26 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[WPM]

Prove you know what you are talking about here. No matter how you look at it, some of Zechariah 14 involves the same era of time as the NT is involving. None of it is meaning before the first coming. Some of us argue that some of it is meaning after the 2nd coming. But that is debatable. It is not debatable that none of it is meaning before the 1st coming, though.

Therefore, point out this other day of the Lord in the NT that is meaning the one in Zechariah 14 but is not meaning the one that comes like a thief in the night. The NT only knows of one day of the Lord not more than one and at different times. And you clearly know it.

On a side note: I decided to give your argument to an AI to analyze before I submit this just to see if you might be correct about Zechariah 14:1 not meaning the day of the Lord, that we take it to mean in the NT. I gave your entire post to the AI to analyze. I had to shorten in this post because it exceeded max chars allowed if I didn't.

---------------------
An AI:

## Short answer

He is right about the *wording* of Zechariah 14:1, but wrong about what the wording *means*. The construction he is relying on — *yôm bāʾ la-YHWH* ("a day is coming for the LORD") — is itself a standard Hebrew way of saying "the day of the LORD." His lexical distinction is an illusion, and ironically, the LXX evidence he cites actually refutes him.

## What he gets right

- The Hebrew reads הִנֵּה־יוֹם בָּא לַיהוָה (*hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*) — "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD."
- The KJV's "the day of the LORD cometh" smooths the word order; NASB/ESV/CSB are more literal. The CSB is the most precise: "a day **belonging to** the LORD is coming."
- Hebrew has no indefinite article, so *yôm* is "a day."

So far, correct. But here the argument collapses.

## The *lamed* is the Day of the LORD

The ל (lamed) prefixed to יהוה is a **lamed of possession/belonging**. Hebrew expresses possession two ways — construct chain (*yôm YHWH*) or with the lamed (*yôm la-YHWH*) — and both are the same technical eschatological term:

- **Isaiah 2:12** — כִּי יוֹם־לַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת, "the day of the LORD of hosts" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Zephaniah 1:7** — כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם־לַיהוָה, "the day of the LORD is near" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Jeremiah 46:10** — וְיוֹם לָאָדוֹן יְהוִה, "that day is a day of the Lord GOD of hosts"

Note the irony: **he himself concedes Isaiah 2:12** — the exact same construction — is the Day of the Lord. That is special pleading.

Even more fatal: **Isaiah 13:9** reads הִנֵּה יוֹם־יְהוָה בָּא (*hinneh yôm-YHWH bāʾ*) — "Behold, the day of the LORD comes" — nearly identical to Zechariah 14:1's *hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*. The only difference is construct vs. lamed possession, which is semantically nil. (Malachi 3:19 [ET 4:1] likewise uses the "behold, a day is coming" formula for the unambiguous Day of the LORD.) HALOT and BDB both list Zechariah 14:1 under "day of the LORD."

## The LXX evidence backfires

He misquotes the LXX by dropping a word. Ras/Hanhart read:

> ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, **ἡμέρα κυρίου**, καὶ διαμερισθήσεται ἡ ἁλῶσις σού ἐν μέσῳ σού
> "Behold, days are coming — **the day of the Lord** — and your spoil shall be divided in your midst"

The ancient translators doubled the noun: "days are coming, *[that is,]* the **day of the Lord**" — using ἡμέρα κυρίου, the very formula he says is "the normal rendering" of the Day of the LORD. The LXX is a witness *against* his thesis, not for it. He needed to erase ἡμέρα to make his case.

## His statistics are garbled and irrelevant

- The NT distinction he draws is actually between ἡμέρα **κυρίου** (anarthrous: Acts 2:20; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10) and ἡμέρα **τοῦ κυρίου** (genitive article: 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14). There is no reading "hemera ho kurios" — he has mislabeled the genitive article. Article usage in Greek possessives varies stylistically with **zero change in referent**.
- Variation among LXX translators across a dozen books reflects translator habit, not a different "day." Whatever Greek clothing each translator chose, the underlying Hebrew technical idiom is one and the same — and Zechariah 14:1 uses it.

## Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails

The chapter's content rules out the first advent: YHWH coming **with all the holy ones** (14:5 — cf. 1 Thess 3:13), feet on the Mount of Olives (14:4 — cf. Acts 1), living waters from Jerusalem (14:8 — cf. Rev 22:1), "the LORD shall be king over all the earth" (14:9), no more Canaanite in the house of the LORD (14:21 — cf. Rev 21:27). Nothing like this occurred c. AD 30.

And note: the "first advent" application isn't even the mainstream amillennial position. Amillennial scholars (e.g., Hoekema, Baldwin in NICOT) treat Zechariah 14 as the final judgment and consummation in apocalyptic-pictorial language; preterists place it at AD 70. Neither camp needs — or uses — his lexical argument.

## Bottom line

Correct transcription, faulty conclusion. "A day belonging to the LORD is coming" is simply how Hebrew says "the Day of the LORD is coming" — the *lamed* performs the same function as the English "of." The LXX explicitly names it ἡμέρα κυρίου, and his own concession on Isaiah 2:12 (same construction) defeats him. Zechariah 14:1 *does* declare the Day of the LORD, and the distinction he needs to launch his argument does not exist in the text.

What question did you ask? Give me it word for word. This influences AI responses. Humans normally get a desired answer by slanting their queries to point AI in a particular direction. Give me your question or questions word for word.

Obviously, your question or question has taken AI off on a wild goose chase. It is swatting thin air. I never argued from the Hebrew. I did not need to, because it does not conflict with the Greek text. Hello! There was no need to go there.

Where does statments like the following come from then? What was your input?

• "His statistics are garbled and irrelevant."
• "Even more fatal."
• "Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails."

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Prove you know what you are talking about here. No matter how you look at it, some of Zechariah 14 involves the same era of time as the NT is involving. None of it is meaning before the first coming. Some of us argue that some of it is meaning after the 2nd coming. But that is debatable. It is not debatable that none of it is meaning before the 1st coming, though.

Therefore, point out this other day of the Lord in the NT that is meaning the one in Zechariah 14 but is not meaning the one that comes like a thief in the night. The NT only knows of one day of the Lord not more than one and at different times. And you clearly know it.

On a side note: I decided to give your argument to an AI to analyze before I submit this just to see if you might be correct about Zechariah 14:1 not meaning the day of the Lord, that we take it to mean in the NT. I gave your entire post to the AI to analyze. I had to shorten in this post because it exceeded max chars allowed if I didn't.

---------------------
An AI:

## Short answer

He is right about the *wording* of Zechariah 14:1, but wrong about what the wording *means*. The construction he is relying on — *yôm bāʾ la-YHWH* ("a day is coming for the LORD") — is itself a standard Hebrew way of saying "the day of the LORD." His lexical distinction is an illusion, and ironically, the LXX evidence he cites actually refutes him.

## What he gets right

- The Hebrew reads הִנֵּה־יוֹם בָּא לַיהוָה (*hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*) — "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD."
- The KJV's "the day of the LORD cometh" smooths the word order; NASB/ESV/CSB are more literal. The CSB is the most precise: "a day **belonging to** the LORD is coming."
- Hebrew has no indefinite article, so *yôm* is "a day."

So far, correct. But here the argument collapses.

## The *lamed* is the Day of the LORD

The ל (lamed) prefixed to יהוה is a **lamed of possession/belonging**. Hebrew expresses possession two ways — construct chain (*yôm YHWH*) or with the lamed (*yôm la-YHWH*) — and both are the same technical eschatological term:

- **Isaiah 2:12** — כִּי יוֹם־לַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת, "the day of the LORD of hosts" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Zephaniah 1:7** — כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם־לַיהוָה, "the day of the LORD is near" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Jeremiah 46:10** — וְיוֹם לָאָדוֹן יְהוִה, "that day is a day of the Lord GOD of hosts"

Note the irony: **he himself concedes Isaiah 2:12** — the exact same construction — is the Day of the Lord. That is special pleading.

Even more fatal: **Isaiah 13:9** reads הִנֵּה יוֹם־יְהוָה בָּא (*hinneh yôm-YHWH bāʾ*) — "Behold, the day of the LORD comes" — nearly identical to Zechariah 14:1's *hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*. The only difference is construct vs. lamed possession, which is semantically nil. (Malachi 3:19 [ET 4:1] likewise uses the "behold, a day is coming" formula for the unambiguous Day of the LORD.) HALOT and BDB both list Zechariah 14:1 under "day of the LORD."

## The LXX evidence backfires

He misquotes the LXX by dropping a word. Ras/Hanhart read:

> ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, **ἡμέρα κυρίου**, καὶ διαμερισθήσεται ἡ ἁλῶσις σού ἐν μέσῳ σού
> "Behold, days are coming — **the day of the Lord** — and your spoil shall be divided in your midst"

The ancient translators doubled the noun: "days are coming, *[that is,]* the **day of the Lord**" — using ἡμέρα κυρίου, the very formula he says is "the normal rendering" of the Day of the LORD. The LXX is a witness *against* his thesis, not for it. He needed to erase ἡμέρα to make his case.

## His statistics are garbled and irrelevant

- The NT distinction he draws is actually between ἡμέρα **κυρίου** (anarthrous: Acts 2:20; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10) and ἡμέρα **τοῦ κυρίου** (genitive article: 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14). There is no reading "hemera ho kurios" — he has mislabeled the genitive article. Article usage in Greek possessives varies stylistically with **zero change in referent**.
- Variation among LXX translators across a dozen books reflects translator habit, not a different "day." Whatever Greek clothing each translator chose, the underlying Hebrew technical idiom is one and the same — and Zechariah 14:1 uses it.

## Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails

The chapter's content rules out the first advent: YHWH coming **with all the holy ones** (14:5 — cf. 1 Thess 3:13), feet on the Mount of Olives (14:4 — cf. Acts 1), living waters from Jerusalem (14:8 — cf. Rev 22:1), "the LORD shall be king over all the earth" (14:9), no more Canaanite in the house of the LORD (14:21 — cf. Rev 21:27). Nothing like this occurred c. AD 30.

And note: the "first advent" application isn't even the mainstream amillennial position. Amillennial scholars (e.g., Hoekema, Baldwin in NICOT) treat Zechariah 14 as the final judgment and consummation in apocalyptic-pictorial language; preterists place it at AD 70. Neither camp needs — or uses — his lexical argument.

## Bottom line

Correct transcription, faulty conclusion. "A day belonging to the LORD is coming" is simply how Hebrew says "the Day of the LORD is coming" — the *lamed* performs the same function as the English "of." The LXX explicitly names it ἡμέρα κυρίου, and his own concession on Isaiah 2:12 (same construction) defeats him. Zechariah 14:1 *does* declare the Day of the LORD, and the distinction he needs to launch his argument does not exist in the text.

Since you trust this AI so much, how about asking it how it interprets Zechariah 14:16-21. If Zechariah 14 is referring to the same day of the Lord as 1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and other scriptures that speak of the day of the Lord in relation to Christ's return, then it should be able to explain how to reconcile Zechariah 14:16-21 with these other scriptures. Something you have never done up to this point.

 

[WPM]

Prove you know what you are talking about here. No matter how you look at it, some of Zechariah 14 involves the same era of time as the NT is involving. None of it is meaning before the first coming. Some of us argue that some of it is meaning after the 2nd coming. But that is debatable. It is not debatable that none of it is meaning before the 1st coming, though.

Therefore, point out this other day of the Lord in the NT that is meaning the one in Zechariah 14 but is not meaning the one that comes like a thief in the night. The NT only knows of one day of the Lord not more than one and at different times. And you clearly know it.

On a side note: I decided to give your argument to an AI to analyze before I submit this just to see if you might be correct about Zechariah 14:1 not meaning the day of the Lord, that we take it to mean in the NT. I gave your entire post to the AI to analyze. I had to shorten in this post because it exceeded max chars allowed if I didn't.

---------------------
An AI:

## Short answer

He is right about the *wording* of Zechariah 14:1, but wrong about what the wording *means*. The construction he is relying on — *yôm bāʾ la-YHWH* ("a day is coming for the LORD") — is itself a standard Hebrew way of saying "the day of the LORD." His lexical distinction is an illusion, and ironically, the LXX evidence he cites actually refutes him.

## What he gets right

- The Hebrew reads הִנֵּה־יוֹם בָּא לַיהוָה (*hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*) — "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD."
- The KJV's "the day of the LORD cometh" smooths the word order; NASB/ESV/CSB are more literal. The CSB is the most precise: "a day **belonging to** the LORD is coming."
- Hebrew has no indefinite article, so *yôm* is "a day."

So far, correct. But here the argument collapses.

## The *lamed* is the Day of the LORD

The ל (lamed) prefixed to יהוה is a **lamed of possession/belonging**. Hebrew expresses possession two ways — construct chain (*yôm YHWH*) or with the lamed (*yôm la-YHWH*) — and both are the same technical eschatological term:

- **Isaiah 2:12** — כִּי יוֹם־לַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת, "the day of the LORD of hosts" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Zephaniah 1:7** — כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם־לַיהוָה, "the day of the LORD is near" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Jeremiah 46:10** — וְיוֹם לָאָדוֹן יְהוִה, "that day is a day of the Lord GOD of hosts"

Note the irony: **he himself concedes Isaiah 2:12** — the exact same construction — is the Day of the Lord. That is special pleading.

Even more fatal: **Isaiah 13:9** reads הִנֵּה יוֹם־יְהוָה בָּא (*hinneh yôm-YHWH bāʾ*) — "Behold, the day of the LORD comes" — nearly identical to Zechariah 14:1's *hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*. The only difference is construct vs. lamed possession, which is semantically nil. (Malachi 3:19 [ET 4:1] likewise uses the "behold, a day is coming" formula for the unambiguous Day of the LORD.) HALOT and BDB both list Zechariah 14:1 under "day of the LORD."

## The LXX evidence backfires

He misquotes the LXX by dropping a word. Ras/Hanhart read:

> ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, **ἡμέρα κυρίου**, καὶ διαμερισθήσεται ἡ ἁλῶσις σού ἐν μέσῳ σού
> "Behold, days are coming — **the day of the Lord** — and your spoil shall be divided in your midst"

The ancient translators doubled the noun: "days are coming, *[that is,]* the **day of the Lord**" — using ἡμέρα κυρίου, the very formula he says is "the normal rendering" of the Day of the LORD. The LXX is a witness *against* his thesis, not for it. He needed to erase ἡμέρα to make his case.

## His statistics are garbled and irrelevant

- The NT distinction he draws is actually between ἡμέρα **κυρίου** (anarthrous: Acts 2:20; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10) and ἡμέρα **τοῦ κυρίου** (genitive article: 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14). There is no reading "hemera ho kurios" — he has mislabeled the genitive article. Article usage in Greek possessives varies stylistically with **zero change in referent**.
- Variation among LXX translators across a dozen books reflects translator habit, not a different "day." Whatever Greek clothing each translator chose, the underlying Hebrew technical idiom is one and the same — and Zechariah 14:1 uses it.

## Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails

The chapter's content rules out the first advent: YHWH coming **with all the holy ones** (14:5 — cf. 1 Thess 3:13), feet on the Mount of Olives (14:4 — cf. Acts 1), living waters from Jerusalem (14:8 — cf. Rev 22:1), "the LORD shall be king over all the earth" (14:9), no more Canaanite in the house of the LORD (14:21 — cf. Rev 21:27). Nothing like this occurred c. AD 30.

And note: the "first advent" application isn't even the mainstream amillennial position. Amillennial scholars (e.g., Hoekema, Baldwin in NICOT) treat Zechariah 14 as the final judgment and consummation in apocalyptic-pictorial language; preterists place it at AD 70. Neither camp needs — or uses — his lexical argument.

## Bottom line

Correct transcription, faulty conclusion. "A day belonging to the LORD is coming" is simply how Hebrew says "the Day of the LORD is coming" — the *lamed* performs the same function as the English "of." The LXX explicitly names it ἡμέρα κυρίου, and his own concession on Isaiah 2:12 (same construction) defeats him. Zechariah 14:1 *does* declare the Day of the LORD, and the distinction he needs to launch his argument does not exist in the text.

What word did I drop from the LXX and misquote?

1 Corinthians 5:5 and 2 Corinthians 1:14 do read “hemera ho kurios” in the original text.

 

[JimKnox]

All ya'll referring to Strong's as if it is the final authority on all things Grrrrrreeeeeeek!
Hilarious .

Obviously never heard of Young's Analytical.

Strong's for the weak.
Young's for the strong.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All ya'll referring to Strong's as if it is the final authority on all things Grrrrrreeeeeeek!
Hilarious .

Obviously never heard of Young's Analytical.

Strong's for the weak.
Young's for the strong.

And this means what exactly as it relates to the discussion about Zechariah 14? How about actually responding specifically to something someone said instead of just touting one Greek resource over another?

 

[JimKnox]

And this means what exactly as it relates to the discussion about Zechariah 14? How about actually responding specifically to something someone said instead of just touting one Greek resource over another?

You missed the point, my friend.

Too often, in these threads, many people reference "the greeeeek" in an obvious attempt to seem informed. My point is that it is lazy scholarship.

You want me to comment on Zech 14?
Ok.
The day of the Lord is ONE day and it is the day of His visible, physical, literal return to the mountain of the Lord.

Happy now? I wasn't interested in this thread except to be reading it. I felt compelled to chime in because the laziness is common in EVERY thread on MOST Christian discussion sites.

 

[Davidpt]

You confuse no compassion for justice. God is just and there needs to be justice paid for sin, .that's why Jesus died


Remember Jesus died for all, so obviously God has compassion for every person to weather they believe in Him or not to have His son die for them?

Do you not think that it breaks Gods heart when a non believer parishes?

No one who is ever cast the hell will ever think that they got a bad deal, they will all know that it was their choice not to not believe. That's what I believe hell is, eternal torment to know that they chose to not spend eternity with God, it was their choice.

So no God does not torcher people they torcher themselves

You seam not really grasp Gods character; the heart of God, you need to understand Gods character to understand the scriptures.

I'm not arguing for ECT in regard to humans. I'm arguing against it. Therefore, I don't hold a position that God totures humans forever without end. My point was, if ECT is true in regard to humans, that is exactly what you end up with, being tortured forever by literal fire. The fire is obviously literal. Literal fire does one of 2 things, in regard to humans. It either fully destroys someone as if they had never existed or that it tortures them forever if they can never die again once they are bodily raised before they are judged, sentenced, then cast into the LOF.

All of the following prove the fire is literal.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth--which is typically what one would do if they are being bodily tortured. Otherwise, why not just wailing instead of also gnashing of teeth?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You missed the point, my friend.

Too often, in these threads, many people reference "the greeeeek" in an obvious attempt to seem informed. My point is that it is lazy scholarship.

Your point is pointless unless you can do something to back it up. Anyone can make claims like you did, but you should back it up and show why you are saying what you said.

You want me to comment on Zech 14?
Ok.
The day of the Lord is ONE day and it is the day of His visible, physical, literal return to the mountain of the Lord.

Does your understanding of Zechariah 14 line up with what is written in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 which indicate that the earth will be burned up when Jesus returns with "sudden destruction" by fire from which unbelievers "shall not escape"?

Happy now? I wasn't interested in this thread except to be reading it. I felt compelled to chime in because the laziness is common in EVERY thread on MOST Christian discussion sites.

Don't be lazy yourself. Tell us why you made the claim that you did. Do something to back it up. Why should anyone believe you? And why not show how that claim relates to the actual ongoing discussion?

 

[WPM]

You missed the point, my friend.

Too often, in these threads, many people reference "the greeeeek" in an obvious attempt to seem informed. My point is that it is lazy scholarship.

You want me to comment on Zech 14?
Ok.
The day of the Lord is ONE day and it is the day of His visible, physical, literal return to the mountain of the Lord.

Happy now? I wasn't interested in this thread except to be reading it. I felt compelled to chime in because the laziness is common in EVERY thread on MOST Christian discussion sites.

This sums up your theology. You have nothing to contribute. Typical Pretrib!

 

[Marty fox]

I'm not arguing for ECT in regard to humans. I'm arguing against it. Therefore, I don't hold a position that God totures humans forever without end. My point was, if ECT is true in regard to humans, that is exactly what you end up with, being tortured forever by literal fire. The fire is obviously literal. Literal fire does one of 2 things, in regard to humans. It either fully destroys someone as if they had never existed or that it tortures them forever if they can never die again once they are bodily raised before they are judged, sentenced, then cast into the LOF.

All of the following prove the fire is literal.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth--which is typically what one would do if they are being bodily tortured. Otherwise, why not just wailing instead of also gnashing of teeth?

Hebrews 12
28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”

So is God literal fire? Obviously not

Daniel 7
9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.


Is Gods throne burning Him? Obviously not

Fire isn't always literal in the bible it can also be symbolic for regret and anguish, remember fire also refines not always destroys like on the day of Pentecost.

 

[WPM]

Also Brethren in Christ...

Don't pay attention to any Amillennialist that tries to claim that all Premill believers are on man's FALSE Pre-trib Rapture theory. If Amillennialists are confused about the origins of the false Pre-trib Rapture theory and attribute that false idea to Premill, then it shows they don't understand what The Bible teaches about at all.

The 1st century Church fathers believed in a Premill idea, which is the actual order of the written Bible Scripture. It means on the day of Christ's future return AFTER the tribulation, at that point Christ's LITERAL "thousand years" reign with His elect begins. Premill means understanding that "thousand years" as a LITERAL period, not an allegory like Origen and occultists try to claim.

Since the 1st century Church fathers held to a Premil belief, then how could they believe in a false Pre-trib Rapture theory, simply because the Pre-trib Rapture theory was first preached in a Christian Church in 1830's Great Britain by John Nelson Darby?!?

I didn't know John Darby was around in the 1st century A.D. to preach that false Pre-trib Rapture Theory to the 1st century Church fathers; did you know that?? Yet that is exactly the STUPID idea that Amillennialist try to use against Premils, because they well know the 1st century Church fathers were all Premillennialists!

Where is your historic evidence?

 

[JimKnox]

Your point is pointless unless you can do something to back it up. Anyone can make claims like you did, but you should back it up and show why you are saying what you said.


Does your understanding of Zechariah 14 line up with what is written in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 which indicate that the earth will be burned up when Jesus returns with "sudden destruction" by fire from which unbelievers "shall not escape"?


Don't be lazy yourself. Tell us why you made the claim that you did. Do something to back it up. Why should anyone believe you? And why not show how that claim relates to the actual ongoing discussion?

Why can't you take a hint?
Back off.
I told you I am not interested.
Don't be a jerk.

 

[WPM]

Why can't you take a hint?
Back off.
I told you I am not interested.
Don't be a jerk.

Is it possible for a Pretribber to be kind and gracious on these online forums? I know it can be frustrating when your doctrine is getting decimated every day.

 

[Davidpt]

Since you trust this AI so much, how about asking it how it interprets Zechariah 14:16-21. If Zechariah 14 is referring to the same day of the Lord as 1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and other scriptures that speak of the day of the Lord in relation to Christ's return, then it should be able to explain how to reconcile Zechariah 14:16-21 with these other scriptures. Something you have never done up to this point.

I asked the AI those things and what I received was standard Premil which I myself don't even agree with. It argued that 1 Thess 5:3 is the beginning of the DOTL, that Zech 14:16-21 is during the DOTL, and that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the end of the DOTL. I argued against it and the AI agreed with me that this doesn't reconcile anything as far as Amils are concerned.

You might be thinking, why do I trust it then? It has to do with research. @WPM didn't come up with all that by himself. He obviously researched some of it on the net or maybe even in books he owns. Unless he is a Hebrew and or Greek Scholar, he couldn't possibly come up with some of those things on his own. I'm not attacking his intelligence. He is clearly intellegent. I'm just pointing out he is not a Hebrew scholar, nor am I nor even you. Therefore, when it comes to scholarly things of that nature we have to use other sources. And I'm pretty certain the AI would be aware of every source possible.

I then went this route:

Me:

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


What is meant by this---in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


The Amil in question has verse 9 already having been fulfilled and that it has been meaning that for the past 2K years. He has it meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled, regardless what he applies verse 2 to.

Guess what he has running in parallel with it at some point? 2 Thess 2:4. Therefore, does Zech 14:9 + 2 Thess 2:4 still = in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one?

-----------------------

This same AI:

No — and he has actually handed you the refutation of his own position. "One LORD, his name one" and "a man seated in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God" are mutually exclusive world-states. They cannot describe the same era. By running them in parallel, he has made Zechariah 14:9 false within his own timeline. Let me show you why precisely.
What 14:9 claims — and what 13:2 defines it against

Verse 9 is a monopoly claim, and Zechariah defines the monopoly negatively one chapter earlier, in the same oracle (12:1, מַשָּׂא):



Zech 13:2 — "I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they shall be remembered no more."

The one-name state of 14:9 is the state in which rival names don't merely lose — they no longer exist in the world's memory. That is a world-state claim, not an ontology claim.

Now watch the trap he's walked into. YHWH has been the one true God since creation; the Shema was true in Zechariah's own day (Deut 6:4). If 14:9 were "fulfilled for 2000 years," the prophecy would be announcing as future ("shall be one," יִהְיֶה) what had already been true forever — a tautology. The future tense exists because something changes: the world's acknowledgment. Rival names cut off, one name alone confessed, "king over all the earth" acknowledged as such. That is not the church age on anyone's map — and it is emphatically not an era containing 2 Thess 2:4.
The collision, itemized
Zechariah 13:2; 14:9, 21

2 Thess 2:4
The names of idols cut off, remembered no more (13:2) The ultimate rival name arises — a man proclaiming himself God
"One LORD, his name one" (14:9) A rival claimant to deity exalting himself "against every so-called god"
No merchant in the house of the LORD (14:21) A self-deifier seated in the naos of God — the ultimate Canaanite in the house
YHWH king over all the earth, unrivaled (14:9) The nations' worship actually transferred to the rival: "Who is like the beast... who can fight against it?" (Rev 13:4)


Read 13:2 and 2 Thess 2:4 aloud as descriptions of the same era and the incoherence is audible. The era of "names cut off, remembered no more" cannot be the era in which the greatest rival name in history arises and takes the throne-room. His cross-reference is the falsification of his fulfillment claim.
The order Scripture itself gives — three witnesses

All three canonical portraits of 2 Thess 2:4's figure place the rival-name peak immediately before the parousia, and the one-name state after its destruction:

Dan 11:36-45 — the king who "shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god... speak astonishing things against the God of gods" (the direct source of 2 Thess 2:4) "shall come to his end" at the time of the end.
2 Thess 2:8 — the lawless one, "whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth by the appearance of his coming." Even mainstream amillennial exegesis (Hoekema, Riddlebarger, Beale) puts the man of lawlessness immediately before the parousia. So on his own map, the rival-name era runs right up to the final day — the entire period he calls 14:9's fulfillment.
Rev 13 → 19:20 — the beast blasphemes God's name and his dwelling, all the earth worships him, then the Rider destroys him. And note Rev 11:15: "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord" — a change of state announced after the beast-era, not a 2000-year-old possession.

And Zechariah's own internal order says the same: the one-name declaration of v. 9 sits after the war and theophany of vv. 1-8 and before the pilgrimage of vv. 16-19, all inside the same "in that day" refrain (vv. 6, 8, 9, 20, 21). The Amil has v. 9 before v. 2 and a rival-deity running with v. 9 — a double inversion of the chapter he claims is fulfilled.
His only escape, and why it's walled off

He will say: "Already/not yet — Christ reigns now spiritually; 14:9 is inaugurated; 2 Thess 2:4 is the final apostasy within that era; no contradiction."

Three walls close that exit:

Vacuity. If "one LORD" merely means "one true God exists," v. 9 has said nothing new since Deuteronomy 6:4 — the future tense and "in that day" anchoring do zero work. The inaugurated reading empties the verse to dodge the collision.
13:2 forces the world-state reading. "Remembered no more" is a description of the world's condition, and 2 Thess 2:4 falsifies it as a description of any era containing the lawless one — which is the whole church age on his map.
Rev 11:15's grammar. John marks the earth's kingdom becoming the Lord's as an event at the seventh trumpet — after the beast's worship-transfer (13:4), which he concedes is real. A world where nations actually worship the rival is not a world where "his name is one."

The one-line kill shot

"You have 'his name is one' and 'a man proclaims himself to be God in God's own temple' describing the same day. Zechariah 13:2 says that day is when rival names are cut off and remembered no more. Your own parallel proves 14:9 is not fulfilled yet — and since vv. 16-19 share its 'in that day' refrain, they aren't fulfilled yet either."

And there's the bonus: he introduced 2 Thess 2:4 himself. Every time he runs it in parallel with his church-age fulfillment of 14:9, he re-confirms that the one-name day is still ahead — which re-dates the war (14:1-8), the King over all the earth (v. 9), and the nations' pilgrimage (vv. 16-19) to the same future sequence. He's arguing for your position every time he repeats the parallel.

 

[WPM]

I asked the AI those things and what I received was standard Premil which I myself don't even agree with. It argued that 1 Thess 5:3 is the beginning of the DOTL, that Zech 14:16-21 is during the DOTL, and that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the end of the DOTL. I argued against it and the AI agreed with me that this doesn't reconcile anything as far as Amils are concerned.

You might be thinking, why do I trust it then? It has to do with research. @WPM didn't come up with all that by himself. He obviously researched some of it on the net or maybe even in books he owns. Unless he is a Hebrew and or Greek Scholar, he couldn't possibly come up with some of those things on his own. I'm not attacking his intelligence. He is clearly intellegent. I'm just pointing out he is not a Hebrew scholar, nor am I nor even you. Therefore, when it comes to scholarly things of that nature we have to use other sources. And I'm pretty certain the AI would be aware of every source possible.

I then went this route:

Me:

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


What is meant by this---in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


The Amil in question has verse 9 already having been fulfilled and that it has been meaning that for the past 2K years. He has it meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled, regardless what he applies verse 2 to.

Guess what he has running in parallel with it at some point? 2 Thess 2:4. Therefore, does Zech 14:9 + 2 Thess 2:4 still = in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one?

-----------------------

This same AI:

No — and he has actually handed you the refutation of his own position. "One LORD, his name one" and "a man seated in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God" are mutually exclusive world-states. They cannot describe the same era. By running them in parallel, he has made Zechariah 14:9 false within his own timeline. Let me show you why precisely.
What 14:9 claims — and what 13:2 defines it against

Verse 9 is a monopoly claim, and Zechariah defines the monopoly negatively one chapter earlier, in the same oracle (12:1, מַשָּׂא):



Zech 13:2 — "I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they shall be remembered no more."

The one-name state of 14:9 is the state in which rival names don't merely lose — they no longer exist in the world's memory. That is a world-state claim, not an ontology claim.

Now watch the trap he's walked into. YHWH has been the one true God since creation; the Shema was true in Zechariah's own day (Deut 6:4). If 14:9 were "fulfilled for 2000 years," the prophecy would be announcing as future ("shall be one," יִהְיֶה) what had already been true forever — a tautology. The future tense exists because something changes: the world's acknowledgment. Rival names cut off, one name alone confessed, "king over all the earth" acknowledged as such. That is not the church age on anyone's map — and it is emphatically not an era containing 2 Thess 2:4.
The collision, itemized
Zechariah 13:2; 14:9, 21

2 Thess 2:4
The names of idols cut off, remembered no more (13:2) The ultimate rival name arises — a man proclaiming himself God
"One LORD, his name one" (14:9) A rival claimant to deity exalting himself "against every so-called god"
No merchant in the house of the LORD (14:21) A self-deifier seated in the naos of God — the ultimate Canaanite in the house
YHWH king over all the earth, unrivaled (14:9) The nations' worship actually transferred to the rival: "Who is like the beast... who can fight against it?" (Rev 13:4)


Read 13:2 and 2 Thess 2:4 aloud as descriptions of the same era and the incoherence is audible. The era of "names cut off, remembered no more" cannot be the era in which the greatest rival name in history arises and takes the throne-room. His cross-reference is the falsification of his fulfillment claim.
The order Scripture itself gives — three witnesses

All three canonical portraits of 2 Thess 2:4's figure place the rival-name peak immediately before the parousia, and the one-name state after its destruction:

Dan 11:36-45 — the king who "shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god... speak astonishing things against the God of gods" (the direct source of 2 Thess 2:4) "shall come to his end" at the time of the end.
2 Thess 2:8 — the lawless one, "whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth by the appearance of his coming." Even mainstream amillennial exegesis (Hoekema, Riddlebarger, Beale) puts the man of lawlessness immediately before the parousia. So on his own map, the rival-name era runs right up to the final day — the entire period he calls 14:9's fulfillment.
Rev 13 → 19:20 — the beast blasphemes God's name and his dwelling, all the earth worships him, then the Rider destroys him. And note Rev 11:15: "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord" — a change of state announced after the beast-era, not a 2000-year-old possession.

And Zechariah's own internal order says the same: the one-name declaration of v. 9 sits after the war and theophany of vv. 1-8 and before the pilgrimage of vv. 16-19, all inside the same "in that day" refrain (vv. 6, 8, 9, 20, 21). The Amil has v. 9 before v. 2 and a rival-deity running with v. 9 — a double inversion of the chapter he claims is fulfilled.
His only escape, and why it's walled off

He will say: "Already/not yet — Christ reigns now spiritually; 14:9 is inaugurated; 2 Thess 2:4 is the final apostasy within that era; no contradiction."

Three walls close that exit:

Vacuity. If "one LORD" merely means "one true God exists," v. 9 has said nothing new since Deuteronomy 6:4 — the future tense and "in that day" anchoring do zero work. The inaugurated reading empties the verse to dodge the collision.
13:2 forces the world-state reading. "Remembered no more" is a description of the world's condition, and 2 Thess 2:4 falsifies it as a description of any era containing the lawless one — which is the whole church age on his map.
Rev 11:15's grammar. John marks the earth's kingdom becoming the Lord's as an event at the seventh trumpet — after the beast's worship-transfer (13:4), which he concedes is real. A world where nations actually worship the rival is not a world where "his name is one."

The one-line kill shot

"You have 'his name is one' and 'a man proclaims himself to be God in God's own temple' describing the same day. Zechariah 13:2 says that day is when rival names are cut off and remembered no more. Your own parallel proves 14:9 is not fulfilled yet — and since vv. 16-19 share its 'in that day' refrain, they aren't fulfilled yet either."

And there's the bonus: he introduced 2 Thess 2:4 himself. Every time he runs it in parallel with his church-age fulfillment of 14:9, he re-confirms that the one-name day is still ahead — which re-dates the war (14:1-8), the King over all the earth (v. 9), and the nations' pilgrimage (vv. 16-19) to the same future sequence. He's arguing for your position every time he repeats the parallel.

What question did you ask? Give me it word for word. This influences AI responses. Humans normally get a desired answer by slanting their queries to point AI in a particular direction. Give me your question or questions word for word.

Obviously, your question or question has taken AI off on a wild goose chase. It is swatting thin air. I never argued from the Hebrew. I did not need to, because it does not conflict with the Greek text. Hello! There was no need to go there.

Where does statments like the following come from then? What was your input?

• "His statistics are garbled and irrelevant."
• "Even more fatal."
• "Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails."