Let's examine Revelation 20:4 yet again.

[David in NJ]

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


I mainly want to focus on this portion---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

A) a time before the millennium begins

B) a time during the millennium

C) a time after the millennium ends

During which of these, A), B) and C), can we assume they are martyred because they did none of these things at the time?

Does it make sense they can be martyred during A) for refusing to do this? Yes.


What about during C)? No.

That leaves B). What about during B) then? No. And here are some reasons why.

In order to be martyred for the reasons they are, it involves everything in Revelation 13 having been fulfilled. Except how could anything in Revelation 13 involve the millennium when both Premil and Amil have satan in the pit during the millennium, and that Amil also has the beast in the pit during the millennium?

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.


Does this sound like the beast is still in the pit at this point? Until the beast rises up out of the sea, where is it logically located in the meantime if not in the pit? And why can't 'sea' here simply be code for the bottomless pit? Compare Revelation 13:1 with Revelation 17:3, 8.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up (anabaino) out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns , and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy


Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend (anabaino) out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.



In my opinion, the 10 crowns upon the 10 horns that are all on the head that was wounded and is healed, can be explained per the following. After all, do not crowns and kings go together.

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Based on all of the above, and what else can be added to the OP that hasn't been added yet, how is it reasonable that Amil can be a valid view? Revelation, plus passages elsewhere outside of Revelation, reveal that it is the 42 month reign of the beast that precede the 2nd coming. Therefore, in order for Amil to be a valid position, the 42 month reign of the beast must occur during satan's little season. But how can it when Revelation 20:4 already reveals that the 42 month reign of thebeast precede satan's little season?

God's TRUTH is Very Simple

When we obey JESUS Commandment = "Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the Mouth of God"

 

[David in NJ]

I agree as you know that Revelation 20:4 cannot precede the commencement of the millennium, and the commencement of the millennium therefore cannot precede the ascending of the beast from the abyss.

But as Chat GPT and all these threads about this has taught me, input determines output.

Amillennial input produces Amillennial output.
Premillennial input produces Premillennial output.
Postmillennial input produces Postmillennial output.

THE BIBLE'S INPUT: THE FIRST AND LAST THREE CHAPTERS IN THE BIBLE

Open (first three chapters): Beginning of time: God's creation (Genesis 1:1-31).
Close (last three chapters): Christ makes all things new (Revelation 21:5).

Open: Perfectly good (Genesis 1:31).
Close: Only righteousness dwells in it (Revelation 21:27).

Open: Tree of life (Genesis 2:9, 16-17).
Close: Tree of life (Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:1-2, 14, 17).

Open: Adam given dominion (Genesis 1:26-28).
Close: The dominion of the last Adam (Revelation 20:4 - also see Rev 3:21).

Open (first three chapters):

(a) Satan's deception of Adam & Eve, beginning with the words "You will not surely die" (Genesis 3:1-7, 11-19).

(b) Expulsion from Eden (Genesis 3:22-24).

(c) Death of Adam (the first death) - 930 years later (Genesis 5:5).

In-between the opening chapters and the closing chapters:

--- "I am the Resurrection [anastasis]
and the (eternal) life [zoe]!" (John 11:25 - Jesus) ---​

Close (last three chapters):

1. Revelation 20:4, 5b & 6:
"Then I saw thrones and seated on them were those who had been given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. These had not worshiped the beast or his image and had refused to receive his mark on their forehead or hand.

They were alive [zao] and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

-- but the rest of the dead did not live again [anazao] until the thousand years were finished -- *​

* 1. The above words are not found in the Bible’s oldest Greek manuscript of the Revelation, the Codex Sinaiticus. Nor are they found in the oldest Aramaic manuscript, the Khabouris Codex.

2. The words are listed as spurious in Tischendorf "List of spurious texts".

3. The words appear to contradict the scriptures that talk about a day when the dead are raised:

=======================================​

"God has set A DAY on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31).​

=======================================​

-- This is the first resurrection [anastasis]. Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

2. Satan's deception of the nations (Gog & Magog) (The first deception began with the words, "You will not surely die"):

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:

and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." (Revelation 20:7-9).*

* Revelation 19:20 (previous chapter, not part of the last three chapters in the Bible) tells us that the beast and the false prophet were both thrown alive [zao] into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. The concept of being damned while alive [zao] is therefore not extra-biblical or alien to scripture.

The New Testament makes a clear distinction between:-

* Living | being alive [zao]; and

* Life [zoe] (life itself, the source of being alive) of which the only source, is God.

Matthew 10:28
"Fear not them which kill the body [soma], but are not able to kill the soul [psuche]: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul [psuche] and body [soma] in gehennah [G1067 geenna]."

The New Testament uses the word gehennah every time Jesus talks about the everlasting destruction of body and soul. Gehennah and the lake of fire burning with brimstone both represent an everlasting destruction of body and soul.

Revelation 20:10
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night to the ages of the ages."

Remember: Revelation 19:20 (previous chapter, not part of the last three chapters in the Bible) tells us that the beast and the false prophet were both thrown alive [zao] into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Disclaimer: Not "my input" but the Bible's input - I just summarized the first and last three chapters of the Bible.

God's TRUTH is Very Simple

When we obey JESUS Commandment = "Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the Mouth of God"

 

[claninja]

Amils tend to interpret a lot of things differently. Therefore, assuming someone is interpreting some of these things correctly, not everyone can be if not everyone is interpreting some of these things in the same manner. Amils argue it is Premils misinterpreting some of these things. Premils argue it is Amils misinterpreting some of these things. Don't want to admit that your view has been debunked, simply insist what allegedly debunks it is to be interpreted in another manner even if it makes zero sense of the texts involved. Anyone can play that game then. Including Amils.

I’m not sure what you are meaning by this here, but my point was that if you are arguing that revelation disproves amil because of its chronology, and then appeal to gospel passages that don’t necessarily clearly support your chronological argument for revelation, then it’s confusing as why you are appealing to those passages.

So for example, In the OP, your argument is, in part, that chronologically the 42 month reign of the beast, where the saints are killed, occurs prior to the millennium. Then the millennium occurs post the beast being thrown into the lake of fire, when these saints that were killed, are raised to life. Thus how can Amil believe the 42 month reign of the beast occurs parallel to Satan’s little season?

So I have no idea how appealing to Matthew 19:28 and Luke 19 supports your argument for the chronological view of revelation, specifically in regards to the reign of the beasts in relation to the millennium?

As to death being destroyed, well it can't be fully destroyed until after the great white throne judgment has concluded first. I would think we all should at least agree about that

I agree. According to revelation 20, death is destroyed AFTER the millennium.

No matter how you look at it, this verse couldn't possibly be involving the great white throne judgment at this point. And besides, the context does not support that the lost are also meant here since it would be absurd to apply the following to the lost as well.

1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet verse 54 says death is swallowed up in victory at this point in time. Swallowed up in victory for who? Both the saved and lost? Or only the saved? Anyone who agrees context matters, would be using verse 57 to determine that. Not to mention, 'death is swallowed up in victory' is being quoted from Isaiah 25:8.

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

1 Corinthians 15:54 is hardly the end of things. Look what all follows after Isaiah 25:8 in the book of Isaiah. We are supposed to just ignore all those details and take the easy way out? Interpret everything according to the NT alone? Who cares what the OT might have to say. Right? 1 Corinthians 15:54 says what it says. It says death is swallowed up in victory. Therefore, there is nothing more to see here. What follows Isaiah 25:8 in the book of Isaiah is irrelevant. The OT prophets shouldn't haven't wasted their time writing any of those things. All that is needed is the NT in order to arrive at the ENTIRE truth of all these things. I of course am being sarcastic here. But only in regards to those that the shoe might fit here.

This argument from silence, doesn’t address the point I made. Just because Paul doesn’t mention or is silent on the resurrection of the unjust in 1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t prove or disprove whether Paul believed the resurrection of all was one event or 2 events separated by an uncertain period of time

That being said…..

According to Peter, Christ is seated at the right hand, in heaven, UNTIL ALL his enemies are defeated. Paul adds, that the last enemy is death. And again, according to Peter, Christ is in heaven UNTIL the restoration of all things.

That means that locationally, Christ is in heaven during the millennium, IF Satan is still is not fully defeated, and IF death is not fully destroyed, and IF the restoration of all things has not fully occurred.

 

[David in NJ]

I’m not sure what you are meaning by this here, but my point was that if you are arguing that revelation disproves amil because of its chronology, and then appeal to gospel passages that don’t necessarily clearly support your chronological argument for revelation, then it’s confusing as why you are appealing to those passages.

So for example, In the OP, your argument is, in part, that chronologically the 42 month reign of the beast, where the saints are killed, occurs prior to the millennium. Then the millennium occurs post the beast being thrown into the lake of fire, when these saints that were killed, are raised to life. Thus how can Amil believe the 42 month reign of the beast occurs parallel to Satan’s little season?

So I have no idea how appealing to Matthew 19:28 and Luke 19 supports your argument for the chronological view of revelation, specifically in regards to the reign of the beasts in relation to the millennium?



I agree. According to revelation 20, death is destroyed AFTER the millennium.



This argument from silence, doesn’t address the point I made. Just because Paul doesn’t mention or is silent on the resurrection of the unjust in 1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t prove or disprove whether Paul believed the resurrection of all was one event or 2 events separated by an uncertain period of time

That being said…..

According to Peter, Christ is seated at the right hand, in heaven, UNTIL ALL his enemies are defeated. Paul adds, that the last enemy is death. And again, according to Peter, Christ is in heaven UNTIL the restoration of all things.

That means that locationally, Christ is in heaven during the millennium, IF Satan is still is not fully defeated, and IF death is not fully destroyed, and IF the restoration of all things has not fully occurred.

Revelation chapters 1 and 2 alone disprove amil doctrine

 

[David in NJ]

I’m not sure what you are meaning by this here, but my point was that if you are arguing that revelation disproves amil because of its chronology, and then appeal to gospel passages that don’t necessarily clearly support your chronological argument for revelation, then it’s confusing as why you are appealing to those passages.

So for example, In the OP, your argument is, in part, that chronologically the 42 month reign of the beast, where the saints are killed, occurs prior to the millennium. Then the millennium occurs post the beast being thrown into the lake of fire, when these saints that were killed, are raised to life. Thus how can Amil believe the 42 month reign of the beast occurs parallel to Satan’s little season?

So I have no idea how appealing to Matthew 19:28 and Luke 19 supports your argument for the chronological view of revelation, specifically in regards to the reign of the beasts in relation to the millennium?



I agree. According to revelation 20, death is destroyed AFTER the millennium.



This argument from silence, doesn’t address the point I made. Just because Paul doesn’t mention or is silent on the resurrection of the unjust in 1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t prove or disprove whether Paul believed the resurrection of all was one event or 2 events separated by an uncertain period of time

That being said…..

According to Peter, Christ is seated at the right hand, in heaven, UNTIL ALL his enemies are defeated. Paul adds, that the last enemy is death. And again, according to Peter, Christ is in heaven UNTIL the restoration of all things.

That means that locationally, Christ is in heaven during the millennium, IF Satan is still is not fully defeated, and IF death is not fully destroyed, and IF the restoration of all things has not fully occurred.

Every error leads to more error.

From the error of amil has come the even bigger and deadly error of "satan's Little Season all things fulfilled in 70AD"

 

[WPM]

Every error leads to more error.

From the error of amil has come the even bigger and deadly error of "satan's Little Season all things fulfilled in 70AD"

All you have now in your posts is frustration, avoidance, noise and ad hominem.

 

[Davidpt]

I’m not sure what you are meaning by this here, but my point was that if you are arguing that revelation disproves amil because of its chronology, and then appeal to gospel passages that don’t necessarily clearly support your chronological argument for revelation, then it’s confusing as why you are appealing to those passages.



.

It's simple. My reasoning is thus. If I am correct that those other examples I provided require a time period with a beginning and an end post Christ's return, that could only mean one thing in that case, that the millennium is the only thing that can possibly explain the time period required. Therefore, per this scenario, my reading of Revelation 19-20 has to be correct, since it would be absurd that the Amil reading is correct when Amil has the required time period placed before Christ's return rather than after. My point is of course moot if one convincingly argues that those other examples I provided don't require a time period with a beginning and an end post Christ's return.

 

[David in NJ]

All you have now in your posts is frustration, avoidance, noise and ad hominem.

that's what the pharisees said about JESUS and His disciples

 

[WPM]

that's what the pharisees said about JESUS and His disciples

I am done wasting my time with you. You have nothing of biblical worth to bring to the table.

 

[David in NJ]

I am done wasting my time with you. You have nothing of biblical worth to bring to the table.

that's what the pharisees said about JESUS and His disciples

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation chapters 1 and 2 alone disprove amil doctrine

Amils prove over and over how what they believe scripture is saying in one passage locks their minds and makes them interpret any other related passage or verse in a way which forces it to comply with what they already believe about the millennium.

- so they have to either ignore, or change the meaning of whatever may contradict what they believe regarding Amil.

The human mind will do this because the human mind is programmed to solve any sense of cognitive dissonance at all costs.

Many do not have the ability to allow scripture to produce what we believe, rather than what we already believe deciding how scripture "should be" interpreted. Only those with enough humility are wise enough to know the difference between the authority of God's Word and the "authority" of what we believe it's saying

- which is why fallible (and therefore flawed) human interpretations of the Word of God have become fortified in mountains of Amillenial theological works and recorded sermons.

 

[David in NJ]

Amils prove over and over how what they believe scripture is saying in one passage locks their minds and makes them interpret any other related passage or verse in a way which forces it to comply with what they already believe about the millennium.

- so they have to either ignore, or change the meaning of whatever may contradict what they believe regarding Amil.

The human mind will do this because the human mind is programmed to solve any sense of cognitive dissonance at all costs.

Many do not have the ability to allow scripture to produce what we believe, rather than what we already believe deciding how scripture "should be" interpreted. Only those with enough humility are wise enough to know the difference between the authority of God's Word and the "authority" of what we believe it's saying

- which is why fallible (and therefore flawed) human interpretations of the Word of God have become fortified in mountains of Amillenial theological works and recorded sermons.

Your post, by far, has crucial insight/wisdom from Above that i have read on this forum this past week = Thank You

Hopefully others will read and 'chew the cud' until they are able to digest and receive the Nutrients that can be derived from it.

SHALOM

 

[WPM]

Amils prove over and over how what they believe scripture is saying in one passage locks their minds and makes them interpret any other related passage or verse in a way which forces it to comply with what they already believe about the millennium.

- so they have to either ignore, or change the meaning of whatever may contradict what they believe regarding Amil.

The human mind will do this because the human mind is programmed to solve any sense of cognitive dissonance at all costs.

Many do not have the ability to allow scripture to produce what we believe, rather than what we already believe deciding how scripture "should be" interpreted. Only those with enough humility are wise enough to know the difference between the authority of God's Word and the "authority" of what we believe it's saying

- which is why fallible (and therefore flawed) human interpretations of the Word of God have become fortified in mountains of Amillenial theological works and recorded sermons.

You have just described Premil in a nutshell. You promote a doctrine that has zero corroboration. That is why Premils run when they are pressed on biblical support for their theory. I will put your beliefs to the test once more so the reader can see what many of us can:

1. What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there a literal future 1000 years+?
2. What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
3. Where in Scripture does it mention "resurrection days" (plural), pertaining to the end?
4. What Scripture (including Revelation 20) do you consider definitely teaches there are two distinct future judgement days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
5. Where in Scripture does it mention "judgement days" (plural), in regard to the end?
6. What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent, then released for a "little season" to deceive the nations, and then destroy them?
7. Where in Scripture including Revelation 20 does it teach that both unregenerate mortals and the glorified saints will inherit the future earth after the second coming of Christ?
8. What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that the wicked will grow to such an overwhelming number that they will overrun a future millennial earth as the sand of the sea and surround Christ and the glorified saints?

 

[claninja]

It's simple. My reasoning is thus. If I am correct that those other examples I provided require a time period with a beginning and an end post Christ's return, that could only mean one thing in that case, that the millennium is the only thing that can possibly explain the time period required. Therefore, per this scenario, my reading of Revelation 19-20 has to be correct, since it would be absurd that the Amil reading is correct when Amil has the required time period placed before Christ's return rather than after. My point is of course moot if one convincingly argues that those other examples I provided don't require a time period with a beginning and an end post Christ's return.

Not all amillennial interpreters read Matthew 19:28 as exclusively pre–Second Coming, just as not all premillennial interpreters read it as exclusively post–Second Coming. John Gill, a premil commentator, explicitly applies it to the present church age. So the rigid either/or framework you’re using against amillennialism is a false dilemma.


More importantly, nothing in the immediate context of Matthew 19:28 requires that the “regeneration” refers to a 1,000-year period followed by Satan’s release. Likewise, nothing in Luke 19 suggests a literal future millennium in which the disciples govern cities for a thousand years, only to have that period interrupted by a final satanic rebellion. So it’s unclear how these passages establish the premillennial reading of Revelation 20.


This leads to a key question: Is there any NT passage outside of Revelation that teaches a post-Second-Coming “regeneration” or kingdom era that is later interrupted by Satan for a little season? That kind of two-stage eschatology would be essential evidence for historic premillennialism, but the NT provides no such support.

And none of this addresses the issue Paul and Peter raise: Christ is seated at the right hand of God until all enemies are subdued (Acts 2:34–35; 1 Cor 15:25). Paul explicitly states that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. This directly contradicts the premillennial premise that Christ returns to earth before the destruction of Satan and death. If Jesus returns prior to the defeat of His enemies, then Christ is no longer “in heaven until all enemies are subdued,” which Peter anchors as a fixed eschatological sequence.

This is the central problem for premillennialism, and it remains unresolved.

 

[David in NJ]

Not all amillennial interpreters read Matthew 19:28 as exclusively pre–Second Coming, just as not all premillennial interpreters read it as exclusively post–Second Coming. John Gill, a premil commentator, explicitly applies it to the present church age. So the rigid either/or framework you’re using against amillennialism is a false dilemma.


More importantly, nothing in the immediate context of Matthew 19:28 requires that the “regeneration” refers to a 1,000-year period followed by Satan’s release. Likewise, nothing in Luke 19 suggests a literal future millennium in which the disciples govern cities for a thousand years, only to have that period interrupted by a final satanic rebellion. So it’s unclear how these passages establish the premillennial reading of Revelation 20.


This leads to a key question: Is there any NT passage outside of Revelation that teaches a post-Second-Coming “regeneration” or kingdom era that is later interrupted by Satan for a little season? That kind of two-stage eschatology would be essential evidence for historic premillennialism, but the NT provides no such support.

And none of this addresses the issue Paul and Peter raise: Christ is seated at the right hand of God until all enemies are subdued (Acts 2:34–35; 1 Cor 15:25). Paul explicitly states that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. This directly contradicts the premillennial premise that Christ returns to earth before the destruction of Satan and death. If Jesus returns prior to the defeat of His enemies, then Christ is no longer “in heaven until all enemies are subdued,” which Peter anchors as a fixed eschatological sequence.

This is the central problem for premillennialism, and it remains unresolved.

presuppositions, dogmatism of doctrines along with intellectualism cannot unlock the wealth in the Scriptures

Failure to abide under the Ordination of Scripture results in circumvention fueled by religion, respect of persons and counterfeit apostles, prophets and teachers

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My point was that from solely a literal chronologically, the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire prior to the millennium, based on revelation 20:10.

Obviously. Why would you feel the need to make such an obvious point as that? That's why there is such a thing as Premillennialism. They assume what is described in Revelation 19 and 20 is all chronological. But, it should also be obvious to everyone that not everything in the book is chronological. The most obvious example of that is Revelation 11 and 12.

 

[David in NJ]

Obviously. Why would you feel the need to make such an obvious point as that? That's why there is such a thing as Premillennialism. They assume what is described in Revelation 19 and 20 is all chronological. But, it should also be obvious to everyone that not everything in the book is chronological. The most obvious example of that is Revelation 11 and 12.

There is chronological events in Revelation

Just not STRAIGHT from Beginning to End as the LORD made it to be a multiplicity of revealings of His Coming

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation chapters 1 and 2 alone disprove amil doctrine

All you do is make claims while doing NOTHING to support your claims. How can you think that can be taken seriously? It can't. How about actually showing how you think those chapters supposedly disprove Amil doctrine? Is that too much to ask?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is chronological events in Revelation

Did I say otherwise?

Just not STRAIGHT from Beginning to End as the LORD made it to be a multiplicity of revealings of His Coming

Of course.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Amils prove over and over how what they believe scripture is saying in one passage locks their minds and makes them interpret any other related passage or verse in a way which forces it to comply with what they already believe about the millennium.

- so they have to either ignore, or change the meaning of whatever may contradict what they believe regarding Amil.

The human mind will do this because the human mind is programmed to solve any sense of cognitive dissonance at all costs.

Many do not have the ability to allow scripture to produce what we believe, rather than what we already believe deciding how scripture "should be" interpreted. Only those with enough humility are wise enough to know the difference between the authority of God's Word and the "authority" of what we believe it's saying

- which is why fallible (and therefore flawed) human interpretations of the Word of God have become fortified in mountains of Amillenial theological works and recorded sermons.

LOL. You spew such foolishness. You Premils are full of hot air and are completely incapable of making coherent arguments to support your doctrine. That has been proven over and over again for many years on forums like this.