of course a first resurrection implies a second. And Paul wrote about that in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. He indicated that Christ's resurrection was the first and then at His coming those who belong to Him will be resurrected, also. This is in relation to being resurrected unto immortality with an immortal body.

Probably should just keep up the personal attacks and insults. They are more genuine than Amil theology.

You invite insults by misrepresenting Amil constantly and with your false accusations. And by saying some of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen in my life. I think you do some of it on purpose and some of it is due to extreme ignorance about some aspects of what Amils actually believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation 20:5a is in most of the ancient manuscripts. It is Written in the REB and the CJB, both very careful and accurate translations.

Yet, he tries to claim that most Bible translators think it shouldn't be there. He provided zero evidence to back up that claim. The fact that it IS included in every English Bible translation I looked at (at least 20...I thought that was enough so I stopped looking at that point) tells me that he just made that up.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That time already was immediately after Jesus rose from the dead:

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now [3568 nŷn] is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live.

28 Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to the resurrection of condemnation.

You're overlooking two obvious facts here. John 5:25 talks about something that relates only to believers while John 5:28-29 relates to both believers and unbelievers. Also, John 5:25 talks about something that "now is" (was already starting to happen) at the time Jesus was speaking but John 5:28-29 only talks about something that was coming at some point in the future. Why did you overlook these obvious things? Because of doctrinal bias, obviously.

John 5:25 is talking about the same thing Paul wrote about in Ephesians 2:1-6 which has to do with believers going from being spiritually dead in their sins to being spiritually alive in Christ when they become saved. John 5:28-29 has a different context. It has to do with the bodily resurrection of the dead.

 

[ewq1938]

So, just deny clear scripture then if it suits you. That's the only way you can keep your doctrine afloat.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

You just denied what Jesus explicitly said. Why else would you do that except for extreme doctrinal bias?

Actually that applies to you not me. I understand the verse correctly:

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,


There will come a time/hour that all baseball teams will play against another team but that doesn't mean all on the same day. A time will come for all the dead to be raised. First, the dead in Christ rise, then after a thousand years "the rest of the dead" will rise. That's what we find when looking at all of the related passages. Leaving the most important passage out of this is clear error.

Another analogy:

"For the hour is coming, in which all who start and complete high school shall graduate."

No one would argue that every single person who completes high school will all graduate the same hour, or same day, or even the same year. Obviously, freshmen don't graduate when seniors do.

 

[Timtofly]

That verse isn't talking about the annihilation of heaven and earth. It's a figurative way of referring to the burning up of heaven and earth as 2 Peter 3 describes to the point where they are no longer heaven and earth as we know them. But, they will be renewed, not annihilated. So, you think they will be annihilated and replaced by a completely different heaven and earth?

It is not even the burning up with fire. It is figurative of no longer existing. It is not like an elephant escaping the zoo.

What do you mean by "entirely different reality"? We all believe that in a sense, but I don't know what exactly you mean by it. If you're talking about an entirely new heaven and new earth apart from the current heaven and earth rather than a renewed heaven and earth, then what do you make of a verse like this:

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Do you think this is talking about inheriting the earth for a temporary period of time instead of for eternity? If so, is that really anything to be excited about? Don't you think that the inheritance God has for His people will be eternal?

Why would a new reality change the reward given to people? You are thinking of it as a new vehicle. You are too attached to the old one, but in reality a vehicle remains a vehicle, it does not turn into a moon. There is still a heaven and earth.

Where does scripture refer to heaven and earth as "a new heaven and new earth" after the flood? If you can't provide any scripture to support that idea, which I don't think you can, then that's why I'm saying you're not making sense. You have to support your claims with scripture. Your claims without scriptural support mean nothing.

If your definition of new heaven and earth is just a renewal, why would there not be a renewal after the Flood?

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;"

Do you think God waited around for years to make things grow via evolution over time, after total devastation. Do you think God just supernaturally killed just the humans with a few drops of water? How much destruction are you willing to admit? How much restoration would be needed if the earth was hundreds of feet under water for 150 days?

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

What about the fact there were no seasons, no rain, no clouds, no weather patterns prior to the Flood? What about all the water that was above the firmament was now on the earth? How is that not a new heaven and earth?

 

[Truth7t7]

That time already was immediately after Jesus rose from the dead:

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now [3568 nŷn] is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live.

28 Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to the resurrection of condemnation.

03568 νῦν nŷn, noon
a primary particle of present time;
"now" (as adverb of date, a transition or emphasis); also as noun or adjective present or immediate:--henceforth, + hereafter, of late, soon, present, this (time).

Matthew 27
50 And crying again with a loud voice, Jesus released His spirit.
51 And, behold! The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And the earth quaked, and the rocks were sheared,
52 and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose,
53 and coming out of the tomb after His resurrection they went into (entered) the holy city and appeared to many.
54 But the centurion and those guarding Jesus, seeing the earthquake, and the things that took place, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this One was Son of God.

Crossed out the parts identified by translators as spurious. But for sure, the resurrection Jesus spoke about has not been waiting for later Christians to decide when it may begin.

And, behold! The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And the earth quaked, and the rocks were sheared, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose, coming out of the tomb after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

It is written.

"Wrong"

The resurrection of the dead to immortality takes place atthe futuresecond coming on the last day

Those who came forth from the graves at the Lord's death were "Raised From The Dead" just as Lazarus and Tabitha, who later experienced physical death

 

[Zao is life]

This is just complete nonsense. You are denying the obvious here because of doctrinal bias. The heavens and earth are going to be burned up when Christ returns. The wicked and all wicked things must be removed from the earth in order to have the new heavens and new earth "where righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:13) and where "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain" (Rev 21:4). You have offered no viable alternatives for how God will rid the world of wickedness once and for all, which is telling.

It's not nonsense at all. You want it to be nonsense because you use the passage as "proof text" for Amillennialism.

1. The word stoicheîon (translated into English as "elements") employed in 2 Peter 3:10 & 12 refers to the rudiments of this world in Galatians 4:3 & Galatians 4:9; Colossians 2:8 & Colossians 2:20; and in Hebrews 5:12 (not to the chemical elements of the earth).

2. The Greek word parérchomai (Strong's Greek Dictionary #3928, from 3844: pará; and 2064: érchomai) can mean to come near, or to pass nearby, or to have passed, or to go away:

(i) It can mean to come near, for example in Luke 12:37; Acts 24:7 & Luke 17:17

(ii) It can mean to pass by nearby, for example in Luke 18:37 & Matthew 8:28.

(iii) It can mean to have passed, for example in Matthew 14:15; Acts 27:9; 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Matthew 24:34-35.

(iv) It can mean to go away or be removed, for example Matthew 26:39; Matthew 5:18 & Revelation 21:1.

The word used for burned up is katakaíō, which is used in reference to the works of men in 1 Corinthians 3:15; Revelation 18:8; and Matthew 13:30.

pyróō is used where the heavens are said to be on fire, and it means to kindle, i.e. (passively) to be ignited, glow (literally), be refined (by implication), or (figuratively) to be inflamed (with anger, grief, lust):--burn, fiery, be on fire, try. The same word is used for burn in 1 Corinthians 7:9; 2 Corinthians 11:29; Ephesians 6:16; Revelation 1:15; and Revelation 3:18.

Isaiah describes Babylon's fall like this:

Isaiah 13:8-10 .. they shall be afraid. Pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them. They shall be in pain like a woman who travails. They shall be amazed at one another, their faces like flames. Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel and with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land waste; and He shall destroy its sinners out of it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations shall not give light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not reflect its light.

Isaiah 13:13 So I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall move out of its place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger.

This is all typical of biblical apocalyptic literature, which contains a great amount of simile, metaphor and hyperbole all rolled into one. Isaiah is referring to the intensity of the calamity that would be experienced by the earth's inhabitants (in the case, those who lived in the territories of the great empire of Babylon, which covered all the known world in its day), when the day of the LORD was to come upon Babylon.

Compare the following:

Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled like a scroll; and all their host shall droop, as a leaf falls off from the vine, and as the falling from the fig tree.

Revelation 16:13-14 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Psalm 75: 3 The earth and all its people are melting away; I hold up its pillars. Selah.

Isaiah 34:8-10 For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year to repay for the fighting against Zion. And its streams shall be turned into pitch, and its dust to brimstone, and its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be put out night or day; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none passes through it forever and forever.

Revelation 14:10-11 And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 in flaming fire [phlóx pŷr] taking vengeance on those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all those who believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that Day.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heaven/s [ouranós] shall [parérchomai] (could be come near, or pass nearby, or be removed) with a great noise, and the [stoicheîon] (the rudiments of this world everywhere else the word is used) shall melt/be dissolved [lýō] with fervent heat, the earth [gē] also, and the works (of men?) that are therein shall [ katakaíō] (be burned up or consumed?).

Does the earth have works? Do rocks have works?

In the Greek text, verse 12 says simply, "..(the coming of the day of God wherein) ouranós pyróō lýō..":

..heaven by fire dissolving the [rudiments of this world?], melting them with fervent heat?

It's seems far more likely that 2 Peter 3:10-12 should be interpreted in the above way, in my opinion, given the fact of the Bible's apocalyptic or prophetic literature's common use of smile, metaphor and hyperbole, which Peter would have been all to aware of when he wrote his second epistle.

In my opinion there is no biblical reason to continue to assume that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is speaking about the burning up of the chemical elements of the earth and the heavens (rather than the rudiments of this world), because the context, the meaning of the Greek words, and the simile, metaphor and hyperbole all rolled into one like this is typical of prophetic statements in the Bible.

Peter is quite possibly referring to the intensity of the calamity that will be experienced by the earth's inhabitants when the day of the Lord comes, and describing it using the same Apocalyptic language that the Bible's prophetic books are saturated with.

And if facts give you a sense of cognitive dissonance when they interfere with the "truth" you hold close to your heart, I can't advise you how to respond or to react, though you may react as angrily and full of insults and false accusations as you often do.

For me it's easy because I allow scripture top teach me what it's saying and what the author means, not the other way around.

 

[Zao is life]

So, if all we're going to do is accuse each other of brushing things aside, then we need to just end this discussion now because this isn't worth my time.

Then don't accuse people of brushing things aside, because you were the first to accuse of brushing things aside. Obviously you don't like your own style of debate, your own methods you use with others.

 

[Zao is life]

You brush aside the fact that "protos anastasis" is only used in reference to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Acts 26:23) Instead of applying the first resurrection only to Jesus Christ's bodily resurrection, you apply it to believers at His second coming as well.

I don't brush it aside at all, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from falsely accusing me of brushing things aside .

Jesus' Resurrection is the first resurrection because the only Resurrection of Adam (mankind) and the sons of Adam (mankind) is the Resurrection of the second Man and the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:47), who IS the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25), because as in Adam all die, so in Christ who IS the Resurrection and the Life, all shall be made alive: But each in his own order: Christ (the first-fruit of the Resurrection), afterward those who are Christ's at His coming (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).

This is exactly what Revelation 20:4-6 is telling us, and what 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is telling us. Neither Revelation 20 nor 1 Corinthians 15:23, nor 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is talking about anyone else's resurrection at the time of the return of Christ (except for those who have decided it should be ADDED to the scriptures).

1 Corinthians 15:24 does not use the Greek word tote (the time of, at that time) but the word eita, which does not necessarily mean immediately afterward or at the same time because it us used elsewhere for something that follows at a later stage (for example Mark 4:28-29).

If 1 Corinthians 15:24 was meant to mean at the same time as 1 Corinthians 15:23, the word eita would not have been used, but the word tote or another word meaning the same as tote.

There is only one bodily resurrection for Adam and the sons of Adam (mankind) spoken about in the New Testament, and it's the first resurrection: i.e Christ's resurrection, and the word anastasis always refers to a bodily resurrection. And there is only one second death spoken about in the New Testament, and there is no resurrection from the second death. Therefore any bodily resurrection that takes place after Christ's own bodily resurrection from the dead is part of the first resurrection.

Secondly, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the word zao is NEVER used in the New Testament in reference to someone who has died in the flesh and whose soul has gone to be with Christ. It's NEVER used in reference to someone who is NOT alive in his body.

Therefore all your arguments, yet again, fall flat. They contain absolutely no truth.

 

[Zao is life]

Yet, he tries to claim that most Bible translators think it shouldn't be there. He provided zero evidence to back up that claim. The fact that it IS included in every English Bible translation I looked at (at least 20...I thought that was enough so I stopped looking at that point) tells me that he just made that up.

I see you're going to run with this till the day you die or I die, just because you can.

Really, I'm Premil and the sentence supports Premil, not Amil. There is every reason why if I was like most Amils, I would have kept quiet about the fact that the sentence could be spurious because it does not appear in all ancient manuscripts and at least one group of Bible translators and one other scholar have marked it as spurious.

But unlike Amillennialists, I do not EVER ignore ANY fact I come across and pretend it doesn't exist. You do that all the time though. And the reason why Tischendorf, who discovered the Codex Sinaiticus, listed the sentence as spurious is because it does not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the first and only complete Greek text ever discovered, and dates back to the 4th century.

I'm glad that Tischendorf and the translators of the 2001 Bible listed the sentence as spurious, because had they not, I would never have known, but now that I do know, whether or not the sentence should be there, I personally will not use it as support of Premil, though I'm Premil.

So go on running with your accusation above. It only shows you up, not me, because all it shows is my honesty with the scriptures. So just because I had wrongly assumed it would be the majority of scholars who consider the sentence spurious because it appears in Tischendorf's list of spurious texts and at least one other group of translators' list of spurious texts, you will use it to imply that I'm dishonest, and run with it for all it's worth.

It's very telling about you, in my opinion.

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 20:5a is in most of the ancient manuscripts. It is Written in the REB and the CJB, both very careful and accurate translations.

Thank you for pointing that out [thumbsup]

 

[Zao is life]

These are the only 2 verse you base your entire conjecture on. You complain that some posters base their whole theology on one chapter. You base your whole theology on a few verses and not even the whole chapter these verses are found in. All other Scriptures prove there is more than one single mass resurrection. You should probably stick to your own standards, instead of just accusing other posters.

Revelation 20 contains two times when the dead stand in Judgment. This does not contradict John 5:28-29. The hour started on the Cross, and even started with Lazarus prior to the Cross. Using that interpretation, does not contradict Paul nor John. You have to explain Scripture away or twist it to fit. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul gives us 3 times humans are presented to God as redeemed by the Atonement. A resurrection at the Cross. Matthew 27. At the Second Coming. Then at the end of the 1,000 years, when all is handed back to God. That is including all Scripture with no contradictions or even "overselling" one's theology.

I don't think anyone needs to invite insults (as SI claims in his post I quote below that you do) in order to receive insults from certain people. I think it's the person who hands out the insults who cannot control himself, or refuses to control himself at times when he decides he has the right to hand out insults.

I agree with what you say above. We are told that Jesus went to hades when He died in the flesh (Acts 2:31), and we are told that He preached to the spirits that were in prison when He was in hades:

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;
19 in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);

And Jesus said,

John 5
25 Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now (nyn) is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live.
26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life within Himself,
27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.
28 Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to the resurrection of condemnation.

If facts interfere with things they claim, then some will resort to hurling insults at you, and then they will accuse you of "inviting" insults. Shameful.

You invite insults by misrepresenting Amil constantly and with your false accusations. And by saying some of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen in my life. I think you do some of it on purpose and some of it is due to extreme ignorance about some aspects of what Amils actually believe.

 

[Zao is life]

"Wrong"

The resurrection of the dead to immortality takes place atthe futuresecond coming on the last day

Those who came forth from the graves at the Lord's death were "Raised From The Dead" just as Lazarus and Tabitha, who later experienced physical death

Can you quote book, chapter and verse where it states what you're claiming above please? (No conjecture, just books, chapter and verse).

You can't. Because your opinion about the above is derived at by your own conjecture. The New Testament says only what it says about it. Nothing more, nothing less. You've once again ADDED your own conjecture to it.

 

[ewq1938]

27. The Battle of Armageddon (in the valley of Megiddo) is the same battle found in Revelation 20:8-9? (Gog Magog at Jerusalem)

Amillennialism typically teaches these are the same battle yet they clearly are not:

In Revelation 19, a battle involving two armies is fought at Armageddon (in the valley of Megiddo) .

One army is led by the Revelation 13:1 beast and the false prophet, and the other is led by Christ at his second coming. Christ destroys the enemy army and the beast and FP are cast into the lake of fire. All this happens before Revelation 20's "a thousand years" even begins.

After the end of the "a thousand years", Revelation 20:8-9 shows an army led by satan (the beast and false prophet already having been defeated and are in the lake of fire) surrounding Jerusalem and facing no opposing army. Instead of Christ defeating this army, God the Father rains fire from heaven and destroys them. This second battle happens just outside of Jerusalem which is about 66 miles away from the valley of Megiddo.

Satan is then cast into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet already are proving they were cast into the lake of fire at an earlier time further proving the two battles are not the same battle repeated twice.

At Armageddon, a symbolic sword is used to kill.
At Jerusalem, fire from God the Father is used to kill.

Clearly two different places and two different battles and two different timeframes where an enemy army is destroyed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is not even the burning up with fire. It is figurative of no longer existing. It is not like an elephant escaping the zoo.

More often than not, you interpret literal text figuratively and figurative text literally. It's why you are wrong about almost everything.

Why would a new reality change the reward given to people? You are thinking of it as a new vehicle. You are too attached to the old one, but in reality a vehicle remains a vehicle, it does not turn into a moon. There is still a heaven and earth.

Did Jesus say the meek will inherit the earth (as in this earth) or a completely separate earth from this one (not even this earth renewed)?

If your definition of new heaven and earth is just a renewal, why would there not be a renewal after the Flood?

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;"

Do you think God waited around for years to make things grow via evolution over time, after total devastation. Do you think God just supernaturally killed just the humans with a few drops of water? How much destruction are you willing to admit? How much restoration would be needed if the earth was hundreds of feet under water for 150 days?

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

What about the fact there were no seasons, no rain, no clouds, no weather patterns prior to the Flood? What about all the water that was above the firmament was now on the earth? How is that not a new heaven and earth?

You could have saved yourself some time and admitted that there is no scripture which describes heaven and earth after the flood as a new heaven and new earth. Instead, you just rambled on without saying anything of substance without providing any scripture which called it a new heaven and new earth after the flood.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Actually that applies to you not me. I understand the verse correctly:

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,


There will come a time/hour that all baseball teams will play against another team but that doesn't mean all on the same day. A time will come for all the dead to be raised. First, the dead in Christ rise, then after a thousand years "the rest of the dead" will rise. That's what we find when looking at all of the related passages. Leaving the most important passage out of this is clear error.

No one would even say that. Nice try, but your analogy is far less than convincing.

Another analogy:

"For the hour is coming, in which all who start and complete high school shall graduate."

No one would argue that every single person who completes high school will all graduate the same hour, or same day, or even the same year. Obviously, freshmen don't graduate when seniors do.

No one would say it that way. Not a good analogy. You are grasping at straws here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I see you're going to run with this till the day you die or I die, just because you can.

Maybe you should not make claims on here without being able to back them up. Ever think of that?

Really, I'm Premil and the sentence supports Premil, not Amil. There is every reason why if I was like most Amils, I would have kept quiet about the fact that the sentence could be spurious because it does not appear in all ancient manuscripts and at least one group of Bible translators and one other scholar have marked it as spurious.

LOL. You are embarrassing yourself here. You went from claiming that most Bible translators and scholars marked it as spurious to now one group of Bible translators and one other scholar. Can't you just admit you were wrong for claiming that most Bible translators and scholars marked it as spurious?

But unlike Amillennialists, I do not EVER ignore ANY fact I come across and pretend it doesn't exist. You do that all the time though.

When did I do that? Is this just the latest of your many false accusations?

And the reason why Tischendorf, who discovered the Codex Sinaiticus, listed the sentence as spurious is because it does not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the first and only complete Greek text ever discovered, and dates back to the 4th century.

I'm glad that Tischendorf and the translators of the 2001 Bible listed the sentence as spurious, because had they not, I would never have known, but now that I do know, whether or not the sentence should be there, I personally will not use it as support of Premil, though I'm Premil.

Let me remind you again that you said most Bible transalators and scholars believed that text shouldn't be there in Revelation 20:5a when in reality it's just a few of them.

So go on running with your accusation above. It only shows you up, not me, because all it shows is my honesty with the scriptures.

It shows your dishonesty when you make claims that aren't true like you did when you said most Bible translators and scholars say Revelation 20:5a shouldn't be there when that is not the case.

So just because I had wrongly assumed it would be the majority of scholars who consider the sentence spurious because it appears in Tischendorf's list of spurious texts and at least one other group of translators' list of spurious texts, you will use it to imply that I'm dishonest, and run with it for all it's worth.

Yes, I will. I will call out made up lies every time. You're trying to sugarcoat what you did instead of just owning up to the fact that you lied about it.

It's very telling about you, in my opinion.

Let me make something clear. I do not care whatsoever what you think of me. Not even a tiny bit. So, just go on with your diatribes all you want, but it's a waste of your time. It's clear to me that you, and a few others here, will twist literally any scripture you need to in order to keep your Premil doctrine afloat. And you will even resort to making things up about verses like Revelation 20:5a (you said most Bible translators think it shouldn't be there - that's a lie) in order to do so as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then don't accuse people of brushing things aside, because you were the first to accuse of brushing things aside. Obviously you don't like your own style of debate, your own methods you use with others.

This is ironic coming from you. I have been talking to you the way you were talking to people on here before I came here. I guess you don't like being talked to the way you talk to others? Maybe you should try being more polite then if that's the communication style you prefer? I try to talk to people in a way that they are used to and familiar and comfortable with. I figured you enjoy my style since it was just like yours. No?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's not nonsense at all. You want it to be nonsense because you use the passage as "proof text" for Amillennialism.

1. The word stoicheîon (translated into English as "elements") employed in 2 Peter 3:10 & 12 refers to the rudiments of this world in Galatians 4:3 & Galatians 4:9; Colossians 2:8 & Colossians 2:20; and in Hebrews 5:12 (not to the chemical elements of the earth).

2. The Greek word parérchomai (Strong's Greek Dictionary #3928, from 3844: pará; and 2064: érchomai) can mean to come near, or to pass nearby, or to have passed, or to go away:

(i) It can mean to come near, for example in Luke 12:37; Acts 24:7 & Luke 17:17

(ii) It can mean to pass by nearby, for example in Luke 18:37 & Matthew 8:28.

(iii) It can mean to have passed, for example in Matthew 14:15; Acts 27:9; 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Matthew 24:34-35.

(iv) It can mean to go away or be removed, for example Matthew 26:39; Matthew 5:18 & Revelation 21:1.

The word used for burned up is katakaíō, which is used in reference to the works of men in 1 Corinthians 3:15; Revelation 18:8; and Matthew 13:30.

pyróō is used where the heavens are said to be on fire, and it means to kindle, i.e. (passively) to be ignited, glow (literally), be refined (by implication), or (figuratively) to be inflamed (with anger, grief, lust):--burn, fiery, be on fire, try. The same word is used for burn in 1 Corinthians 7:9; 2 Corinthians 11:29; Ephesians 6:16; Revelation 1:15; and Revelation 3:18.

Isaiah describes Babylon's fall like this:

Isaiah 13:8-10 .. they shall be afraid. Pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them. They shall be in pain like a woman who travails. They shall be amazed at one another, their faces like flames. Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel and with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land waste; and He shall destroy its sinners out of it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations shall not give light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not reflect its light.

Isaiah 13:13 So I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall move out of its place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger.

This is all typical of biblical apocalyptic literature, which contains a great amount of simile, metaphor and hyperbole all rolled into one. Isaiah is referring to the intensity of the calamity that would be experienced by the earth's inhabitants (in the case, those who lived in the territories of the great empire of Babylon, which covered all the known world in its day), when the day of the LORD was to come upon Babylon.

Compare the following:

Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled like a scroll; and all their host shall droop, as a leaf falls off from the vine, and as the falling from the fig tree.

Revelation 16:13-14 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Psalm 75: 3 The earth and all its people are melting away; I hold up its pillars. Selah.

Isaiah 34:8-10 For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year to repay for the fighting against Zion. And its streams shall be turned into pitch, and its dust to brimstone, and its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be put out night or day; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none passes through it forever and forever.

Revelation 14:10-11 And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 in flaming fire [phlóx pŷr] taking vengeance on those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all those who believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that Day.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heaven/s [ouranós] shall [parérchomai] (could be come near, or pass nearby, or be removed) with a great noise, and the [stoicheîon] (the rudiments of this world everywhere else the word is used) shall melt/be dissolved [lýō] with fervent heat, the earth [gē] also, and the works (of men?) that are therein shall [ katakaíō] (be burned up or consumed?).

Does the earth have works? Do rocks have works?

In the Greek text, verse 12 says simply, "..(the coming of the day of God wherein) ouranós pyróō lýō..":

..heaven by fire dissolving the [rudiments of this world?], melting them with fervent heat?

It's seems far more likely that 2 Peter 3:10-12 should be interpreted in the above way, in my opinion, given the fact of the Bible's apocalyptic or prophetic literature's common use of smile, metaphor and hyperbole, which Peter would have been all to aware of when he wrote his second epistle.

In my opinion there is no biblical reason to continue to assume that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is speaking about the burning up of the chemical elements of the earth and the heavens (rather than the rudiments of this world), because the context, the meaning of the Greek words, and the simile, metaphor and hyperbole all rolled into one like this is typical of prophetic statements in the Bible.

Peter is quite possibly referring to the intensity of the calamity that will be experienced by the earth's inhabitants when the day of the Lord comes, and describing it using the same Apocalyptic language that the Bible's prophetic books are saturated with.

And if facts give you a sense of cognitive dissonance when they interfere with the "truth" you hold close to your heart, I can't advise you how to respond or to react, though you may react as angrily and full of insults and false accusations as you often do.

For me it's easy because I allow scripture top teach me what it's saying and what the author means, not the other way around.

You don't have to try to give me a lesson about how words can mean different things. What a waste of time. Most words have more than one definition. We all know that. But, what does the word mean in 2 Peter 3:10-12? What is the context? The context relates to the second coming of Christ. And the future fiery destruction event is compared directly to the watery destruction event of the past in 2 Peter 3:5-7. Unless you want to think that Peter was inexplicably comparing a future figurative event to a past literal, physical event (why?), you should be able to recognize that 2 Peter 3:10-12 should be taken literally.

Oh, and don't talk to me about insults and false accusations when you hurl insults and false accusations left and right on a regular basis. Please stop being a hypocrite.