Search results

So, we're basically in disagreement with what happens after the angel sounds the seventh trumpet. We know the things that are explicitly mentioned as occurring after it sounds, as described in 1 Cor 15:51-52, Rev 10:6-7 and Rev 11:15-18. So, you are concluding that Satan's little season occurs...

Let me make it clear that I have a lot of respect for you and this one particular thing we disagree on is not that big of a deal. But, it's interesting to discuss.

Let me try another angle to this. When exactly in relation to the sounding of the seventh and last trumpet, do you believe the following will occur: 1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at...

Exactly. Where can Satan's little season fit in there? I don't believe it can. It has to occur before the seventh trumpet sounds, not after the seventh trumpet starts to sound.

No, they don't. Please read them again. The other translations talk about the days when the angel is about to sound. To say that the angel is about to sound the seventh trumpet is different than saying the angel is actually starting to sound the seventh trumpet. If he's about to sound that means...

Once He appears that is true, but I do not see any scripture to support the idea that salvation will be cut off for a period of time before He returns. What other scripture, besides your understanding of Revelation 20, can you use to support this idea?

I'm arguing the same thing and the reason is because it doesn't allow any time for Satan's little season unless you think Satan's little season covers a very short amount of time. If it doesn't involve a very short amount of time then it can't be said that the seventh trumpet is climactic. If it...

Again, I disagree with the idea of the seventh trumpet sounding for multiple days rather than sounding quickly and being followed by things that happen quickly such as the change of our bodies (1 Cor 15:51-52). We can't possibly agree on the rest when we disagree on how long it takes to sound...

The context is established in 2 Peter 3:3-7 as I showed. Peter compared a future event directly with a past physical global event. The past event was the destruction of the earth (earth's surface specifically, not the annihilation of the earth, obviously) and Peter compared a future event...

Oh, so you did decide to actually address what I said. What was all that other stuff all about then? Anyway, I don't understand what you're saying here. Did Peter not point out how the world was destroyed by the flood waters in the past (which we know happened in Noah's day)? The entire surface...

No idea of what you're saying here. I guess you have no interest in having a discussion and specifically addressing what I said in my post. I think it's because you have no answer for what I said, but whatever. Oh well. I'll move on to someone who actually wants to have a discussion then.

Excuse me? You answered my question with a similar question. How are you thinking that you answered my post? You didn't address what I said at all. I am trying to be reasonable here and this is how I get treated in response? Good grief.

I'm not biased. I became Amil after deciding not to be biased anymore. I was biased back when I just assumed that what was written about in Revelation 20 must follow what is written about in Revelation 19 chronologically. But, then I realized that did not have to be the case since that is not...

I asked you first. If you answer my question and address what I said in my post then I'll answer your question and address what you said in your reply. That's how discussions work.

What exactly are you getting at here then? How exactly do you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12? What does it mean for "the works of men and the principles of this world" to be burned up? What is the result of that in your view? I believe we should interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in light of what Peter had...

No one is saying that it is in the wrong location. Is Revelation 12 in the wrong location since it describes things (the birth and ascension of Christ) that don't occur after things described at the end of Revelation 11? Is this all you have to offer is weak arguments like this? It appears so...

He's not going to annihilate the world, as some believe, He's going to regenerate it. It's not a fact that the heaven and earth Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 has anything to do with the nation of Israel. Peter was very clearly talking about the literal heaven and earth because he compared...

No. LOL. You just say things without giving it any thought. I never said he placed the 1,000 year reign in the wrong location. YOU are misinterpreting what he wrote. That is the problem. And, you are not recognizing that he did not write everything in chronological order. Even you can see that...

LOL. Such a ridiculous question. That's like asking if Revelation 12 is in the wrong location between Revelation 11 and 13 since what is described there does not chronologically follow what is described at the end of Revelation 11.

I don't believe what I want, I believe what scripture teaches. It does not say that anywhere. I assume you are probably talking about Isaiah 9:6-7, but that is not what that passages teaches. Are you just pretending to not know what I was talking about? I was not talking about what Jesus did...