26 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[WPM]

Have you decided that you're never going to speak for yourself anymore and are just going to let AI speak for you from now on, at least when it agrees with you? I'm not understanding your reasoning for trusting this AI when you obviously disagree with some of what it said.

I have no interest in continuing this discussion unless you actually give your interpretation of Zechariah 14:16-21. Until you do that, I have no reason to take anything you or your AI say about Zechariah 14 seriously.

Exactly. He is not prepared to think for himself as well. AI is going to produce a generation of clones who cannot think for themselves. They cannot reason. They refused to depend upon the Holy Ghost.

 

[JimKnox]

You're being a jerk by making claims while doing literally nothing to back them up. I'm afraid you are in way over your head on this forum and you probably should just observe the discussion instead of trying to add your useless input.

Maybe it is you.
Your pride will be your downfall.

 

[Davidpt]

Exactly. He is not prepared to think for himself as well. AI is going to produce a generation of clones. I cannot think for themselves. They cannot reason. They refused to depend upon the Holy Ghost.

Once again you are clueless about me. I'm able to think for myself better than you are for yourself. Some of the stuff you believe about Zechariah 14 didn't come solely from you thinking for your self. You are clearly borrowing some of that from Commentators you have read, books you have read, etc. And I know it and you know it.

As to me, everything I conclude about Zechariah 14 came from my own reading of it. That AI isn't coming up with things I don't already know myself. It is coming up with things I already agree with. I didn't ask it what Zech 14:9 means, as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it might agree with my understanding or contradict my understanding. It obviously did the former.

I didn't ask it if Zech 14:9 + 2 Thess 2:4 still = there shall be one LORD, and His name one---as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it arrives at the same conclusions I do. And sure enough it did.

There is not one thing that AI argued that I don't alredy know and agree with. The truth is, compared to the way I write and express my arguments in writing, an AI can certainly articulate it better than I ever could.

But let's just pretend, though it isn't true, that I'm using AIs to help me better understand something. How would that be any different than you using outside sources, which is clearly true in your case, but maybe not every case, to help you better understand something? How does that equal you thinking for yourself?

 

[WPM]

Once again you are clueless about me. I'm able to think for myself better than you are for yourself. Some of the stuff you believe about Zechariah 14 didn't come solely from you thinking for your self. You are clearly borrowing some of that from Commentators you have read, books you have read, etc. And I know it and you know it.

As to me, everything I conclude about Zechariah 14 came from my own reading of it. That AI isn't coming up with things I don't already know myself. It is coming up with things I already agree with. I didn't ask it what Zech 14:9 means, as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it might agree with my understanding or contradict my understanding. It obviously did the former.

I didn't ask it if Zech 14:9 + 2 Thess 2:4 still = there shall be one LORD, and His name one---as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it arrives at the same conclusions I do. And sure enough it did.

There is not one thing that AI argued that I don't alredy know and agree with. The truth is, compared to the way I write and express my arguments in writing, an AI can certainly articulate it better than I ever could.

But let's just pretend, though it isn't true, that I'm using AIs to help me better understand something. How would that be any different than you using outside sources, which is clearly true in your case, but maybe not every case, to help you better understand something? How does that equal you thinking for yourself?

Stop avoiding the issues. If you want to use AI to refute what I have been teaching then you have to put all your conversation on the table for us to see or we will discard it as manipulating AI for a predetermined answer, which is what I suspect, and which you have done previously.

What question did you ask AI? 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. It is not fair quoting AI if you do not give the context to this reply.

Also, 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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes. This is definitely theological manipulation. He has mastered telling AI what he needs in order to get a desired result. This is very sad. I can tell from the answer that he has skewed his input in order to get this junk. It doesn't add up. He cannot even explain the non-issues AI is throwing up that are unmerited.

I guarantee that I could manipulate that AI to give a much different response than what it gave to him. AI gives responses based on the kind of input you give it. It certainly cannot be trusted at all when it comes to Bible doctrine. AI can be useful, but not for that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Once again you are clueless about me. I'm able to think for myself better than you are for yourself. Some of the stuff you believe about Zechariah 14 didn't come solely from you thinking for your self. You are clearly borrowing some of that from Commentators you have read, books you have read, etc. And I know it and you know it.

As to me, everything I conclude about Zechariah 14 came from my own reading of it.

I don't even know what you conclude from Zechariah 14 because you won't tell us. You have never offered even a guess as to what Zechariah 14:16-21 is about. How do you interpret verses 1 to 5? Do you take them literally as talking about earthly Jerusalem and literally half of the city going into captivity with the women there being raped and so on? Or do you take it figuratively in some way? The only thing you seem to think you're sure about is that Zechariah 14:12 hasn't happened yet. You're not sure about the rest, it seems. Yet, you use it as part of the foundation of your doctrine for some reason. Why not use more clear scripture as the foundation of your doctrine instead?

That AI isn't coming up with things I don't already know myself. It is coming up with things I already agree with. I didn't ask it what Zech 14:9 means, as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it might agree with my understanding or contradict my understanding. It obviously did the former.

I didn't ask it if Zech 14:9 + 2 Thess 2:4 still = there shall be one LORD, and His name one---as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it arrives at the same conclusions I do. And sure enough it did.

There is not one thing that AI argued that I don't alredy know and agree with. The truth is, compared to the way I write and express my arguments in writing, an AI can certainly articulate it better than I ever could.

But let's just pretend, though it isn't true, that I'm using AIs to help me better understand something. How would that be any different than you using outside sources, which is clearly true in your case, but maybe not every case, to help you better understand something? How does that equal you thinking for yourself?

It's one thing to trust the opinions of certain Bible scholars, but you don't even know which Bible scholars and sources that AI is using to come up with its info. You don't even know who you're putting trust in. And you acknowledge that you disagree with the AI in parts of what it said about Zechariah 14, so what makes you so sure it's right about the parts you agree with?

 

[WPM]

Once again you are clueless about me. I'm able to think for myself better than you are for yourself. Some of the stuff you believe about Zechariah 14 didn't come solely from you thinking for your self. You are clearly borrowing some of that from Commentators you have read, books you have read, etc. And I know it and you know it.

As to me, everything I conclude about Zechariah 14 came from my own reading of it. That AI isn't coming up with things I don't already know myself. It is coming up with things I already agree with. I didn't ask it what Zech 14:9 means, as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it might agree with my understanding or contradict my understanding. It obviously did the former.

I didn't ask it if Zech 14:9 + 2 Thess 2:4 still = there shall be one LORD, and His name one---as if I didn't know. I asked it that in order to see if it arrives at the same conclusions I do. And sure enough it did.

There is not one thing that AI argued that I don't alredy know and agree with. The truth is, compared to the way I write and express my arguments in writing, an AI can certainly articulate it better than I ever could.

But let's just pretend, though it isn't true, that I'm using AIs to help me better understand something. How would that be any different than you using outside sources, which is clearly true in your case, but maybe not every case, to help you better understand something? How does that equal you thinking for yourself?

I can only deduce from your avoidance that you skewed your questions in such a manipulative way to produce a predetermined outcome. That is what people do with AI. You haven't even been able to answer my genuine inquiries. Please do not quote AI again to me until you're able to give me the full conversation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I can only deduce from your avoidance that you skewed your questions in such a manipulative way to produce a predetermined outcome. That is what people do with ai. You haven't even been able to answer my genuine inquiries. Please do not quote AI again to me until you're able to give me the full conversation.

Agree. There's no reason at all to take anything he quotes from his AI seriously if he won't even share what questions he asked it. I guarantee that I could ask it questions that would prompt it to give answers in a way that supports an Amil understanding of Zechariah 14 rather than Premil. That's how these AIs generally work. You can sometimes manipulate them to say what you want them to say if you word your questions in a certain way.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe it is you.
Your pride will be your downfall.

You are obviously too prideful to make any effort to back up the claims you made. Unlike you, I make the effort to back up my claims. You are the prideful one here, not me. Swallow your pride and do something to actually back up the claims you made about the Greek resources you mentioned.

 

[WPM]

Agree. There's no reason at all to take anything he quotes from his AI seriously if he won't even share what questions he asked it. I guarantee that I could ask it questions that would prompt it to give answers in a way that supports an Amil understanding of Zechariah 14 rather than Premil. That's how these AIs generally work. You can sometimes manipulate them to say what you want them to say if you word your questions in a certain way.

Exactly! How does AI please Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, JWs, Atheists and every ism and they not take offence? It tell them what they want to hear. He doesn't get that. He is besotted by it.

 

[JimKnox]

You are obviously too prideful to make any effort to back up the claims you made. Unlike you, I make the effort to back up my claims. You are the prideful one here, not me. Swallow your pride and do something to actually back up the claims you made about the Greek resources you mentioned.

Ok. Here ya go.
This is AI, but it confirms my scholastic experience.

Overview

Strong's Concordance and Young's Analytical Concordance are two classic reference tools for studying the Bible using the King James Version (KJV), but they organize and approach word studies in fundamentally different ways.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

• Primary Focus: Finding every single occurrence of every English word in the KJV and indexing them to a unique numbering system.
• How It Works:
• Lists every English word in alphabetical order.
• Under each English word, it provides every verse reference where that word appears, accompanied by a short snippet of text.
• Next to each reference, a Strong’s number corresponds to a Hebrew/Aramaic dictionary (Old Testament, numbered 1–8,674) or a Greek dictionary (New Testament, numbered 1–5,624) located in the back of the book.
• Strengths:
• Truly exhaustive; you can track down almost any word or verse in the KJV.
• Widely digitized and integrated into modern software (like e-Sword or online Bible tools).
• Weaknesses:
• Tied strictly to the English KJV text, meaning one English word might map to several different original Hebrew or Greek words (or vice versa), which can sometimes confuse beginners if they rely too heavily on the brief back-definitions.
Young's Analytical Concordance
• Primary Focus: Analyzing how original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words are translated into English, and vice versa.
• How It Works:
• Starts with the English word in alphabetical order, but then subdivides it into separate groups based on the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek original word.
• Includes literal meanings, pronunciations, and statistical frequency data showing how many times a specific original word was translated into various English words.
• Strengths:
• Superior for seeing translation consistency or inconsistency (e.g., revealing how one Hebrew word was translated into five different English words throughout the KJV, or how one English word covers multiple distinct Greek/Hebrew terms).
• Organizes word usage analytically rather than just giving a raw list of verses.
• Weaknesses:
• Not strictly "exhaustive" in the same absolute sense as Strong's (it omits many minor prepositions, articles, and common pronouns).
• Less commonly available in digital/software formats compared to Strong's.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Overview

Strong's Concordance and Young's Analytical Concordance are two classic reference tools for studying the Bible using the King James Version (KJV), but they organize and approach word studies in fundamentally different ways.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

• Primary Focus: Finding every single occurrence of every English word in the KJV and indexing them to a unique numbering system.
• How It Works:
• Lists every English word in alphabetical order.
• Under each English word, it provides every verse reference where that word appears, accompanied by a short snippet of text.
• Next to each reference, a Strong’s number corresponds to a Hebrew/Aramaic dictionary (Old Testament, numbered 1–8,674) or a Greek dictionary (New Testament, numbered 1–5,624) located in the back of the book.
• Strengths:
• Truly exhaustive; you can track down almost any word or verse in the KJV.
• Widely digitized and integrated into modern software (like e-Sword or online Bible tools).
• Weaknesses:
• Tied strictly to the English KJV text, meaning one English word might map to several different original Hebrew or Greek words (or vice versa), which can sometimes confuse beginners if they rely too heavily on the brief back-definitions.
Young's Analytical Concordance
• Primary Focus: Analyzing how original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words are translated into English, and vice versa.
• How It Works:
• Starts with the English word in alphabetical order, but then subdivides it into separate groups based on the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek original word.
• Includes literal meanings, pronunciations, and statistical frequency data showing how many times a specific original word was translated into various English words.
• Strengths:
• Superior for seeing translation consistency or inconsistency (e.g., revealing how one Hebrew word was translated into five different English words throughout the KJV, or how one English word covers multiple distinct Greek/Hebrew terms).
• Organizes word usage analytically rather than just giving a raw list of verses.
• Weaknesses:
• Not strictly "exhaustive" in the same absolute sense as Strong's (it omits many minor prepositions, articles, and common pronouns).
• Less commonly available in digital/software formats compared to Strong's.

That doesn't strike me as proof that Young's is significantly superior to Strong's. What made you even bring this up in the first place in this thread? You didn't explain that. Who was using Strong's and what was it in Strong's that you think didn't give them the right understanding of a word as it was translated in English?

 

[JimKnox]

That doesn't strike me as proof that Young's is significantly superior to Strong's. What made you even bring this up in the first place in this thread? You didn't explain that. Who was using Strong's and what was it in Strong's that you think didn't give them the right understanding of a word as it was translated in English?

Start another thread if you want to discuss this.
I am done here.
I simply pointed out the obvious.
This is offtrack anyhow.
Edit : ( Based on your 1st sentence I highly doubt you even read that with any comprehension whatsoever. )

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Start another thread if you want to discuss this.

You should have started a new thread in the first place instead of interrupting this thread for no apparent reason.

I am done here.
I simply pointed out the obvious.

Without referencing exactly what prompted your post. That makes your post pointless.

This is offtrack anyhow.
Edit : ( Based on your 1st sentence I highly doubt you even read that with any comprehension whatsoever. )

Based on your posts that I've seen, I highly doubt you read anything with any comprehension whatsoever.

 

[JimKnox]

You should have started a new thread in the first place instead of interrupting this thread for no apparent reason.
Riiigght. And you should have ignored it then. But you didn't and here we are.

Without referencing exactly what prompted your post. That makes your post pointless.

Yeah yeah yeah. Blah blah blah.

Based on your posts that I've seen, I highly doubt you read anything with any comprehension whatsoever.

Translation: All you (nonspiritual phoney israelite) are interested in is rabble rousing.