The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

Marty fox said:

And you are claiming that Jesus only reigns because satan is bound.

Click to expand...

What rabbit hat did you pull that out of?

Marty fox said:

Jesus reigns because He is God not because satan is bound. Satan isn't Gods equal.

Click to expand...

And what rabbit hat did you find that idea from?

Apostle Peter told us in 2 Peter 3 why God has declared a "thousand years" reign over the unsaved by Lord Jesus when He returns...

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV

Davy said:

What rabbit hat did you pull that out of?



And what rabbit hat did you find that idea from?

Apostle Peter told us in 2 Peter 3 why God has declared a "thousand years" reign over the unsaved by Lord Jesus when He returns...

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV

Click to expand...

That didn't address my post at all

Davy said:

That last part you are jumping... a time gap, the "thousand years" reign Rev.20 declares Jesus will reign with His elect prior... to their going into the "lake of fire". Also, how do you know they all go into the "lake of fire", because one or more of them might convert to Jesus Christ during that "thousand years" reign? What your false Amill doctrine is doing is taking away God's Judgment decisions and trying to replace it with 'men's' faulty judgment.

And FYI, if one accurately follows the Revelation 20 events 'as written', then it includes that "thousand years" time of Jesus' reign over the wicked. So you're not keeping God's Word as written; you are following doctrines of men.

Click to expand...

You are following doctrines of your active imagination.

Davy said:

What rabbit hat did you pull that out of?



And what rabbit hat did you find that idea from?

Apostle Peter told us in 2 Peter 3 why God has declared a "thousand years" reign over the unsaved by Lord Jesus when He returns...

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV

Click to expand...

You don't know how to interpret scripture in context. The context of verse 9 is in relation to the Lord's patience while giving time for people to repent up until the time that Jesus fulfills the promise of His second coming and returns. That verse has absolutely nothing to do with a time period after He returns.

I put these folks back on IGNORE. They had their chance to not mock and show they have some manners, but I guess they weren't raised to know manners.

Davy said:

I put these folks back on IGNORE. They had their chance to not mock and show they have some manners, but I guess they weren't raised to know manners.

Click to expand...

Do I need to show a sampling of your posts displaying your bad manners or are you being purposely ironic here as some kind of joke?

Davidpt said:

Is this supposed to mean that the first resurrection 2000 years ago explains--and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saint with thee? If yes I obviously disagree. How do you then make that work in verse 4? When Christ rose, since when did that lead to His feet standing upon the mount of Olives at the time? One can't divorce verse 4 from verse 5.

Verse 4 involves a valley and mountain and so does verse 5. Obviously then, they are connected. And that verse 5 makes zero sense without verse 4 and that verse 4 makes zero sense without verse 5, in regard to a valley and mountains.

Click to expand...

I do find it interesting that you think that "in that day" started in the first century and is still happening today but you still think that the thousand years is only a thousand years.

Marty fox said:

I do find it interesting that you think that "in that day" started in the first century and is still happening today but you still think that the thousand years is only a thousand years.

Click to expand...

He's very inconsistent in his approach to interpreting scripture, as all people are who try to make scripture say what they want it to say. I have called him out on that several times in the past and he won't acknowledge it. But, it's obvious.

ewq1938 said:

Isn't that like reading of the 12 disciples in the gospels and assuming 12 meant 50, or a Million? Why not accept the number given?

Click to expand...

I'm sure that we have gone over this before a few times but its not the same when the bible has used a thousand t not to mean a thousand more than once.

But my point was that Dave sees "in that day" to be over two thousand years and counting but a thousand years to only be a thousand years.

That's not consistent

ewq1938 said:

Isn't that like reading of the 12 disciples in the gospels and assuming 12 meant 50, or a Million? Why not accept the number given?

Click to expand...

We're talking about the most highly symbolic book in the Bible here. There's a lot of symbolism in the book, but somehow numbers can't be symbolic? The word "thousand" is used figuratively elsewhere in the Bible, so why not in Revelation 20?

Marty fox said:

I do find it interesting that you think that "in that day" started in the first century and is still happening today but you still think that the thousand years is only a thousand years.

Click to expand...

It's simple. For one, some of us, unlike some of you, are paying attention to the context and chronology in Zechariah 14.

In my view, so maybe not in the view of all Premils, 'in that day' began 2000 years ago(Zechariah 12 not Zechariah 14) and is involving 3 days total, thus 3000 years. From His first advent through His return = 2 days, 2000 years. The millennium that follows equals the third day, thus the third 1000 year day era. And in Zechariah 14 there is not one single thing in that entire chapter that is involving the first century. Zechariah 14 becomes relevant only when the approaching DOTL becomes relevant. Which means Zechariah 14 starts off with great tribulation, thus verse 2. Followed by the DOTL, thus verses 4-5, 12. Followed by the millennium, thus verses 6-11 and verses 16-19(these latter verses involving ruling with a rod of iron).

Are some of you blind or something? Can you not see how Zechariah 14 starts off? What does the DOTL have to do with first century events? Explain that one? Especially any Amils who are not also Preterists like you are.

Marty fox said:

I'm sure that we have gone over this before a few times but its not the same when the bible has used a thousand t not to mean a thousand more than once.

But my point was that Dave sees "in that day" to be over two thousand years and counting but a thousand years to only be a thousand years.

That's not consistent

Click to expand...

I'm being consistent, though. Just look at post #313 I just posted.