Search results

It's not necessarily that I can't understand what was written. It's more that I'm having a hard time following your explanation for your view on how you believe it should be understood. That's why I'm asking clarifying questions. Ok, so it seems you are saying the literal earth is forever...

Right, heaven and earth vanish AFTER the 1000 year reign according to revelation 20:11. There is no mention of heaven and earth vanishing away prior to the 1000 year reign in revelation 20. So im trying to clarify your position, as I’m still a little unclear. So heaven and earth are burned up...

lol, must have hit it accidentally when scrolling. Thanks for the heads up. Now that I read it, it makes absolutely zero sense.

Completely agree. If Peter knew about an earthly literal millennial reign, why would he only “hint” at it as @Davy said, through mentioning how God is outside of time, not being slow as some count slow to fulfill his promises? Doesn’t really make sense. I Have no idea how God being outside of...

I don’t disagree that the heaven and earth passing way is metaphorical. I can get onboard with that. But i’m having a bit of a difficult time understanding your chronology. If heaven and earth metaphorically pass away at the parousia of Christ prior to the millennium, how is this reconciled...

Some really Good points. I don’t think the epistles explicitly and clearly teach a future earthly reign prior to the NHNE , at least not that I can find but maybe our premil friends here can demonstrate otherwise? Though , Peter said he was looking forward to a NHNE in vs 13. If Peter was...

Ok, so it seems that you are saying that the destruction of the heavens and elements at the coming of Christ, as stated in Peter, Is the same sudden destruction at the coming of Christ, as stated by Paul. While the actual removal of the literal heaven/earth happen post the millennium. I guess...

unfortunately, too much talking, as they all have seem to have disagreeing and different beliefs. Right, so this is only directed at Scofield like premils, who believe the first and second resurrections only apply to the righteous and unrighteous, respectively. This doesn't really apply the...

Ok, so I reviewed Scofield's "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth". Classic Premil, at least according to Scofield, holds that the first resurrection is to life, then around a thousand years later, the 2nd resurrection is that to damnation. Two resurrections, differing in respect of time and of...

Right, I chose one part of your argument to discuss, because I was curious as how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "no longer shall an infant die at a few days nor an old man not live out his days" should be understood "no (lo) longer shall an infant become an old man" AND the phrase...

See post 162

Premils, in general, believe in 2 resurrections separated by 1000 years. In general, it’s the first resurrection- to life (just) and 1,000 years later, after the millennium, the 2nd resurrection to judgement (unjust) So where do the converts During the millennium fit in? How can they, now...

What in the world are you talking about? When I asked why he was removing/rearranging the Hebrew words, I was talking about his paraphrase of the Hebrew. I even asked him to clarify, with this: And when WPM wouldnt address my clarifying question i responded: I asked him this because he put...

Because I was talking about A TEXTUAL VARIANT found in the OG Greek text, in regards to Daniel 7, not a paraphrase. Do you believe a paraphrase is the same thing as a textual variant? You are still not understanding. So let’s try this —> There is a textual variant in Daniel 7:13, found in...

weren’t a lot of OT prophesies only veiled expressions whose true fulfillments were revealed in the NT?

I have no problem with the word for word translation. My entire point was that I don’t agree with your paraphrase because it removes words from the translation to create different meaning. You are attempting to remove death from the passage, when death is used intentionally by the author to...

Happens “right after”, as you said. The eschatological resurrection of the dead is intrinsically linked to glorification. If the glorification of the body is intrinsically linked to the eschatological resurrection, and there are 2 resurrections in revelation 20, why would premils need to...

My entire point has been that your paraphrase of Isaiah 65:20 changes the meaning of the text/translation. Even Spiritual Israelite knows I’m talking about your paraphrase, as he said you disagree with how the English translation of Isaiah 65:20 reads:

Where are you applying יָמָ֑יו אֶת־ יְמַלֵּ֖א (fulfilled his days) in your interpretation of the text from post 43?

In post 43 you stated it should be understood as this: No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man, No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die. So where are you placing the phrase יָמָ֑יו אֶת־ יְמַלֵּ֖א (fulfilled his days), which is absent in your interpretation?