HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT: Why I believe this about the timing of the NHNE

[Spiritual Israelite]

That the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended can validly be understood in two different ways, as I said above... and gave reason for. I'm interested to hear what David has to say about what I said, if anything.

What translation do you use? I can't find any translation of Revelation 20:5 which could be understood to be saying that the rest of the dead come to life during the thosuand years rather than after the thousand years, so I truly do not know how you are coming to that conclusion.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

This is from the KJV but other translations I looked at are similar. It seems very straightforward to me that the rest of the dead do not live again or do not come to life under the thousand years are finished first.

I'm not surprised. But that's not to say there aren't, looking at this from any perspective.

I'm not saying you're the only one. I just haven't seen it before, so I think there probably aren't many Amills who see it that way.

 

[PinSeeker]

What translation do you use? I can't find any translation of Revelation 20:5 which could be understood to be saying that the rest of the dead come to life during the thousand years rather than after the thousand years, so I truly do not know how you are coming to that conclusion.

I didn't say "during," I said "through the course of"... and those are not necessarily the same thing... but that's not really the issue. I said that what is said there, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" (English Standard Version) ~ and I would add even how the New American Standard Version puts it, which is, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed" ~ can be validly understood in two different ways, as I said before, the way you and David are understanding it and the way I am understanding it.

And I would add regarding your comment about the NIV putting that verse in parentheses that even that is not as definitive as you insinuate it is, because we can understand what is in those parentheses to be a) in opposition to what comes before or b) an addendum to it; obviously, I would fall into the 'b' camp. The particular word in verse 5 that tilts any reader one way or the other to camp 'a' or camp 'b,' is "until," which is used in every English translation there is ('til' or 'till' in some, but that is just a shortened version of 'until'). And I would submit that because the English translation is 'until' there, the clear implication is that it is through the course of God's millennium.

It seems very straightforward to me that the rest of the dead do not live again or do not come to life under the thousand years are finished first.

Fair enough. We disagree. So, yes, in your understanding, "the rest of the dead," so that group in its totality, and all completely after the thousand years. Yes, we disagree.

...I think there probably aren't many Amills who see it that way.

You might be surprised...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't say "during," I said "through the course of"... and those are not necessarily the same thing... but that's not really the issue. I said that what is said there, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" (English Standard Version) ~ and I would add even how the New American Standard Version puts it, which is, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed" ~ can be validly understood in two different ways, as I said before, the way you and David are understanding it and the way I am understanding it. And I would add regarding your comment about the NIV putting that verse in parentheses that even that is not as definitive as you insinuate it is, because we can understand what is in those parentheses to be a) in opposition to what comes before or b) an addendum to it. Obviously, I would fall into the 'b' camp there.

We don't have to keep talking about this if you don't want to. It's up to you. But, I'm not following what you're saying. Do you not see the rest of the dead as coming to life during the thousand years? I don't see the difference between that and them coming to life "through the course of" the thousand years. Can you explain the difference? You believe it's talking about people being born again, right? Aren't people born again during or throughout the course of the thousand years?

The ESV and NASB versions of the verse indicate that they don't come to life until after the thousand years have ended, so I'm not sure how you're getting the idea that they come to life through the course of the thousand years from those translations of the verse.

Fair enough. We disagree.

Yes, we do. I just wish I could understand how you are coming to your conclusion (regardless of whether I agree with it or not), but right now I can't see it.

 

[PinSeeker]

I'm not following what you're saying.

Fair enough. I think what I said was very clear.

Do you not see the rest of the dead as coming to life during the thousand years?

Well, in the sense of over the course of the entire thousand years, yes. But 'during' could be interpreted to mean all at once at some specific time in the thousand years, or anything in between. I fully recognize that you're using that term 'during' in the former sense, which, yes, is the sense in which I mean it.

I don't see the difference between that and them coming to life "through the course of" the thousand years. Can you explain the difference?

See above.

You believe it's talking about people being born again, right? Aren't people born again during or throughout the course of the thousand years?

Yes and yes, so you understand what I am saying, but 'throughout the course of' seems a better, far-less-likely-to-be-misunderstood way of putting it than merely 'during.' Too, I believe this to be applicable to those referred to in Revelation 20:4 and those referred to in Revelation 20:5. Common to both groups is their "coming to life," which is key. And like I said in my previous post, the word actually used there, by all English versions, is 'until' or 'til'... so, "until the thousand years were ended" can possibly be very understood in two different senses, both of which are valid, but both cannot be accurate, or correct.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Fair enough. I think what I said was very clear.

I don't think it was clear at all. Imagine that. Us seeing things very differently. Who would have ever imagined that, right?

Yes and yes, so you understand what I am saying, but 'throughout the course of' seems a better, far-less-likely-to-be-misunderstood way of putting it than merely 'during.'

You won't believe this, but I disagree with that. But, whatever. Now I know for sure what you meant.

Too, I believe this to be applicable to those referred to in Revelation 20:4 and those referred to in Revelation 20:5. Common to both groups is their "coming to life," which is key.

Actually, the first group is said to live and reign with Christ and it doesn't say they live again or come to life. The Greek word "zao" is used to describe those in Revelation 20:4 as living (and reigning) with Christ while the Greek word "anazao" is used to refer to the rest of the dead coming to life. The word "zao" does not mean to come to life, but rather means to live or be alive. It's referring to the souls of the dead in Christ living and reigning with Christ in heaven. So, Revelation 20:4 is not referring to anyone actually being resurrected. They are said to have part in the first resurrection (Revelation 20:6), but scripture teaches that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20), so it has to do with having part spiritually in His resurrection. The word "anazao", on the other hand does mean to come to life, so verse 5 is talking about the rest of the dead (unbelievers) coming to life after the thousand years and then being judged.

And like I said in my previous post, the word actually used there, by all English versions, is 'until' or 'til'... so, "until the thousand years were ended" can possibly be very understood in two different senses, both of which are valid, but both cannot be accurate, or correct.

I'm not seeing your point here.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

If I told you that I will not post again on this forum until the year 2025 is finished, would you think I was saying I would be posting through the course of the rest of the year 2025 or that I would not post again until some time after the year 2025 is over?

 

[Davidpt]

... or thusly:

• that all of the rest of the dead came to life through the course of the thousand years, and thus, in totality, came to life after the thousand years were completely ended

Let's start with this premise. Initially there is one group, they are all dead. But then some of them are part of the first resurrection, thus some of them are no longer dead, they are alive. This initial group of the dead now looks like this, as of the first resurrection. Some of these are no longer dead, the remaining ones are still dead and don't live again until after the thousand years.

Logic says, but unfortunately doctrinal bias' tend to not care about logic, that if some from this group of the dead don't live again until the thousand years expire, this indicates that some from this group of the dead did already live again before these live again. Whoever heard of someone not living again until, unless someone already lived again prior to that?

Would you or any other Amil apply that same reasoning to Christ's resurrection vs the resurrection of the saved? That because those who are His don't live again until He returns in the end of this age, therefore, this means Christ did not already begin to live again before these get to live again. That He has to wait until they live again before He can live again as well. Nobody would reason things in the manner per that scenario. Yet that's exactly the manner some are reasoning things in pertaining to Revelation 20:4-6. That those that have part in the first resurrection don't get to live again until the rest of the dead get to live again after the thousand years.

Initially there is one group, and that they are all dead, it might look like this.

One group, they are all dead.

Then because the first resurrection takes place involving the ones meant in Revelation 20:4,6, not Christ, some of these dead are no longer dead, now they are fully alive.



At this point some of the dead are already living again, some of them aren't. But why not, in regards to the latter? It's rather simple, and that is because the rest of the dead are not part of the first resurrection and never were and never wiil be.

I don't know what it is about Amil in general, but Amil is notorious for having polars opposites meaning the exact same thing? When satan is bound and when satan is loosed, it is the exact same thing. When those who don't live again until after the thousand years, it's the exact same thing as having part in the first resurrection. As if there is no resurrection mentioned in verse 5 that can explain the resurrection unto damnation mentioned in John chapter 5.

If some of the rest of the dead that don't live again until after the thousand years, are also including those that have part in the first resurrection, to remain consistent then, the same has to be true of those that don't live again until after the thousand years, that some of these have part in the first resurrection also. As if that is not an obvious contradiction, that some of the rest of the dead have part in the first resurrection, which then means they too reign with Christ a thousand years, something totally impossible to do at this point since the thousand years would now be in the past.

Clearly, not one single person that has part in the first resurrection, does not live and reign with Christ a thousand years. They all do. Obviously then, anyone that doesn't live again until the thousand years are finished, do not have part in the first resurrection since they fail to reign with Christ a thousand years, a requirement in order to have part in the first resurrection.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's start with this premise. Initially there is one group, they are all dead. But then some of them are part of the first resurrection, thus some of them are no longer dead, they are alive. This initial group of the dead now looks like this, as of the first resurrection. Some of these are no longer dead, the remaining ones are still dead and don't live again until after the thousand years.

Logic says, but unfortunately doctrinal bias' tend to not care about logic, that if some from this group of the dead don't live again until the thousand years expire, this indicates that some from this group of the dead did already live again before these live again. Whoever heard of someone not living again until, unless someone already lived again prior to that?

Would you or any other Amil apply that same reasoning to Christ's resurrection vs the resurrection of the saved? That because those who are His don't live again until He returns in the end of this age, therefore, this means Christ did not already begin to live again before these get to live again. He has to wait until they live again before He can live again as well. Nobody would reason things in the manner. Yet that's exactly the manner some are reasoning things in pertaining to Revelation 20:4-6. That those that have part in the first resurrection don't get to live again until the rest of the dead get to live again after the thousand years.

Initially there is one group, and that they are all dead, it might look like this.

One group, they are all dead.

Then because the first resurrection takes place involving the ones meant in Revelation 20:4,6, not Christ, some of these dead are no longer dead, now they are fully alive.



At this point some of the dead are already living again, some of them aren't. But why not, in regards to the latter? It's rather simple, and that is because the rest of the dead are not part of the first resurrection and never were and never wiil be.

I don't know what it is about Amil in general, but Amil is notorious for having polars opposites meaning the exact same thing?

Why are you not just addressing his view of Revelation 20:5, which I'm pretty sure no other Amill on this forum shares? He is claiming that he thinks the rest of the dead are believers who are born again through the course of the thousand years. You are not even addressing that.

And it's yet another lie from you to claim that "Amil is notorious for having polars opposites meaning the exact same thing". That is an absolute lie. You have no idea of what you're talking about because you don't even understand Amil. You have proven that a thousand times. But, not literally a thousand times even though you'll probably insist on trying to tell me what I meant and that I meant a literal thousand times.

When satan is bound and when satan is loosed, it is the exact same thing. When those who don't live again until after the thousand years, it's the exact same thing as having part in the first resurrection. As if there is no resurrection mentioned in verse 5 that can explain the resurrection unto damnation mentioned in John chapter 5.

No Amill believes this nonsense that you are spewing here. This shows how little you understand what Amills actually believe.

If some of the rest of the dead that don't live again until after the thousand years, are also including those that have part in the first resurrection, to remain consistent then, the same has to be true of those that don't live again until after the thousand years, that some of these have part in the first resurrection also. As if that is not an obvious contradiction, that some of the rest of the dead have part in the first resurrection, which then means they too reign with Christ a thousand years, something totally impossible to do at this point since the thousand years would now be in the past.

LOL. What in the world are you even saying here? Who tries to say that some of the rest of the dead have part in the first resurrection?

Clearly, not one single person that has part in the first resurrection, does not live and reign with Christ a thousand years. They all do. Obviously then, anyone that doesn't live again until the thousand years are finished, do not have part in the first resurrection since they fail to reign with Christ a thousand years, a requirement in order to have part in the first resurrection.

I agree with this, and yet you think you're making an argument against Amils here. You're not. Amils do not say that anyone who doesn't live again until after the thousand years has part in the first resurrection. You spend a majority of your time here just making ridiculous straw man arguments. What a waste of time.

 

[PinSeeker]

Let's start with this premise. Initially there is one group, they are all dead. But then some of them are part of the first resurrection, thus some of them are no longer dead, they are alive.

Okay, good...

Hey, before I get to the rest of this, I'll say again, directly to you, I really appreciate your thoughtfulness.

This initial group of the dead now looks like this, as of the first resurrection. Some of these are no longer dead, the remaining ones are still dead and don't live again until after the thousand years.

Well, again, "until after the thousand years" is not quite right; the actual wording is "until the thousand years were ended." There is a difference.

NOTE: this may not be an exhaustive listing, but the word 'after' is not used in any English translation that I know of.​

So, quoting what I said previously, either that none of the rest of the dead came to life until after the thousand years were completely ended, or that all of the rest of the dead came to life through the course of the thousand years, and thus, in totality, came to life by the time the thousand years were completely ended. As I said, both of those are very valid ways of understanding the Greek and the English there, but only one is correct.

Logic says...

Well, even the logic itself depends on which of the two above understandings are accepted. You~ and possibly others here ~ are taking the first of the two understandings presented above, and I ~ and possibly others here ~ are taking the second.

, but unfortunately doctrinal bias' tend to not care about logic...

You know, no offense, but statements like this are not true and only really worthy of dismissal.

Initially there is one group, and that they are all dead...

Well, yes, as I have said, dead in their sin, children of wrath, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:1-3. We are all initially in this state.

Then because the first resurrection takes place involving the ones meant in Revelation 20:4,6, not Christ, some of these dead are no longer dead, now they are fully alive.

I would include verse 5, as I said.

At this point some of the dead are already living again, some of them aren't.

Yes, at any given point in this age, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and the partial hardening now on Israel has been completely removed (which is not sequential but concurrent), and in this way all Israel will be saved, as Paul says in Romans 11:25-26.

But why not, in regards to the latter? It's rather simple, and that is because the rest of the dead are not part of the first resurrection and never were and never wiil be.

Disagree, as I said. Again, it goes back to what I said above, that there are two valid ways of understanding the Greek and the English there, but only one is correct. In logical terms, 'A' and 'Not A' can only possibly be either 1) both wrong or 2) one right and the other wrong... it is logically impossible for both to be right.

Per our brief exchange a few posts ago, SI is with you regarding verse 5 ~ which does seem at a logical odds to me concerning him ~ but I am not.

I don't know what it is about Amil in general, but Amil is notorious for having polars opposites meaning the exact same thing?

Don't think so; I guess it depends on the individual. I guess what I would say is that this may happen occasionally in one who claims to be Amillennial, and they may actually be Amillennial but unknowingly at least a bit unclear on certain things.

When satan is bound and when satan is loosed, it is the exact same thing.

I don't think any "Amil" would say this. If they do, it may be... one of those "things" alluded to directly above...

When those who don't live again until after the thousand years, it's the exact same thing as having part in the first resurrection. As if there is no resurrection mentioned in verse 5 that can explain the resurrection unto damnation mentioned in John chapter 5.

Again, using 'after' there is a potential problem. The word 'until' is used in Revelation 20:5; 'after' is not. And that brings us back to the two possible understandings, one of which would be eliminated, maybe, if 'after' were actually used in that verse.

...which then means they too reign with Christ a thousand years, something totally impossible to do at this point since the thousand years would now be in the past.

I fully realize that in what you were saying here you were presenting a logical inconsistency, and I believe I've spoken clearly to that above; the reason I'm pulling this out of the larger quote is to point out this "reigning with Christ a thousand years," that the thrust of that one thing too can be understood in two valid but different ways...

• that they all reign with Christ for the full thousand years
• that they all come to reign with Christ over the course of the thousand years

...and I obviously am in the latter "camp."

Clearly, not one single person that has part in the first resurrection, does not live and reign with Christ a thousand years. They all do.

Well, I'm... almost <smile> ...in agreement with this; I would say it thus, that clearly, not one single person that has part in the first resurrection, does not live and reign with Christ a PORTION OF THE "thousand years" ~ as in the balance of the "thousand years" from the point that they are born again of the Spirit. They all do. You may still disagree, and that's okay, of course, but you cannot dismiss that as "not making sense" or illogical. I mean, you can, just because you can do anything you want to do, but I think one has to say that it can be seen validly, grammatically, logically, sensibly, reasonably (and any other like adverb) that way.

Obviously then, anyone that doesn't live again until the thousand years are finished, do not have part in the first resurrection since they fail to reign with Christ a thousand years, a requirement in order to have part in the first resurrection.

Again, disagree with the "do not have part" thing ~ because of the sense in which 'until' is used (see above), and again I would say reigning with Christ, individually speaking, over the balance of the thousand years from the point they are born again of the Spirit.

Again. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[PinSeeker]

Ugh. <wince> Sorry you have to endure all this, @Davidpt .

Grace and peace to you.