26 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[Davidpt]

Can you tell me how you interpret the following passage.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Paul explicitly taught that when Jesus comes He will be "taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord". So, who are these people exactly that you think will survive His return and why exactly would they be allowed to survive? Obviously, believers will survive because we will be changed to put on bodily immortality at that time. But, who are these mortal unbelievers that you think will survive His return and why didn't Paul know anything about them? And why would Jesus not take vengeance on them when they would fit the description of those who Paul said Jesus will take vengeance on when He returns?

Both testaments are holy writ and I know you fully agree. The question then is, how to square both passages without contradicting anything.

The first thing to do per the passage you brought up, is to try and determine if there be can be any exceptions. And if we can find some why can't that mean there might be even more?

Take infants, for example. They obviously would not know God nor would they be obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. One can't be a saved Christian if both of those things apply to someone. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to infants when Christ returns, regardless?

Next let's consider someone mentally challenged that can't comprehend the simplest of things, let alone comprehend that there is a God. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to the mentally challenged I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

What about someone living in a remote region that was never informed that there is a God? If they don't know about a creator God they for sure are not going to know about His Son. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to this person I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

The point still being, if there can be exceptions, why can't there be other exceptions, thus making Zechariah 14:16 possible post that of 2 Thessalonians 1:8?

That's how I interpret the passage you submitted, that it depends on whether there can be exceptions. And if there can be, why can't there be other exceptions?

Speaking of Zechariah 14:16, that is clearly a prediction, a prophecy that begins with---and it shall come to pass. We need to ask our self this. Does the Bible have a track record of predicting things that come to pass that never actually come to pass, in any sense, be it a literal sense or some other sense, therefore, making it a false prophecy?

Maybe it comes across that I'm avoiding answering your question. Except I'm not. I'm just being careful here by trying to determine if there can be exceptions rather than there are no exceptions, case closed, Zechariah 14:16 can't be after 2 Thess 1:8, because to do so would contradict it. But since we both agree both testaments are holy writ, what about Zechariah 14:16 being contradicted if there are no mortal survivors after verse 12 has been fulfilled and that verse 12 is yet to be fulfilled? Why doesn't that contradiction count?

 

[WPM]

Both testaments are holy writ and I know you fully agree. The question then is, how to square both passages without contradicting anything.

The first thing to do per the passage you brought up, is to try and determine if there be can be any exceptions. And if we can find some why can't that mean there might be even more?

Take infants, for example. They obviously would not know God nor would they be obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. One can't be a saved Christian if both of those things apply to someone. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to infants when Christ returns, regardless?

Next let's consider someone mentally challenged that can't comprehend the simplest of things, let alone comprehend that there is a God. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to the mentally challenged I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

What about someone living in a remote region that was never informed that there is a God? If they don't know about a creator God they for sure are not going to know about His Son. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to this person I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

The point still being, if there can be exceptions, why can't there be other exceptions, thus making Zechariah 14:16 possible post that of 2 Thessalonians 1:8?

That's how I interpret the passage you submitted, that it depends on whether there can be exceptions. And if there can be, why can't there be other exceptions?

Speaking of Zechariah 14:16, that is clearly a prediction, a prophecy that begins with---and it shall come to pass. We need to ask our self this. Does the Bible have a track record of predicting things that come to pass that never actually come to pass, in any sense, be it a literal sense or some other sense, therefore, making it a false prophecy?

Maybe it comes across that I'm avoiding answering your question. Except I'm not. I'm just being careful here by trying to determine if there can be exceptions rather than there are no exceptions, case closed, Zechariah 14:16 can't be after 2 Thess 1:8, because to do so would contradict it. But since we both agree both testaments are holy writ, what about Zechariah 14:16 being contradicted if there are no mortal survivors after verse 12 has been fulfilled and that verse 12 is yet to be fulfilled? Why doesn't that contradiction count?

You cannot take God's Word literally. You invent exceptions and then build your thesis upon your invented exceptions. That is ridiculous. That is because it forbids Premil. You are tampering with the text. It seems like anything that cuts across what you think and feel is explained away.

 

[Scott Downey]

Both testaments are holy writ and I know you fully agree. The question then is, how to square both passages without contradicting anything.

The first thing to do per the passage you brought up, is to try and determine if there be can be any exceptions. And if we can find some why can't that mean there might be even more?

Take infants, for example. They obviously would not know God nor would they be obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. One can't be a saved Christian if both of those things apply to someone. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to infants when Christ returns, regardless?

Next let's consider someone mentally challenged that can't comprehend the simplest of things, let alone comprehend that there is a God. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to the mentally challenged I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

What about someone living in a remote region that was never informed that there is a God? If they don't know about a creator God they for sure are not going to know about His Son. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to this person I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

The point still being, if there can be exceptions, why can't there be other exceptions, thus making Zechariah 14:16 possible post that of 2 Thessalonians 1:8?

That's how I interpret the passage you submitted, that it depends on whether there can be exceptions. And if there can be, why can't there be other exceptions?

Speaking of Zechariah 14:16, that is clearly a prediction, a prophecy that begins with---and it shall come to pass. We need to ask our self this. Does the Bible have a track record of predicting things that come to pass that never actually come to pass, in any sense, be it a literal sense or some other sense, therefore, making it a false prophecy?

Maybe it comes across that I'm avoiding answering your question. Except I'm not. I'm just being careful here by trying to determine if there can be exceptions rather than there are no exceptions, case closed, Zechariah 14:16 can't be after 2 Thess 1:8, because to do so would contradict it. But since we both agree both testaments are holy writ, what about Zechariah 14:16 being contradicted if there are no mortal survivors after verse 12 has been fulfilled and that verse 12 is yet to be fulfilled? Why doesn't that contradiction count?

It never says that they do not worship the King, (Christ), just if they do not come together to worship, they have no rain, as in blessing from God.
So don't read that they don't worship Christ. Every knee bows and every tongue will confess Christ as LORD, to the glory of God the Father.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that every one who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem, shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up and come not, upon whom there is no rain, there shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen who come not up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Romans 14
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written: “‘As I live,’ saith the Lord, ‘every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’”

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Where ever they are, on earth, below the earth (hell), above the earth (heaven) they will do this.

 

[Scott Downey]

The only survivors of all nations when Christ returns are Christians.

 

[Scott Downey]

Who are these people who have know the depths of Satan?
They are dashed to pieces. When you smash a potter's vessel, it's entire utility is destroyed and it is no longer fit for use.
Ruling them with a rod of Iron, they are smashed to bits as commanded by the Father to Christ.

Revelation 2
18 “And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘These things saith the Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire, and His feet are like fine brass:
19 I know thy works, and charity and service, and faith and thy patience, and thy works, and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce My servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He that searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine and who have not known the depths of Satan (as they say) I will put upon you no other burden.
25 But that which ye have already, hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh and keepeth My works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations,
27 and “he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers,” even as I have received from My Father.
28 And I will give him the morning star.
29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches!’

​

 

[Davidpt]

It never says that they do not worship the King, (Christ), just if they do not come together to worship, they have no rain, as in blessing from God.
So don't read that they don't worship Christ. Every knee bows and every tongue will confess Christ as LORD, to the glory of God the Father.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that every one who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem, shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up and come not, upon whom there is no rain, there shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen who come not up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Romans 14
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written: “‘As I live,’ saith the Lord, ‘every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’”

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Where ever they are, on earth, below the earth (hell), above the earth (heaven) they will do this.

Why even bring up something about they receiving no rain if they don't come up if it's something they never fail to do to begin with, to come up? Why bring up something that's not even applicable to them? What point would that be making?

Do you then see Zechariah 14:16-19 fitting all of eternity? Or are you applying it to the here and now before Christ returns? Keeping in mind that it can't even come to pass until verse 2 and verse 12 has been fulfilled first. And that verse 12 undeniably has not been fulfilled in any sense. Anyone that claims otherwise is not going to be anyone someone can reason with if they believe that.

Getting back to Zechariah 14:16 again for a moment. Let's not forget, the text says they are to come up from year to year. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, whether that be meaning in a literal sense or some other sense, it is impossible to do that in a single day. Once again, anyone that would argue otherwise is not going to be someone one can reason with if they believe that.

 

[Davidpt]

The only survivors of all nations when Christ returns are Christians.

That would be 100% false IF Premil is true. The ones devoured by fire after the millennium certainly aren't Christians.

 

[Davidpt]

So don't read that they don't worship Christ. Every knee bows and every tongue will confess Christ as LORD, to the glory of God the Father.

Here's an idea. Why don't we stick to what the text actually says? Is that too much to ask? Here's what the text says---shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. What does come up from year to year have to do with this---every knee bows and every tongue will confess Christ as LORD, to the glory of God the Father? Is that too meaning in an ongoing sense, such as from year to year? Thus something that can't get accomplished in a single day nor per a one time event.

 

[Davidpt]

It never says that they do not worship the King, (Christ), just if they do not come together to worship, they have no rain, as in blessing from God.
So don't read that they don't worship Christ. Every knee bows and every tongue will confess Christ as LORD, to the glory of God the Father.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that every one who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem, shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up and come not, upon whom there is no rain, there shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen who come not up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Romans 14
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written: “‘As I live,’ saith the Lord, ‘every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’”

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Where ever they are, on earth, below the earth (hell), above the earth (heaven) they will do this.

Let's follow your logic to its necessary conclusion. You claim that the only survivors of the nations are Christians. Presumably, at the return of Christ, these Christians are either glorified or perfectly sanctified, living under the direct, visible rule of King Jesus.
If that is true, look at the absurd picture you are painting of Zechariah 14.

According to the texts---

1. You are claiming that true, born-again Christians living under Christ's direct earthly reign will actively choose not to go up to Jerusalem to keep the feast.
2. You are claiming that God will have to punish these Christians by withholding physical rain from their crops.
3. You are claiming that God will strike these Christians with a physical plague for their stubbornness.

Why would perfected Christians need to be threatened with agricultural starvation and plagues to force them to worship the King they love? Plagues and droughts are punishments for the heathen (which verse 18 explicitly calls them). The text clearly describes a world with mortal, fallible nations who are capable of rebellion, not a world populated exclusively by the redeemed

Something else Amils are not factoring in here if Zechariah 14:16 is involving the NJ in the NHNE. Christians don't need to come up, they are already there residing within the NJ itself. Remember, Jesus said that where I am there shall you be also, Where will Jesus be forever once He returns? Is it not in the NJ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Both testaments are holy writ and I know you fully agree. The question then is, how to square both passages without contradicting anything.

That question is based on your assumption that both passages have to be related to the same event (the return of Christ). I am not obligated to buy into that assumption, so I don't. I see no way at all to reconcile the two passages if they are about the same event. If they were about the same event then that would force me to conclude that scripture is contradicting itself in the case of these two passages. And, of course, we both know that scripture never contradicts itself, so that is not a valid option to consider.

The first thing to do per the passage you brought up, is to try and determine if there be can be any exceptions. And if we can find some why can't that mean there might be even more?

There isn't, but since you are hellbent on being a Premil, then you try to find a way to do the impossible, anyway.

Take infants, for example. They obviously would not know God nor would they be obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. One can't be a saved Christian if both of those things apply to someone. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to infants when Christ returns, regardless?

Infants are innocent and will be among those who put on bodily immortality when Jesus returns. What are you suggesting, that you think mortal infants will populate the supposed future earthly kingdom?

Next let's consider someone mentally challenged that can't comprehend the simplest of things, let alone comprehend that there is a God. So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to the mentally challenged I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

Are you suggesting that the mortals who will populate a supposed earthly millennial kingdom will be composed of infants and mentally challenged people? This is the argument you're trying to go with here? God knows what each person is capable of. Jesus made it clear that all people are placed into two groups. Those that are with Him and those who are against Him (Matthew 12:30). Thankfully, it's not up to us to make that determination for each person, but it seems clear that the ones who are considered to be against Him are those who knowingly reject God/Jesus. Those who are with Him (saved) will put on bodily immortality when He returns. You're apparently trying to come up with a theory that any people who don't really know what they're doing will populate the earth for a thousand years. Where is that taught anywhere in scripture and what would be the point of that?

Take Matthew 25:31-46, for example and keep 1 Corinthains 15:50 in consideration as well. Those passages indicate that those who inherit the kingdom when Jesus returns will inherit eternal life with immortal bodies at that time. So, how does that leave room for mortals inheriting temporal mortal life in the kingdom at that time?

What about someone living in a remote region that was never informed that there is a God? If they don't know about a creator God they for sure are not going to know about His Son.

Read Romans 1:18-32. Everyone knows about a creator God because He has made Himself plain to everyone by what He has made. Some people suppress that knowledge, but they have no excuse for it. So, this argument doesn't hold any water. Every person is judged based on what they know and every person is in one of two groups. Saved or lost. With Jesus or against Him. Wheat and tares. Sheep and goats. Your attempt to create a third category of people who will be allowed to survive Christ's return in their mortal bodies is not supported by scripture anywhere, including Zechariah 14.

So what do we do here? Make an exception in this case? Or should we assume that verse 8 will be applied to this person I just described when Christ returns, regardless?

The point still being, if there can be exceptions, why can't there be other exceptions, thus making Zechariah 14:16 possible post that of 2 Thessalonians 1:8?

There are no exceptions. You certainly can't support that theory with any scripture. Why would there be any exceptions? You apparently think that the earth will be populated by mentally ill people, infants and people living in remote places after Jesus returns. Who will take care of the infants at that point? Their parents will all either put on bodily immortality or be killed when Jesus returns. I just can't take this seriously at all. You are really reaching here.

That's how I interpret the passage you submitted, that it depends on whether there can be exceptions. And if there can be, why can't there be other exceptions?

How can there be exceptions when your theory results in millions of infants being in the world with no parents?

Speaking of Zechariah 14:16, that is clearly a prediction, a prophecy that begins with---and it shall come to pass. We need to ask our self this. Does the Bible have a track record of predicting things that come to pass that never actually come to pass, in any sense, be it a literal sense or some other sense, therefore, making it a false prophecy?

I never said that the prophecy never has or will come to pass. Did I? No, I'm sure I did not. But, I also think it's highly symbolic and doesn't make any sense to try to figure out how it did or will come to pass literally. You can't get it to line up with the rest of scripture when you take it all (or most of it) literally. Can you admit that?

Maybe it comes across that I'm avoiding answering your question. Except I'm not. I'm just being careful here by trying to determine if there can be exceptions rather than there are no exceptions, case closed,

What scriptures can you point to that would allow these exceptions? Who would take care of all of those infants and mentally ill people that would survive Christ's return in this scenario?

Zechariah 14:16 can't be after 2 Thess 1:8, because to do so would contradict it. But since we both agree both testaments are holy writ, what about Zechariah 14:16 being contradicted if there are no mortal survivors after verse 12 has been fulfilled and that verse 12 is yet to be fulfilled? Why doesn't that contradiction count?

You assume that verse 12 is meant to be interpreted literally, yet I know that you interpret some of the other verses in Zechariah 14 figuratively. Why do you assume that verse 12 has to be interpreted literally? Yet, you somehow conclude that a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12 is not meant to be interpreted literally. I don't get it.

 

[WPM]

That question is based on your assumption that both passages have to be related to the same event (the return of Christ). I am not obligated to buy into that assumption, so I don't. I see no way at all to reconcile the two passages if they are about the same event. If they were about the same event then that would force me to conclude that scripture is contradicting itself in the case of these two passages. And, of course, we both know that scripture never contradicts itself, so that is not a valid option to consider.


There isn't, but since you are hellbent on being a Premil, then you try to find a way to do the impossible, anyway.


Infants are innocent and will be among those who put on bodily immortality when Jesus returns. What are you suggesting, that you think mortal infants will populate the supposed future earthly kingdom?


Are you suggesting that the mortals who will populate a supposed earthly millennial kingdom will be composed of infants and mentally challenged people? This is the argument you're trying to go with here? God knows what each person is capable of. Jesus made it clear that all people are placed into two groups. Those that are with Him and those who are against Him (Matthew 12:30). Thankfully, it's not up to us to make that determination for each person, but it seems clear that the ones who are considered to be against Him are those who knowingly reject God/Jesus. Those who are with Him (saved) will put on bodily immortality when He returns. You're apparently trying to come up with a theory that any people who don't really know what they're doing will populate the earth for a thousand years. Where is that taught anywhere in scripture and what would be the point of that?

Take Matthew 25:31-46, for example and keep 1 Corinthains 15:50 in consideration as well. Those passages indicate that those who inherit the kingdom when Jesus returns will inherit eternal life with immortal bodies at that time. So, how does that leave room for mortals inheriting temporal mortal life in the kingdom at that time?


Read Romans 1:18-32. Everyone knows about a creator God because He has made Himself plain to everyone by what He has made. Some people suppress that knowledge, but they have no excuse for it. So, this argument doesn't hold any water. Every person is judged based on what they know and every person is in one of two groups. Saved or lost. With Jesus or against Him. Wheat and tares. Sheep and goats. Your attempt to create a third category of people who will be allowed to survive Christ's return in their mortal bodies is not supported by scripture anywhere, including Zechariah 14.


There are no exceptions. You certainly can't support that theory with any scripture. Why would there be any exceptions? You apparently think that the earth will be populated by mentally ill people, infants and people living in remote places after Jesus returns. Who will take care of the infants at that point? Their parents will all either put on bodily immortality or be killed when Jesus returns. I just can't take this seriously at all. You are really reaching here.


How can there be exceptions when your theory results in millions of infants being in the world with no parents?


I never said that the prophecy never has or will come to pass. Did I? No, I'm sure I did not. But, I also think it's highly symbolic and doesn't make any sense to try to figure out how it did or will come to pass literally. You can't get it to line up with the rest of scripture when you take it all (or most of it) literally. Can you admit that?


What scriptures can you point to that would allow these exceptions? Who would take care of all of those infants and mentally ill people that would survive Christ's return in this scenario?


You assume that verse 12 is meant to be interpreted literally, yet I know that you interpret some of the other verses in Zechariah 14 figuratively. Why do you assume that verse 12 has to be interpreted literally? Yet, you somehow conclude that a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12 is not meant to be interpreted literally. I don't get it.

You are only going to get Premil soundbites from him, not an acknowledgment of what it means.

 

[Davidpt]

That question is based on your assumption that both passages have to be related to the same event (the return of Christ). I am not obligated to buy into that assumption, so I don't. I see no way at all to reconcile the two passages if they are about the same event. If they were about the same event then that would force me to conclude that scripture is contradicting itself in the case of these two passages. And, of course, we both know that scripture never contradicts itself, so that is not a valid option to consider.


There isn't, but since you are hellbent on being a Premil, then you try to find a way to do the impossible, anyway.


Infants are innocent and will be among those who put on bodily immortality when Jesus returns. What are you suggesting, that you think mortal infants will populate the supposed future earthly kingdom?


Are you suggesting that the mortals who will populate a supposed earthly millennial kingdom will be composed of infants and mentally challenged people? This is the argument you're trying to go with here? God knows what each person is capable of. Jesus made it clear that all people are placed into two groups. Those that are with Him and those who are against Him (Matthew 12:30). Thankfully, it's not up to us to make that determination for each person, but it seems clear that the ones who are considered to be against Him are those who knowingly reject God/Jesus. Those who are with Him (saved) will put on bodily immortality when He returns. You're apparently trying to come up with a theory that any people who don't really know what they're doing will populate the earth for a thousand years. Where is that taught anywhere in scripture and what would be the point of that?

Take Matthew 25:31-46, for example and keep 1 Corinthains 15:50 in consideration as well. Those passages indicate that those who inherit the kingdom when Jesus returns will inherit eternal life with immortal bodies at that time. So, how does that leave room for mortals inheriting temporal mortal life in the kingdom at that time?


Read Romans 1:18-32. Everyone knows about a creator God because He has made Himself plain to everyone by what He has made. Some people suppress that knowledge, but they have no excuse for it. So, this argument doesn't hold any water. Every person is judged based on what they know and every person is in one of two groups. Saved or lost. With Jesus or against Him. Wheat and tares. Sheep and goats. Your attempt to create a third category of people who will be allowed to survive Christ's return in their mortal bodies is not supported by scripture anywhere, including Zechariah 14.


There are no exceptions. You certainly can't support that theory with any scripture. Why would there be any exceptions? You apparently think that the earth will be populated by mentally ill people, infants and people living in remote places after Jesus returns. Who will take care of the infants at that point? Their parents will all either put on bodily immortality or be killed when Jesus returns. I just can't take this seriously at all. You are really reaching here.


How can there be exceptions when your theory results in millions of infants being in the world with no parents?


I never said that the prophecy never has or will come to pass. Did I? No, I'm sure I did not. But, I also think it's highly symbolic and doesn't make any sense to try to figure out how it did or will come to pass literally. You can't get it to line up with the rest of scripture when you take it all (or most of it) literally. Can you admit that?


What scriptures can you point to that would allow these exceptions? Who would take care of all of those infants and mentally ill people that would survive Christ's return in this scenario?


You assume that verse 12 is meant to be interpreted literally, yet I know that you interpret some of the other verses in Zechariah 14 figuratively. Why do you assume that verse 12 has to be interpreted literally? Yet, you somehow conclude that a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12 is not meant to be interpreted literally. I don't get it.

Look at how you are arguing over all. You insist that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is exactly like Noah's flood. Were there any infants in the earth at the time? Did God spare any of them? Yet you have God sparing them during 2 Peter 3:10-12 that you insist is meaning the earth is literally engulfed in flames the same way it was literally engulfed in water. You know good and well, that if there were infants and children in the earth at the time, that God did not spare a single one of them. And now you are making exceptions. God couldn't care less about any infants and children during Noah's flood but during your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 He decided to care about infants and children all of a sudden. The reason I'm bringing 2 Peter 3:10-12 up is because of how I know you connect it with Noah's flood. And that Noah's flood involved both infants and children drowning to death. But now you have God sparing them per 2 Peter 3:10-12.

You can make and find exceptions for things but when I try and do that, that equals bad.

Zechariah 14:12 has not been fulfilled yet. Until it is fulfilled verse 16 can't come to pass in the meantime. Which means per Amil that verses 16-19 have to fit all of eternity in that case. It doesn't matter that you might disagree and that's not your position. That is beside the point. The text demands it per Amil. If you have a problem with that, be sure to recall how you insist that if Premils place verse 16 after the 2nd coming, that this means that literal animal sacrificing resumes. Yet I plainly told you that is not my position, that I do not even remotely believe literal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming. So don't act like you can tell me what verse 16 would mean per Premil but I can't tell you what verse 16 would mean per Amil, that being the point. So be sure to play fair here.

On a different note. I was listening to an Amil on Youtube the other day in regard to an Amil's(his) interpretation of Zechariah 14. He too was all over the place in that chapter like you are, where he too was making nonsense out of the chronology. Unlike some of you he agreed with Premils that the 2nd coming is recorded in that ch. But guess what he did with verses 6-9? He applied verse 6 and 7 to Christ's death, then applied verse 9 to His resurrection and what all follows that, thus this past 2K years. The point is, I can't find a single example when an Amil interprets Zechariah 14, that it makes sense of the chapter as a whole. The only Amil that has gotten close to making sense of Zechariah 14 as a whole is @PinSeeker. And to a lesser degree, @Truth7t7 . Look at the way the ch begins, it begins with the DOTL. And that verse 6 and 7 is about the death of Christ 2K years ago??? Or that verse 6 and 7 is about what you have it being about?

But according to the chronology of events, verses 6-9 can't precede verse 2, it is meaning after it.

 

[WPM]

Look at how you are arguing over all. You insist that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is exactly like Noah's flood. Were there any infants in the earth at the time? Did God spare any of them? Yet you have God sparing them during 2 Peter 3:10-12 that you insist is meaning the earth is literally engulfed in flames the same way it was literally engulfed in water. You know good and well, that if there were infants and children in the earth at the time, that God did not spare a single one of them. And now you are making exceptions. God couldn't care less about any infants and children during Noah's flood but during your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 He decided to care about infants and children all of a sudden. The reason I'm bringing 2 Peter 3:10-12 up is because of how I know you connect it with Noah's flood. And that Noah's flood involved both infants and children drowning to death. But now you have God sparing them per 2 Peter 3:10-12.

You can make and find exceptions for things but when I try and do that, that equals bad.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

 

[WPM]

Zechariah 14:12 has not been fulfilled yet. Until it is fulfilled verse 16 can't come to pass in the meantime. Which means per Amil that verses 16-19 have to fit all of eternity in that case. It doesn't matter that you might disagree and that's not your position. That is beside the point. The text demands it per Amil. If you have a problem with that, be sure to recall how you insist that if Premils place verse 16 after the 2nd coming, that this means that literal animal sacrificing resumes. Yet I plainly told you that is not my position, that I do not even remotely believe literal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming. So don't act like you can tell me what verse 16 would mean per Premil but I can't tell you what verse 16 would mean per Amil, that being the point. So be sure to play fair here.

On a different note. I was listening to an Amil on Youtube the other day in regard to an Amil's(his) interpretation of Zechariah 14. He too was all over the place in that chapter like you are, where he too was making nonsense out of the chronology. Unlike some of you he agreed with Premils that the 2nd coming is recorded in that ch. But guess what he did with verses 6-9? He applied verse 6 and 7 to Christ's death, then applied verse 9 to His resurrection and what all follows that, thus this past 2K years. The point is, I can't find a single example when an Amil interprets Zechariah 14, that it makes sense of the chapter as a whole. Look at the way the ch begins, it begins with the DOTL. And that verse 6 and 7 is about the death of Christ 2K years ago??? Or that verse 6 and 7 is about what you have it being about?

But according to the chronology, verses 6-9 can't precede verse 2, it is meaning after it.

Zechariah 14 occurred 2000 years ago. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

Hinneh Behold
yowm- day
baa' cometh
la-Yahweh the Lord
wªchulaq divides
shªlaaleek the spoils
bªqirbeek in the midst

This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the text. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’.

There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the second coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. We cannot therefore, with any certainty, insist upon the fact that this verse is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.

The NASB says: "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."

The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."

A perusal of the Greek LXX Septuagint rendering of this passage supports this interpretation:

idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai comes
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you

When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original.

In the New Testament:

Of the five “day of the Lord” passages in the New Testament, they read in the original:

Three are: “hemera kurios” (Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10).

Two are: “hemera ho kurios” (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14).

In the Greek LXX Septuagint

Of the twenty “day of the Lord” passages in the Old Testament:

Eleven are: “hemera kurios” (Isaiah 13:6, 9, Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:31, 3:14, Obadiah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:14, Malachi 4:5)

Four are: “hemera ho kurios” (Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, Zephaniah 1:7)

We can see, fifteen align precisely with the Greek New Testament wording and confirm that this would be the normal rendering of the coming of Christ in the Greek. That is 75%.

One reads: “hemera ekeinos kurios” (Jeremiah 46:10), also meaning day of the Lord.

One is: “hemera gar kurios” (Isaiah 2:12), literally meaning day for the Lord.

Finally, there are two references (one after the other in Zephaniah) that refer to the same climactic day. One says, “hemera thumos kurios” (Zephaniah 2:2), meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. The other reads, “hemera orge kurios” (Zephaniah 2:3), similarly meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. Plainly, they are both speaking of the same day in the same reading and in the same context.

That brings us to Zechariah 14:1, which is worded completely different from the rest, saying, “hmerai erxontai tou kuriou,” literally meaning “a day is coming for the LORD.” None of the other passages say this. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between Zechariah’s description and that of the other nineteen references. The only similarity is the King James Version’s translation of the same in the English. Notwithstanding, regardless of how high one values the A.V. one cannot use this as conclusive proof for equating the day Zechariah is speaking of to the other nineteen. The original rendering supersedes any other translations.

Because this does not literally read “the day of the Lord” then we don’t have to understand it as “the day of the Lord.” If it were, it would have most likely read hemera kurios or hemera ho kurios in the Greek LXX Septuagint. Or failing that: hemera ekeinos kurios.

Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question Premils identification of it with the second coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.

 

[Davidpt]

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Obviously, per the flood, God had zero compassion for any infants and children still alive at the time. We at least know that much unless we want to argue that there were survivors not aboard the ark, or that there were no infants and children in those days.

 

[Davidpt]

Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question Premils identification of it with the second coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.

Prove you know what you are talking about here. No matter how you look at it, some of Zechariah 14 involves the same era of time as the NT is involving. None of it is meaning before the first coming. Some of us argue that some of it is meaning after the 2nd coming. But that is debatable. It is not debatable that none of it is meaning before the 1st coming, though.

Therefore, point out this other day of the Lord in the NT that is meaning the one in Zechariah 14 but is not meaning the one that comes like a thief in the night. The NT only knows of one day of the Lord not more than one and at different times. And you clearly know it.

On a side note: I decided to give your argument to an AI to analyze before I submit this just to see if you might be correct about Zechariah 14:1 not meaning the day of the Lord, that we take it to mean in the NT. I gave your entire post to the AI to analyze. I had to shorten in this post because it exceeded max chars allowed if I didn't.

---------------------
An AI:

## Short answer

He is right about the *wording* of Zechariah 14:1, but wrong about what the wording *means*. The construction he is relying on — *yôm bāʾ la-YHWH* ("a day is coming for the LORD") — is itself a standard Hebrew way of saying "the day of the LORD." His lexical distinction is an illusion, and ironically, the LXX evidence he cites actually refutes him.

## What he gets right

- The Hebrew reads הִנֵּה־יוֹם בָּא לַיהוָה (*hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*) — "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD."
- The KJV's "the day of the LORD cometh" smooths the word order; NASB/ESV/CSB are more literal. The CSB is the most precise: "a day **belonging to** the LORD is coming."
- Hebrew has no indefinite article, so *yôm* is "a day."

So far, correct. But here the argument collapses.

## The *lamed* is the Day of the LORD

The ל (lamed) prefixed to יהוה is a **lamed of possession/belonging**. Hebrew expresses possession two ways — construct chain (*yôm YHWH*) or with the lamed (*yôm la-YHWH*) — and both are the same technical eschatological term:

- **Isaiah 2:12** — כִּי יוֹם־לַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת, "the day of the LORD of hosts" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Zephaniah 1:7** — כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם־לַיהוָה, "the day of the LORD is near" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Jeremiah 46:10** — וְיוֹם לָאָדוֹן יְהוִה, "that day is a day of the Lord GOD of hosts"

Note the irony: **he himself concedes Isaiah 2:12** — the exact same construction — is the Day of the Lord. That is special pleading.

Even more fatal: **Isaiah 13:9** reads הִנֵּה יוֹם־יְהוָה בָּא (*hinneh yôm-YHWH bāʾ*) — "Behold, the day of the LORD comes" — nearly identical to Zechariah 14:1's *hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*. The only difference is construct vs. lamed possession, which is semantically nil. (Malachi 3:19 [ET 4:1] likewise uses the "behold, a day is coming" formula for the unambiguous Day of the LORD.) HALOT and BDB both list Zechariah 14:1 under "day of the LORD."

## The LXX evidence backfires

He misquotes the LXX by dropping a word. Ras/Hanhart read:

> ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, **ἡμέρα κυρίου**, καὶ διαμερισθήσεται ἡ ἁλῶσις σού ἐν μέσῳ σού
> "Behold, days are coming — **the day of the Lord** — and your spoil shall be divided in your midst"

The ancient translators doubled the noun: "days are coming, *[that is,]* the **day of the Lord**" — using ἡμέρα κυρίου, the very formula he says is "the normal rendering" of the Day of the LORD. The LXX is a witness *against* his thesis, not for it. He needed to erase ἡμέρα to make his case.

## His statistics are garbled and irrelevant

- The NT distinction he draws is actually between ἡμέρα **κυρίου** (anarthrous: Acts 2:20; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10) and ἡμέρα **τοῦ κυρίου** (genitive article: 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14). There is no reading "hemera ho kurios" — he has mislabeled the genitive article. Article usage in Greek possessives varies stylistically with **zero change in referent**.
- Variation among LXX translators across a dozen books reflects translator habit, not a different "day." Whatever Greek clothing each translator chose, the underlying Hebrew technical idiom is one and the same — and Zechariah 14:1 uses it.

## Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails

The chapter's content rules out the first advent: YHWH coming **with all the holy ones** (14:5 — cf. 1 Thess 3:13), feet on the Mount of Olives (14:4 — cf. Acts 1), living waters from Jerusalem (14:8 — cf. Rev 22:1), "the LORD shall be king over all the earth" (14:9), no more Canaanite in the house of the LORD (14:21 — cf. Rev 21:27). Nothing like this occurred c. AD 30.

And note: the "first advent" application isn't even the mainstream amillennial position. Amillennial scholars (e.g., Hoekema, Baldwin in NICOT) treat Zechariah 14 as the final judgment and consummation in apocalyptic-pictorial language; preterists place it at AD 70. Neither camp needs — or uses — his lexical argument.

## Bottom line

Correct transcription, faulty conclusion. "A day belonging to the LORD is coming" is simply how Hebrew says "the Day of the LORD is coming" — the *lamed* performs the same function as the English "of." The LXX explicitly names it ἡμέρα κυρίου, and his own concession on Isaiah 2:12 (same construction) defeats him. Zechariah 14:1 *does* declare the Day of the LORD, and the distinction he needs to launch his argument does not exist in the text.

 

[Marty fox]

Obviously, per the flood, God had zero compassion for any infants and children still alive at the time. We at least know that much unless we want to argue that there were survivors not aboard the ark, or that there were no infants and children in those days.

Why do you think God had no compassion or cared about infants during the flood?


The bible doesn't say that and that's not Gods character. Don't you think Gods heart breaks whenever innocent people parish especially infants?

Maybe God's grace was that the innocent infants died in the flood but entered heaven which was better that the life they would have had on earth.

Above all we all need to understand Gods character to decipher and understand the scriptures

 

[Davidpt]

Why do you think God had no compassion or cared about infants during the flood?


The bible doesn't say that and that's not Gods character. Don't you think Gods heart breaks whenever innocent people parish especially infants?

Maybe God's grace was that the innocent infants died in the flood but entered heaven which was better that the life they would have had on earth.

Above all we all need to understand Gods character to decipher and understand the scriptures

According to some interpreters God tortures humans in the LOF for forever without end. If He does that He obviously has no compassion for them, that what they did or didn't do in a short lifespan is worthy of being tortured forever without end. Revelation 20:10 calls it torment, and that it's obvious what the torment is from. It is from being engulfed in literal flames of fire, which then equals torture. That aside, Amils are allowed to have exceptions but Premils aren't.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Look at how you are arguing over all. You insist that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is exactly like Noah's flood.

Whatever that means exactly. But, Peter did compare it directly to the flood (2 Peter 3:6-7), which is very similar to what Jesus did in Matthew 24:35-39. The way it is like the flood is that it will destroy all life on earth except for those who are protected by God just as Noah's flood did. The way in which people will be protected this time will be by being taken off of the earth and putting on bodily immortality. No one is saying that literally everything that will happen will be exactly like Noah's flood. But, in terms of the scope of 2 Peter 3:10-12 (global), it will be like Noah's flood.

Were there any infants in the earth at the time? Did God spare any of them? Yet you have God sparing them during 2 Peter 3:10-12 that you insist is meaning the earth is literally engulfed in flames the same way it was literally engulfed in water. You know good and well, that if there were infants and children in the earth at the time, that God did not spare a single one of them.

None of them continued living on the earth in their mortal bodies and there's no indication that will occur when Jesus returns. They will probably just be immediately changed to put on bodily immortality at that time rather than being killed. But, why would you think that they would survive in their mortal bodies after 2 Peter 3:10-12 occurs? If they did, then who would take care of them? On the day He returns Jesus will take vengeance on all those who have rejected God and the gospel (2 Thess 1:7-10), so it can't be any of them.

And now you are making exceptions.

LOL. I have never said that what will happen when Jesus returns will be exactly like what happened with Noah's flood in every way. Obviously, it will be by fire instead of water this time, so that's one major difference.

God couldn't care less about any infants and children during Noah's flood but during your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 He decided to care about infants and children all of a sudden.

Who told you that God "couldn't care less about any infants and children during Noah's flood"? Are you assuming they all went to hell after they physically died? I don't believe that. But, I also believe that God desired to basically start over on the earth with just one family, so that's why He decided to let everyone on the earth perish in the flood except for Noah and his family. That does not mean that He didn't care about anyone else.

The reason I'm bringing 2 Peter 3:10-12 up is because of how I know you connect it with Noah's flood. And that Noah's flood involved both infants and children drowning to death. But now you have God sparing them per 2 Peter 3:10-12.

I believe that the infants and children who died in the flood will be resurrected when Jesus returns and changed to put on bodily immortality and will inherit eternal life. Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 that Jesus will take vengeance on those who do not know God or didn't obey the gospel. That's talking about people who knowingly rejected God and the gospel, which isn't true of infants and little children. God won't kill them because that would be pointless in this case since the resurrection of the dead will occur at that same time. I believe that they will be among those who are alive and remain until Christ's second coming who are immediately changed to put on bodily immortality.

You can make and find exceptions for things but when I try and do that, that equals bad.

If you can come up with some kind of viable explanation for your exceptions, that would help. So, explain to me who would take care of all these mortal infants and children in the world who have no parents?

Zechariah 14:12 has not been fulfilled yet.

And you know this how? Why is it that you insist that verse has to be taken literally while you acknowledge that several other verses in Zechariah 14 are not meant to be taken literally?

Until it is fulfilled verse 16 can't come to pass in the meantime. Which means per Amil that verses 16-19 have to fit all of eternity in that case.

You are just making claims here without anything to back them up. Up to this point you have never even offered a possible interpretation of verses 16-19 that wouldn't contradict other scripture. I have no reason to take your claims seriously unless you explain to me how verses 16-19 would apply to the surviving mortal infants, children and mentally ill people that you apparently think will survive Christ's return.

It doesn't matter that you might disagree and that's not your position. That is beside the point. The text demands it per Amil.

I have no idea of what you're talking about here. How about giving me your interpretation of verses 16-19 so that I can see what exactly you think it means and then we can discuss it further.

If you have a problem with that, be sure to recall how you insist that if Premils place verse 16 after the 2nd coming, that this means that literal animal sacrificing resumes.

I insist that in the case of Premils who take that text literally. I did not say that is the case for any Premils who don't take it literally. So, tell me how you interpret the text in a non-literal way.

Yet I plainly told you that is not my position, that I do not even remotely believe literal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming.

I have never once said that you did or that all Premils believe that.

So don't act like you can tell me what verse 16 would mean per Premil but I can't tell you what verse 16 would mean per Amil, that being the point. So be sure to play fair here.

Give me a break. I'm well aware that not all Premils interpret those verses the same just as not all Amils do. What boggles my mind is why any Premil would try to use Zechariah 14 as one of the main passages it uses to support that view when the passage is clearly not straightforward and is contained within a book that has a mix of literal and figurative text throughout.

On a different note. I was listening to an Amil on Youtube the other day in regard to an Amil's(his) interpretation of Zechariah 14. He too was all over the place in that chapter like you are, where he too was making nonsense out of the chronology.

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not sure what Zechariah 14 is all about? How can I make nonsense out of the chronology when I never even give an interpretation of the chronology? I just know that if Zechariah 14:16-21 is taken literally then it contradicts other scriptures like Hebrews 10 and John 4:19-24. So, I rule that possibility out because of that. It's impossible to reconcile what is written in Zechariah 14 with the rest of scripture if you take it literally. That's the only thing I'm sure about when it comes to Zechariah 14.

Unlike some of you he agreed with Premils that the 2nd coming is recorded in that ch. But guess what he did with verses 6-9? He applied verse 6 and 7 to Christ's death, then applied verse 9 to His resurrection and what all follows that, thus this past 2K years. The point is, I can't find a single example when an Amil interprets Zechariah 14, that it makes sense of the chapter as a whole.

Can you find a single example when a Premil interprets Zechariah 14 in a way that makes sense of the chapter as a whole? I've never seen one.

The only Amil that has gotten close to making sense of Zechariah 14 as a whole is @PinSeeker. And to a lesser degree, @Truth7t7 . Look at the way the ch begins, it begins with the DOTL.

You assume that it's referring to the same Day of the Lord as referenced in other scriptures, including 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12, but that just cannot be the case. It doesn't line up with those passages, especially if taken literally. Some translations have it referring to "a day of the Lord" or "a day is coming for the Lord" rather than "the day of the Lord". I don't believe it's referring to the future day of the Lord when Jesus will return. But, again, if you can come up with an explanation for how Zechariah 14:16-21 can make sense from a Premil perspective, then feel free to share that. Until then, I can't take any Premil interpretation of Zechariah 14 seriously.

And that verse 6 and 7 is about the death of Christ 2K years ago??? Or that verse 6 and 7 is about what you have it being about?

But according to the chronology of events, verses 6-9 can't precede verse 2, it is meaning after it.

Okay...? And how do you interpret those verses exactly? You make all these claims about Zechariah 14 over and over again while doing nothing to show how exactly you understand any of these verses.

Do me a favor and tell me exactly what mortals you think will survive Christ's return and what they will do after He returns. At this point it seems that you believe that mortal infants, children and mentally ill people will survive Christ's return. Anyone else? And what do you think they will be doing at that point? Who will be taking care of them?

 

[Marty fox]

According to some interpreters God tortures humans in the LOF for forever without end. If He does that He obviously has no compassion for them, that what they did or didn't do in a short lifespan is worthy of being tortured forever without end. Revelation 20:10 calls it torment, and that it's obvious what the torment is from. It is from being engulfed in literal flames of fire, which then equals torture. That aside, Amils are allowed to have exceptions but Premils aren't.

You confuse no compassion for justice. God is just and there needs to be justice paid for sin, .that's why Jesus died


Remember Jesus died for all, so obviously God has compassion for every person to weather they believe in Him or not to have His son die for them?

Do you not think that it breaks Gods heart when a non believer parishes?

No one who is ever cast the hell will ever think that they got a bad deal, they will all know that it was their choice not to not believe. That's what I believe hell is, eternal torment to know that they chose to not spend eternity with God, it was their choice.

So no God does not torcher people they torcher themselves

You seam not really grasp Gods character; the heart of God, you need to understand Gods character to understand the scriptures.