22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

I read the end of chapter 19 and the begining of chapter 20 as one comment. three characters who are involved in the last days upon christs return. and three things whihc happened to all three

I saw this, then I saw that, then I saw that,.

How convenient of you to do that. Why don't you do that with Revelation 11 and 12 as well? The inconsistency in your interpretive approach is obvious and reveals your extreme doctrinal bias.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I Agree, Isaiah 65 is the "Eternal Kingdom" a parallel reading of Revelation 21:1-5, as verse 17 below clearly states the location, as Millennialist disregard this scripture before their eyes, As if it's non-existent

Isaiah 65:17KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

They think Isaiah started talking about the new heavens and new earth in verse 17 and then inexplicably changed the subject in the very next verse. I guess they think he had ADHD or something.

Imagine if someone tried to claim that Revelation 21:1 is about the new heavens and new earth but then verse 2 starts talking about something else. Would anyone buy that? Of course not. Yet, that's what Premils want us to think regarding Isaiah 65:17-25.

 

[Timtofly]

There is a certain ambiguity in some of the prophecies that allowed for them to be fulfilled in the first century had Jesus been nationally received, and also allowed for later fulfillment. The "gentile church" was a mystery revealed through Paul, not before that.

So then there are a number of prophecies that may seem like they fit one place, but when you consider the dispensational changes that occurred when Israel fully and finally rejected Jesus (Acts 28), you find they fit a different way.

The NT prophecies provide the detailed arrangement of how they will be fulfilled, as they were given after Israel's rejection.

Clear as mud?

If you are interested let me know.

Much love!

What would be the purpose of the Day of the Lord? The NT authors did not redefine the expectations of King Jesus to reign on earth. Paul just pointed out the tragic result of Israel being broken off. Paul did not claim they would never be placed back into the symbolic tree.

The church did not replace Israel. The church was allowed to partake of the same blessings that Israel did. A new heaven and earth points to Israel's restoration, not the restoration of an apostate church. There is literally no coming back from apostasy if a Gentile is cut out of the tree. But Israel was promised a restoration no matter how long it would take. The first ten tribes were cut off hundreds of years prior to Judah having a short come back.

 

[Truth7t7]

Then how is the death in verse 20 explained if verse 20 is NHNE?
You know, it wouldn’t do any harm to your assertion if verse 20 jumps backward. There were no chapter headings originally, so I wouldn’t follow chapters and chapter headings added later with any sort of religiosity.

There you go questioning the scripture, it tells you its the NHNE in verse 17 and you say "No" a child is literally dying "Wrong"

A child dying 100 yearsoldussymbolic of eternal, not literal as you believe. Perhaps you would be convinced if it stated a child died at a Billion years old

Isaiah 65:17-20 & Revelation 21:1-4 are the same "Parallel" reading describing the New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, something you deny before your eyes,simple and easy to understand

Isaiah 65:17-20KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Revelation 21:1-4KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

There you go questioning the scripture, it tells you itstge NHNE

If a scripture says there’s still some death and I believe there’s still some death but you say no there isn’t, who’s questioning scripture…?

 

[Truth7t7]

You totally misunderstood what I said.

What I am saying is that those animals were described as enemies of Israel in the bible. Now since the first advent the Jews and Gentiles (the lion, leopard, Wolfe and the sheep) now live peacefully together within the church. We are now all sheep that our Shepard made into one flock.

John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

You now take Isaiah 11 & 65 and turn the lion, leopard, wolf, sheep, into enemies inside the church?

Sorta sounds like a fairy tale story of the lion, scarecrow, and tin man in the kingdom of Oz to me

 

[Truth7t7]

If a scripture says there’s still some death and I believe there’s still some death but you say no there isn’t, who’s questioning scripture…?

(Symbolic not Literal)

A child dying 100 years old is symbolic of eternal, not literal as you believe. Perhaps you would be convinced if it stated a child died at a Billion years old

Isaiah 65:17-20 & Revelation 21:1-4 are the same "Parallel" reading describing the New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, something you deny before your eyes,simple and easy to understand

Isaiah 65:17-20KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Revelation 21:1-4KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

[Marty fox]

You now take Isaiah 11 & 65 and turn the lion, leopard, wolf, sheep, into enemuesinsidethe church?

Sorta sounds like a fairy tale story of the lion, scarecrow, and tin man in the kingdom of Oz to me

Or that Jews and gentiles are now both one church like Jesus said that he was going to do

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So your saying pentecost never really happened?

No, Pentecost was a literal event,

Wow! Are you even trying? Of course I'm not saying that Pentecost never happened and you know that. Was the Holy Spirit coming to dwell in people something physical? No, that was spiritual. But, it did literally happen. Can you see how something can be both spiritual and literal at the same time? If you can't, then I don't know what to tell you because it should be obvious.

My friend, when you say something is spiritual. You are saying it is a spiritual truth, not a literal event.

You are apparently equating the word literal with the word physical, but spiritual things can be literal, too. How can you not understand simple concepts like this? It boggles my mind.

If you think something is spiritual AND literal. Your the first person who argues this point I have ever heard.. And I praise you for that.

That's ridiculous and not true. Your definition of the word literal is terribly flawed. Something can literally happen without it being a physical event. Good grief, why am I wasting time with this nonsense?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

A child dying 100 years old is symbolic of eternal, not literal as you believe. Perhaps you would be convinced if it stated a child died at a Billion years old

And the rest of the verse says anyone dying earlier than 100 will be thought to be accursed. What’s that symbolic of? Who, on the NHNE is thought to be accursed and what does to be accursed mean symbolically in the NHNE? Is being thought to be accursed because you died younger than 100 also symbolic of eternal life?

 

[Truth7t7]

They think Isaiah started talking about the new heavens and new earth in verse 17 and then inexplicably changed the subject in the very next verse. I guess they think he had ADHD or something.

Imagine if someone tried to claim that Revelation 21:1 is about the new heavens and new earth but then verse 2 starts talking about something else. Would anyone buy that? Of course not. Yet, that's what Premils want us to think regarding Isaiah 65:17-25.

I Agree 100%

They disregard the simple scripture, because they are desperate to create a Millennial Kingdom on this earth, that doesn't exist in scripture

 

[Truth7t7]

And the rest of the verse says anyone dying earlier than 100 will be thought to be accursed. What’s that symbolic of? Who, on the NHNE is thought to be accursed and what does to be accursed mean symbolically?

Isaiah 65:17-20 & Revelation 21:1-4 are the same "Parallel" reading describing the New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, something you deny before your eyes,simple and easy to understand

Isaiah 65:17-20KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Revelation 21:1-4KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is you twisting my words. I was pointing out that numbers do not make nonsense more believable. Noah was literally the only one who believed God. Did the millions of those who died in the Flood, not trust in nonsense?

You accused me of nonsense, because you think no one else believes like I do. You have actually talked to all 8 billion people on earth and know what they believe?

I said I think that. I didn't say I know it. But, it's highly likely because you have some beliefs that are way out there. Such as believing that the stars are angels, for instance. Are you aware of anyone else in the world who believes that?

So, you can stop being offended at your own false interpretation of my post. I did not compare you to any one. I was stating that numbers don't make nonsense any less nonsensical.

But, you didn't make it clear that is what you were doing. Maybe you should be more careful about who you compare other Christians to in the future. And try to make it more clear as to what the context is of what you're saying. Is that too much to ask? Can you do that? Or does everyone need to read your mind when you're not being clear about your intentions?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not exactly quite right.

Context states the dragon, the FP, and the beast show up at Armageddon.

Two are cast into the Lake of fire, and one is bound for 1,000 years. That is the context.

You then as an Amil remove two of these and add them to after the 1,000 years.

So now you say Satan was bound for 1,000 years and then the FP and beast are cast into the LOF.

That is your reversal of chronology.

Revelation 12 is going back in time to explain why Satan is given 42 months in Revelation 13. There is no mention of 1,000 years, because it has been 1992 years since the Cross.

The Gentiles still have total control over their individual kingdoms. That has not changed since Noah's Flood. Yet when the 7th Trumpet sounds all those individual kingdoms are now under control of Jesus. Unless they are given to Satan for 42 months. So only at the 7th Trumpet will it even be determined of Satan is even allowed 42 months.

Armageddon is only after those 42 months not at the start of those 42 months. Because the FP and beast are cast into the LOF at Armageddon, not prior to their 42 months of reign with Satan.

So in context of Revelation, the only time an angel comes down is also at Armageddon. Unless there is no 42 months. Then Satan is still bound for 1,000 years, at the 7th Trumpet, and not given control of earth for 42 months.

At the end in Revelation 20, Satan is not given 42 months of full control to ruin the last 1,000 years of a perfect reign of Christ. That is Amil totally trashing the 1,000 years and a burnt offering. Jesus is handing back a glorious creation without a Satan, or any who would choose Satan over God.

You can call that nonsense all you want, but that is God's Word. I am not misquoting Amil one iota. Amil change God's Word and context with an opinion called recapitulation. I don't fault Paul for calling it an opinion. I understand totally what you all are saying, so making personal attacks is just avoiding what God actually is stating in the book of Revelation. Feel free to actually address the points found in Revelation.

I have no idea of what you're saying here. Are you denying that Revelation 12 refers to the birth and ascension of Christ, which obviously did not occur after the seventh trumpet? My point had to do with the fact that what is described in Revelation 12 does not follow what is described at the end of Revelation 11. Do you disagree with that? If not, then are you just arguing for the sake of arguing here?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

something you deny before your eyes,simple and easy to understand

I have just instituted a new rule for myself. When I see talk like this, I’m not going to read the post any more.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation 11:15-18 represents the "Future" second coming and final judgment

Yes, of course. Did you think I was saying otherwise? If so, I'll re-read what I posted to see if I wasn't being clear.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Or maybe God has a plan. To prove throughout all eternity, that even when he rules on earth himself. Man will still rebel and come against him. And through this. Any possible thought of an excuse for anyone to make that God is not a fair God. That if he just came to earth himself everyone would believe him. Would but stopped

its not my job to determin or question why God does things

its my job to look at what he says, and not question it..

The reasons God does things are given throughout scripture, but in this case there would be total silence about His reasoning? I completely disagree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well then you don’t the power of God to bind even his greatest creation.

No premil should have to explain it to you. You should know and understand if God wants to bind satan where he can not influence the nations. By golly God can and will do it.

Once again, you have missed the point. I'm not doubting what God is capable of doing. That's not the point at all as I'm sure you know. None of us here on this forum would question that. My point is that a spirit being like Satan can not be physically bound with a chain. To argue that God can do that if He wants is ridiculous. He can't do something unreasonable like that. That isn't a reflection of a lack of power on His part. It's just not logical or reasonable. Just like God can't create a rock that He can't lift. That's a ridiculous and unreasonable concept and does not indicate that God is lacking at all in power.

 

[Truth7t7]

I have just instituted a new rule for myself. When I see talk like this, I’m not going to read the post any more.

Its my opinion you disregard the words of God before your eyes, because you question them at every corner

Isaiah 65:17-20 & Revelation 21:1-5 are "Parallel" teachings of the same exact place, the New Heaven and Earth, you don't believe this fact, in a pre-determined bias believing Isaiah 65 is a Millennial Kingdom on this earth "Wrong"

Isaiah 65:17KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Jesus testified after His resurrection: “All power [or authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18).

Then why does god say satan i sstill the god of this world?

No Jesus has all authority but that does not require Him beginning His reign! If there was no qualifier I would tend to agree with you but REv. puts that qulaifier in and says that with the seventh angel sounding the kingdoms of the world THEN belong to Jesus.

Please read that verse more carefully. Notice it talks about "the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ". So, "our Lord" here is referring to God the Father. Since His resurrection, Jesus was given all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18) and has been reigning. John 5:22 says "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son". That means God the Father put His Son in charge. But, after the seventh trumpet sounds when Jesus returns, He will deliver the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:22-24) at which point the Father will reign with His Son at His side on the new earth for eternity.

So according to you Jesus reigns over His Father?

Jesus returns the kingdom to teh Father after the 1,000 years when He destorys death in the lake of fire. that is what it says!