Search results

Right. I agree. I'm not getting my hopes up when it comes to him, though.

That is how the rest of us feel about you.

So, why can't you figure out that the following verses refer to the church? Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev 13:7 And it was given unto...

LOL. How could he? No one, including himself, can possibly understand all the convoluted nonsense that he has dreamed up.

LOL. Wrong. Premils have done absolutely NOTHING to support their view with SCRIPTURE in this thread. No one here thinks that and you know it. No one here thinks that and you know it. The Lamb's wrath is reserved for unbelievers. Are you trying to accuse those who disagree with your end times...

I'm not redefining it. I'm careful not to interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. But, you are not. For example, other scripture indicates that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection. Do you take that into account when interpreting Revelation 20? Clearly not. Other...

It's symbolic of the time period during which Satan is bound while Christ reigns. He started reigning after His resurrection when Satan was bound from preventing the light of the gospel from spreading throughout the world. There will be a "little season" after the thousand years ends that will...

No, there is not. Jesus is the Christ so there is no difference. And everyone knows this except for you. Show me the writing of even one other person in history who agrees with you on this. Good luck. It is out of desperation that you have come up with this nonsense because you know that you...

Do you only misinterpret the book of Revelation or do you also misinterpret the rest of the prophecies?

That isn't what was said and you know it. Is this just a game to you? He was clearly saying that your obsession with Revelation 20 is boring, not Revelation 20 itself. You don't offer any supporting scripture for your interpretation of Revelation 20. Your interpretation is based on assumptions...

You can answer them one at a time if you want. This isn't difficult. And, this time, pay attention to what is actually being asked.

LOL. Do you have anything to offer besides useless nonsense like this?

I didn't have a question mark there. Where are you getting that from? I quoted the verse from the NIV if that's what you're asking. But, you added the question mark, not me. No, "him" is Jesus. That verse is talking about the souls of the dead in Christ coming with Jesus at His second coming...

You clearly have never read Revelation 20 carefully while keeping in mind that you should not contradict any other scripture when interpreting it. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts many other scriptures which talk about the timing of Christ's reign, the timing of Satan's binding...

This is really what it all boils down to. Premils twist the rest of scripture in light of their hyper-literal interpretation of Revelation 20 while Amils interpret Revelation 20 in light of the rest of scripture including straightforward scripture like Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, Acts...

No, the point was that it's symbolic. That's why I bolded the word "symbolic" in that definition.

Why don't you actually answer them then? In all 5 questions he was asking for scripture BESIDES Revelation 20. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

This is completely beside the point of what was being discussed. Regardless of what the dragon and beast, etc. represent, the fact is that those are symbolic terms and not literal. The book has many symbolic terms like that, but you are trying to say that it's mostly literal. No, it is not. What...

You have no discernment. That verse is talking about "the REST of the dead". Everyone except you can recognize that "the rest of the dead" are unbelievers. They are being contrasted with other dead people mentioned before that. Who would that be? The dead believers that John saw (he saw their...

LOL. You consider your incoherent ramblings to be a case of addressing the OP? I have to disagree.