William Barton
Member
I invite you to state your case.
BTW "earth" in the New Testament is typically Greek γη = land.
"Earth" in the old Testament is typically Hebrew ארץ = land.
There was no concept of planet earth in Biblical times.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I invite you to state your case.
BTW "earth" in the New Testament is typically Greek γη = land.
"Earth" in the old Testament is typically Hebrew ארץ = land.
There was no concept of planet earth in Biblical times.
I invite you to state your case.
BTW "earth" in the New Testament is typically Greek γη = land.
It also can mean the whole planet:"Earth" in the old Testament is typically Hebrew ארץ = land.
There was no concept of planet earth, that is common knowledge. If you disagree then I would would be interested to see a reference other than yourself. "Far away" does not equate to "round."Yes, there was. The whole planet is spoken of many times in the bible and people had already traveled to various places around the planet in the NT. Rome was very far away and ruled the middle east and Rome ruled a good portion of the planet.
Yes γη can mean both "plant earth" or "land" in modern times--not in Biblical times.I spoke about Rome but you didn't address it. They ruled much of Europe, parts of Africa and parts of the middle east. Paul and many others traveled much of this planet so to claim there was no concept of the planet Earth is easily false.
It also can refer to the whole planet:
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
G1093
γῆ
gē
ghay
Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.
Total KJV occurrences: 252
It also can mean the whole planet:
H776
אֶרֶץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
Total KJV occurrences: 2505
Gen_1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Clearly this is speaking of the whole planet not one area of land because it is contrasted against the heaven.
Yes γη can mean both "plant earth" or "land" in modern times--not in Biblical times.
There was no concept of planet earth, that is common knowledge.
If you disagree then I would would be interested to see a reference other than yourself.
The *concept* of a round earth wss proposed by Pythagoras and supported by Aristotle and Eratosthenes. That is not a *discovery.*
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
[
The beast rises from the abyss in Revelation 17:8.No such thing as a 1,000 year millennium on this earth as you've been shown "Several Times"
Jesus returns in fire and final judgement (The End)
"They came to life and ruled with Christ s thousand years." (Revelation 20:4).
First and foremost the book of Revelation is not to be read and understood strictly in a chronological order. It's a prophetic book from God the Father's thoughts about the Past, Present and Future, all at the same time.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?
>I spoke about Rome but you didn't address it. They ruled much of Europe, parts of Africa and parts of the middle east. Paul and many others traveled much of this planet so to claim there was no concept of the planet Earth is easily false.>
Romans traveled in the Middle East, not all around the planet.
The Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, since he was born in the Roman colony of Tarsus. Paul traveled in the Middle East.
>It also can refer to the whole planet>
Personally I have been to Europe, Israel, China, all by commercial jet plane. Today we know the "earth" is a globe.
People in the time we are discussing did not have jet planes, hence they had no way of knowing that the earth is a globe. "Suspecting" does not equate to "knowing."
No one at the time of the Roman Empire knew anything of what shape the earth was, whether it was flat or a globe.>I spoke about Rome but you didn't address it. They ruled much of Europe, parts of Africa and parts of the middle east. Paul and many others traveled much of this planet so to claim there was no concept of the planet Earth is easily false.>
Romans traveled in the Middle East, not all around the planet.
The Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, since he was born in the Roman colony of Tarsus. Paul traveled in the Middle East.
>It also can refer to the whole planet>
Personally I have been to Europe, Israel, China, all by commercial jet plane. Today we know the "earth" is a globe.
People in the time we are discussing did not have jet planes, hence they had no was of knowing that the earth is a globe.