Another simple disproof of Amil: No more sea

[Timtofly]

Amillennial brothers of 'spiritualising' scripture, when they do the very same thing. They look to the OT's use of imagery and symbolism to guide their understanding of NT symbols and imagery.
So...let me ask you this: if Daniel tells us that a beast represents a kindgom, and we therefore read Revelation as referring to certain kindgoms of the world as it speaks of beasts...how then are we spiritualising it? Where is the fable?

Amil spiritualize the 1,000 in Revelation 20.

Amil spiritualize the physical resurrection in Revelation 20:4. They change it from those physically beheaded, to meaning Christ on resurrection Sunday.

There, I symbolized a day of the week to represent the literal day Jesus rose from the grave. I called it resurrection Sunday, instead of just Sunday. But you know I was talking about a first century event as opposed to Black Friday, the Day after Thanksgiving. There, two more literal times known by symbolic names.

Here is the thing about the first resurrection. Jesus was not the first one resurrected. Nor is the resurrection found in Revelation 20:4 a first resurrection when it comes to chronological order.

Amil symbolize that "first" and call it a spiritualization because they only apply it to God, and not about humans at all. They imply that humans in Christ are affected, but only spiritually. There is literally no spiritual resurrection. That is a made up term extra biblical in the minds of some Amil.

A spirit never dies, and if it did, what would cause it to resurrect? It is a play on being spiritually dead, but yet again, what is spiritually dead? That is a symbolic understanding of being in Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Once again flesh is only physical, not spiritual. The flesh is not dead, it is spiritually separated from God's spiritual communication. Jesus already explained that the second birth is spiritual into God's family. Why would any redeemed person want to then be called spiritually dead in need of a resurrection, before or after spiritual birth? You have to have birth before life can be enjoyed. Once born, why would you want to die, just to be resurrected back to the condition you were going for with a birth?

The only ones who can have a spiritual resurrection are those in the second death in the LOF. And that is only by inference as they were never literally born spiritually to die spiritually. The concept of Adam's punishment was already spiritual death. But one is not born out of death, one is resurrected out. But in John 3 Jesus called it a birth, not a spiritual resurrection.

Once again we are back to how one conflates this first resurrection, as spiritual. That is not logical nor Scriptural. That is why spiritualizing this first resurrection is wrong. Jesus already gave the concept a name of the second birth. There is literally no need to call the second birth the first resurrection. Especially when the first resurrection happens after the first death, which happens after the first birth. So Jesus already gave us what first means, and that is physical. That is not symbolizing the term nor spiritualizing, nor making it literal, or taking away the literal meaning. The first resurrection is a physical resurrection like Jesus experienced. Lazarus experienced the first resurrection. All those in their graves from the OT who were redeemed experienced a first/physical resurrection out of Abraham's bosom. They ascended to heaven with Jesus on that Resurrection Sunday.

Stephen left his physical body in the dust, and was resurrected into a permanent incorruptible physical body just like all those in the OT. The thief on the Cross was the first one to die post Cross. He experienced a physical resurrection that day into Paradise. The first resurrection is an ongoing phenomenon just like the second birth is an ongoing phenomenon. So in Revelation 20:4 we see the last group of people with a first/physical resurrection. Many teach those in sheol do not get a second chance, but if granted a first resurrection, they would have eternal life and escape the LOF. John never let's us know if those standing dead get a second chance. He just lets us know they could not get a second chance until that GWT event.

 

[Timtofly]

If you want to die on the hill of saying there will be no sea...you go for it. I'll not stop you. The fact that there may, or may not be a sea in the great yonder does not particularly weigh heavily on me...its the company, I suppose you could say, that I look forward to.

Are those currently in Paradise longing to walk on a sea shore? Or is looking down on the ocean from a particular lofty height satisfactory enough?

From the strong position Amil take on every thing burning up or dissolving in fire, it would seem more miraculous that any water is left on earth at all. Would not the intent to burn everything off the face of the earth include removing all that water?

Most premill would agree that Jesus hands creation back with beautiful oceans and Seas. If the next rendition includes less water, then less water there will be. I guess people afraid of over population may want to avoid God's plan altogether? Maybe they like the take that means no more overpopulated chaos?

I can see that as some of the posters held up by that angry mob in Revelation 20:9:

"No more overpopulation"

"Save the Seas"

"Save the Oceans"

 

[Truth7t7]

Anyone who knows the story of Lot knows your interpretation is wrong.

You deny the "Literal" seen below, the very reason you aren't taken seriously in your teachings

"Literal" brimstone and fire from God out of heaven destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, the same will take place when Jesus Christ is "Revealed"

Genesis 19:24-25KJV
24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

"Destroyed Them All"

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

[Timtofly]

Hmmm. So...let me just see if I can get this straight:
Eden was man dwelling in God's presence......NH/NE is man dwelling in God's presence.
Eden was a garden...NH/NE is a garden.
Eden had the tree of life....NH/NE has the tree of life.
Eden (pre-sin) was perfect...NH/NE will be perfect.

I'm sorry...explain to me again how the nh/ne is not Eden restored?

Because Paradise already has the tree of life in it. The New Jerusalem has the tree of life in it. The Garden is Paradise. Eden was not the earth. Paradise is not the earth.

There will be a restored earth 1,000 years prior to the NHNE. How does restoring the earth 2,000 years after restoring humans to Paradise make us wait for your restoration that is still a Sabbath Lord's Day from now? Eden was opened 3,000 years prior to your restored NHNE.

Even Augustine wrote about Paradise restored in the heavens. Paradise is already full of humans in God's presence, serving in that heavenly temple day and night for 1992 years. This Easter it will be 1993 years. The word Paradise means Garden.

 

[ewq1938]

You deny the "Literal" seen below, the very reason you aren't taken seriously in your teachings

"Literal" brimstone and fire from God out of heaven destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, the same will take place when Jesus Christ is "Revealed"

Genesis 19:24-25KJV
24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

"Destroyed Them All"

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Anyone who knows the story of Lot knows your interpretation is wrong.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes.

This is certainly an interesting idea. However it assumes a few things. It assumes that Satan's own 'fall'...or rebellion...whatever you want to call it, happened significantly before Adam and Eve's fall. I don't believe the bible actually tells us this, therefore its simple speculation.
It also assumes that Satan's rebellion had an affect upon God's creation before that moment in the garden...again something we are not told. Indeed, all we are told in Genesis is that everything was 'good', or 'very good'...up until that moment where Adam and Eve disobeyed God. That, we are told, was the moment sin entered into the physical creation. Not just the spiritual element of mankind, but creation itself.
So...I would hesitate, personally, in assuming things were 'not perfect' before we are told they are not. If you follow me.

 

[Naomi25]

Amil spiritualize the 1,000 in Revelation 20.

Yes...and I've come across Dispensationalists who think the demonic creatures released from the abyss in Chapter 9 are actually attack helicopters. Or who argue whole heartedly that "the DAY of the Lord" is actually the 7 year Tribulation.

My point: everyone 'spiritualizes' certain things in scripture if they think scripture itself is calling us to use the imagery and symbols to portray a very real truth.

I truly don't care if the 1000 years turns out to be actual (and by that I mean physical) and here on earth. Why would I? Jesus would be here. But I cannot ignore all the biblical passages telling me that he is ruling right now. That he sits at the Fathers right hand right now. And I cannot ignore how Revelation uses numbers in a symbolic way. Even Dispensationalists admit to that. To ignore both simply because I might want to hold to literalism seems foolish.

Amil spiritualize the physical resurrection in Revelation 20:4. They change it from those physically beheaded, to meaning Christ on resurrection Sunday.

There, I symbolized a day of the week to represent the literal day Jesus rose from the grave. I called it resurrection Sunday, instead of just Sunday. But you know I was talking about a first century event as opposed to Black Friday, the Day after Thanksgiving. There, two more literal times known by symbolic names.

Here is the thing about the first resurrection. Jesus was not the first one resurrected. Nor is the resurrection found in Revelation 20:4 a first resurrection when it comes to chronological order.

I'm afraid I really don't know what you're referring to here.
I'm not really fully Amil...so it could be, perhaps, that some believe what you are saying above. However...none that I have listened to/read have taken that approach when dealing with the 'first resurrection'.

Amil symbolize that "first" and call it a spiritualization because they only apply it to God, and not about humans at all. They imply that humans in Christ are affected, but only spiritually. There is literally no spiritual resurrection. That is a made up term extra biblical in the minds of some Amil.

"There is literally no spiritual resurrection."
Huh.
This claim is remarkable. And baffling. And outrageous.
I would hope that any Christian should know that this is what the gospel is. The good new IS resurrection. Not just of the flesh, which is in the future. But of the heart...of the soul and spirit within.
Would we not call this spiritual renewal? Resurrection?
The bible certainly seems to.

Colossians 2:13
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

Ephesians 2:5–6
even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

It is incontestable that scripture speaks of becoming 'born again' in terms of moving from spiritual death to new life. Which would be the very meaning of a resurrection...wouldn't you think?
So...regardless of whether this is or is not the "1st resurrection" spoken of in Rev 20, I would hope you can dismiss the idea of 'spiritual resurrection' being absent in scripture. To do so is to dismiss the gospel.

A spirit never dies, and if it did, what would cause it to resurrect? It is a play on being spiritually dead, but yet again, what is spiritually dead?

I'm sorry. I really am. But...are you being serious?

Remember this?

Ezekiel 11:19–20
And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

A spirit might not END...sure. But its state, and how the bible describes that state...? Well....there is just plenty...lots...oodles...of examples where we are told our spirits are dead. If we weren't spiritually dead, why would we need to be 'born again'? Why would we need this 'new life' that is talked about? Baptism...the whole point of baptism is that it represents...symbolises, if you like...the spiritual reality in which our spirits, which were once 'dead', have been united in Christ in his death, then come 'alive' in his own resurrection. The bible is RIFE with symbolism over spiritual death and life!
And if the symbolism of it, and the whole idea of it bothers you, then you're in for a world of trouble, I'm sorry to say. Because the gospel hangs on it.

That is a symbolic understanding of being in Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Once again flesh is only physical, not spiritual. The flesh is not dead, it is spiritually separated from God's spiritual communication. Jesus already explained that the second birth is spiritual into God's family. Why would any redeemed person want to then be called spiritually dead in need of a resurrection, before or after spiritual birth? You have to have birth before life can be enjoyed. Once born, why would you want to die, just to be resurrected back to the condition you were going for with a birth?

The only ones who can have a spiritual resurrection are those in the second death in the LOF. And that is only by inference as they were never literally born spiritually to die spiritually. The concept of Adam's punishment was already spiritual death. But one is not born out of death, one is resurrected out. But in John 3 Jesus called it a birth, not a spiritual resurrection.

Once again we are back to how one conflates this first resurrection, as spiritual. That is not logical nor Scriptural. That is why spiritualizing this first resurrection is wrong. Jesus already gave the concept a name of the second birth. There is literally no need to call the second birth the first resurrection. Especially when the first resurrection happens after the first death, which happens after the first birth. So Jesus already gave us what first means, and that is physical. That is not symbolizing the term nor spiritualizing, nor making it literal, or taking away the literal meaning. The first resurrection is a physical resurrection like Jesus experienced. Lazarus experienced the first resurrection. All those in their graves from the OT who were redeemed experienced a first/physical resurrection out of Abraham's bosom. They ascended to heaven with Jesus on that Resurrection Sunday.

Stephen left his physical body in the dust, and was resurrected into a permanent incorruptible physical body just like all those in the OT. The thief on the Cross was the first one to die post Cross. He experienced a physical resurrection that day into Paradise. The first resurrection is an ongoing phenomenon just like the second birth is an ongoing phenomenon. So in Revelation 20:4 we see the last group of people with a first/physical resurrection. Many teach those in sheol do not get a second chance, but if granted a first resurrection, they would have eternal life and escape the LOF. John never let's us know if those standing dead get a second chance. He just lets us know if those standing dead get a second chance. He just lets us know they could not get a second chance until that GWT event.

Wait. You know what? I'm sorry...but I just don't understand anything you're saying.

 

[Naomi25]

Are those currently in Paradise longing to walk on a sea shore? Or is looking down on the ocean from a particular lofty height satisfactory enough?

From the strong position Amil take on every thing burning up or dissolving in fire, it would seem more miraculous that any water is left on earth at all. Would not the intent to burn everything off the face of the earth include removing all that water?

Most premill would agree that Jesus hands creation back with beautiful oceans and Seas. If the next rendition includes less water, then less water there will be. I guess people afraid of over population may want to avoid God's plan altogether? Maybe they like the take that means no more overpopulated chaos?

I can see that as some of the posters held up by that angry mob in Revelation 20:9:

"No more overpopulation"

"Save the Seas"

"Save the Oceans"

Ah. Hmmm. What's the final judgement in fire got to do with anything in the nh/ne?
Isn't that a little like saying that because he flooded the old world, no dry land was gonna be found after that?
Remade and renewed by the one who created it all in the first place would imply...to me...that if he wants something there...there it will be.

 

[ewq1938]

This is certainly an interesting idea. However it assumes a few things. It assumes that Satan's own 'fall'...or rebellion...whatever you want to call it, happened significantly before Adam and Eve's fall. I don't believe the bible actually tells us this, therefore its simple speculation.
It also assumes that Satan's rebellion had an affect upon God's creation before that moment in the garden...again something we are not told. Indeed, all we are told in Genesis is that everything was 'good', or 'very good'...up until that moment where Adam and Eve disobeyed God. That, we are told, was the moment sin entered into the physical creation. Not just the spiritual element of mankind, but creation itself.
So...I would hesitate, personally, in assuming things were 'not perfect' before we are told they are not. If you follow me.

Satan was already being represented as a serpent, one who deceived and lied to Eve. This is evidence that he had already sinned himself plus the whole rebellion thing you mentioned.

 

[ewq1938]

But I cannot ignore all the biblical passages telling me that he is ruling right now. That he sits at the Fathers right hand right now.

Nothing states he is currently ruling the nations with a rod of iron. That doesn't even begin until he has returned, the end of Rev 2 speaks of this, and part of Rev 19.

And I cannot ignore how Revelation uses numbers in a symbolic way.

Rev does not use numbers in a symbolic way, but in a literal way.

42 months is 42 months.
144,000 is 144,000.
3 and a half days is 3 and a half days.
7 seals are 7 seals.
7 trumpets are 7 trumpets.
7 vials are 7 vials.
24 elders are 24 elders.
1260 days is 1260 days.
And yes, a thousand years is a thousand years.

1. There are no NT examples of chilioi meaning more or less than exactly a thousand.
2. It (chilioi) still means exactly a thousand when paired with other numbers.
3. It's uses in the bible (chilioi) are of exactly a thousand every single time it appears.
4. When an unknown amount is used, the word used is G5505 chilias, and it is used twice in a row.
5. G5507 chilioi is never used in this double fashion.
6. The double appearance of G5505 chilias is not found in Revelation 20.

I think this is a strong case that Revelation 20's "thousand years" is exactly a thousand years. There is no evidence in the NT that this is a longer period of time.

 

[Naomi25]

Because Paradise already has the tree of life in it. The New Jerusalem has the tree of life in it. The Garden is Paradise. Eden was not the earth. Paradise is not the earth.

There will be a restored earth 1,000 years prior to the NHNE. How does restoring the earth 2,000 years after restoring humans to Paradise make us wait for your restoration that is still a Sabbath Lord's Day from now? Eden was opened 3,000 years prior to your restored NHNE.

Even Augustine wrote about Paradise restored in the heavens. Paradise is already full of humans in God's presence, serving in that heavenly temple day and night for 1992 years. This Easter it will be 1993 years. The word Paradise means Garden.

Again...I think you're attempting to push the analogy further than I was trying to. My only point was that Eden...the garden of...was a place where man dwelt with God in a sin free setting, and that the nh/ne will also be like this. God is a God of order, thus it is not surprising that as he begun, so he will finish.

However...I'm not sure I really follow your logic above. Paradise is the garden...is the NJ...both have the tree. But neither paradise nor Eden can be on earth.
Except Eden was, and NJ will be, and the tree was...and will be.
And we could argue what 'Paradise' means, I suppose. We know it to, biblically, mean that place the thief went with Christ after their death upon the cross. So...let's say heaven...currently.
And we could say that the NJ is, currently, in heaven, waiting to 'come down out of heaven'....where it will be in the 'new earth'.
However...it is an assumption that just because the NJ is currently in heaven, that the saints in heaven now have access to it. Which would give them current access to the tree of life. We don't know that. We don't know anything, really, about the current reality of heaven. Indeed, we could suppose they will not need access to the tree of life until after their physical resurrection, and they have a need for its fruit.
But, as I said, it's all speculation. And, I'm afraid I'm not seeing much I would consider as fact from you. It's certainly interesting to talk about and speculate about, but the bible is either silent on the subject, or deliberately vague.

 

[Naomi25]

Satan was already being represented as a serpent, one who deceived and lied to Eve. This is evidence that he had already sinned himself plus the whole rebellion thing you mentioned.

Chronologically, yes. It is clear Satan 'fell' before Adam and Eve. I don't think anyone would dispute that. My point is: when? And your answer...or point...doesn't really change that. The fact that he displayed himself to them as a serpent doesn't mean much...why would it? He's angelic. The idea that he appeared to them in human form is probably just as foreign as a talking serpent. Think of what we're told about angelic appearances in scripture. Yes, often when they appear to men as messengers they appear as men, as not to terrify them any further than they usually do. But heavenly scenes, where we are given a glimpse of their true form? Not human.
My point being...we have no real knowledge of when Satan rebelled. He may have viewed God's creation, it's culmination of Adam and Eve...God declaring them "very good", and experienced such jealousy and anger over that moment, that he fell then. We just don't know.
But here's some food for thought: its taught widely that Satan's "rebellion" took 1/3 of heavens angels with him. And that is simply not found anywhere in scripture. The only place that mentions 1/3 of the angelic host, is in Rev 12, in the sign of a woman in heaven, and the battle between the dragon and Michael. The problem being...this passage clearly describes the birth of Jesus...so if this was the moment when 1/3 of the angels fell...it clearly wasn't when Satan originally rebelled.
All that to say: assumptions can be dangerous - assuming that Satan had to have been an existing evil well established before God created this universe and therefore spread his stain upon it as soon as God willed it into existence...is problematic in many ways: one being...scripture doesn't tell us so. And unless scripture spell it out for you...which it most certainly does not in this case, you're speculating...worse, moving into territory of placing your narrative over top of scriptures.

 

[Naomi25]

Nothing states he is currently ruling the nations with a rod of iron. That doesn't even begin until he has returned, the end of Rev 2 speaks of this, and part of Rev 19.

Let me ask you a fairly simple question. Did the fact that the first time Jesus came, he didn't come with a conquering army, mean that he didn't come at all? That he wasn't the Messiah the Jews were looking for?
We both know its a foolish question. Of course he was the Messiah. Of course he really came. And of course, the fact that he came, the first time, as the suffering servant, was relevant. Essential. Pivotal.
Here's the deal: there ARE verses telling us he is ruling and reigning now. I've posted them. There ARE verses telling us he is siting at the right hand of the Father...a position laden with symbolic imagery of leadership, of kingship, of authority. You know this.
However...until he returns, in flaming fire and judgement, he will not use the authority he has IN judgement. The bible is clear on this as well. We know he won all authority at the cross; it is foolishness to pretend otherwise. We also know he 'allows' evil men and evil forces to go back and forth on the planet, heaping up for themselves judgements. As Christians, we wait for that day...long for that day, when he will return and repay all.

So...does he rule and reign now? Absolutely. Will he reign then with a rod of iron? Absolutely. Can these passages harmonize? Absolutely...in fact, they must.

Rev does not use numbers in a symbolic way, but in a literal way.

42 months is 42 months.
144,000 is 144,000.
3 and a half days is 3 and a half days.
7 seals are 7 seals.
7 trumpets are 7 trumpets.
7 vials are 7 vials.
24 elders are 24 elders.
1260 days is 1260 days.
And yes, a thousand years is a thousand years.

Then you need to send out a memo to many of your Dispensationalist teachers I've heard on the subject. Many of them seem to be dabbling.

1. There are no NT examples of chilioi meaning more or less than exactly a thousand.
2. It (chilioi) still means exactly a thousand when paired with other numbers.
3. It's uses in the bible (chilioi) are of exactly a thousand every single time it appears.
4. When an unknown amount is used, the word used is G5505 chilias, and it is used twice in a row.
5. G5507 chilioi is never used in this double fashion.
6. The double appearance of G5505 chilias is not found in Revelation 20.

I think this is a strong case that Revelation 20's "thousand years" is exactly a thousand years. There is no evidence in the NT that this is a longer period of time.

2 Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Perception. Imagery...all in order to describe a truth. That truth? God's timing is not our timing. We can wait upon him and trust in him...in his timing.
Is Peter "literally" saying that for God 1 day is as 1000 years? Probably not, and I suspect we can agree this is not Peter's real point as God is most likely outside of actual time.
But it does nicely to illustrate that biblical authors can...and do...use both numbers...and images...to illustrate realities and ideas. Not WOO-WOO stupid, made up, pull-it-out-of-your-hat ideas. But important, true, Godly, biblical truths.
Understanding that, and understanding what God is telling us through those images, does not make you a wild, scary, heathen "spiritualiser".

 

[ewq1938]

Chronologically, yes. It is clear Satan 'fell' before Adam and Eve. I don't think anyone would dispute that. My point is: when? And your answer...or point...doesn't really change that. The fact that he displayed himself to them as a serpent doesn't mean much...why would it? He's angelic. The idea that he appeared to them in human form is probably just as foreign as a talking serpent. Think of what we're told about angelic appearances in scripture. Yes, often when they appear to men as messengers they appear as men, as not to terrify them any further than they usually do. But heavenly scenes, where we are given a glimpse of their true form? Not human.
My point being...we have no real knowledge of when Satan rebelled. He may have viewed God's creation, it's culmination of Adam and Eve...God declaring them "very good", and experienced such jealousy and anger over that moment, that he fell then. We just don't know.
But here's some food for thought: its taught widely that Satan's "rebellion" took 1/3 of heavens angels with him. And that is simply not found anywhere in scripture. The only place that mentions 1/3 of the angelic host, is in Rev 12, in the sign of a woman in heaven, and the battle between the dragon and Michael. The problem being...this passage clearly describes the birth of Jesus...so if this was the moment when 1/3 of the angels fell...it clearly wasn't when Satan originally rebelled.
All that to say: assumptions can be dangerous - assuming that Satan had to have been an existing evil well established before God created this universe and therefore spread his stain upon it as soon as God willed it into existence...is problematic in many ways: one being...scripture doesn't tell us so. And unless scripture spell it out for you...which it most certainly does not in this case, you're speculating...worse, moving into territory of placing your narrative over top of scriptures.

I don't agree. Satan present in the garden proves sin existed before man sinned. Even Satan's temptations were sins that led to man's sin.

 

[ewq1938]

There ARE verses telling us he is siting at the right hand of the Father...a position laden with symbolic imagery of leadership, of kingship, of authority. You know this.

Yes, and it isn't a point of dispute so why bring it up? The issue is that Christ is not ruling the nations with a rod of iron with his saints now. That only starts at the second coming. Multiple passages prove this.

2 Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Perception. Imagery...all in order to describe a truth. That truth? God's timing is not our timing.

And this was done using literal and exact periods of time. You claimed numbers in Rev were used in a symbolic way but you did not cite any. The truth is that all Greek numbers in the NT are exact numbers.

 

[Timtofly]

What dead are you talking about?

The goats and tares are spiritually dead. They are not physically dead.

All of Paul's writings contrast the lost as spiritually dead, with the redeemed who are quickened, not resurrected. Being made alive to Paul is the second birth.

 

[jeffweeder]

The goats and tares are spiritually dead. They are not physically dead.

All are spiritually dead whether physically dead or alive until they receive Jesus.
All of the dead are seen standing before the GWT when the eternal fire judgment is passed upon them.

Rev 20
12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the Book of Life; and the dead were judged according to what they had done as written in the books [that is, everything done while on earth]. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades (the realm of the dead) surrendered the dead who were in them; and they were judged and sentenced, every one according to their deeds.

All of Paul's writings contrast the lost as spiritually dead, with the redeemed who are quickened, not resurrected. Being made alive to Paul is the second birth.

2Tim 4
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:

6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure [from this world] is at hand and I will soon go free. 7 I have fought the good and worthy and noble fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith [firmly guarding the gospel against error]. 8 In the future there is reserved for me the [victor’s] crown of righteousness [for being right with God and doing right], which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that [great] day—and not to me only, but also to all those who have loved and longed for and welcomed His appearing.


Paul is physically dead when this future day of reward takes place.


Rev 22
12 “Behold, I (Jesus) am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to the merit of his deeds (earthly works, faithfulness). 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End [the Eternal One].”

14 Blessed (happy, prosperous, to be admired) are those who wash their robes [in the blood of Christ by believing and trusting in Him—the righteous who do His commandments], so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


To receive this reward requires a bodily resurrection.

 

[Naomi25]

I don't agree. Satan present in the garden proves sin existed before man sinned. Even Satan's temptations were sins that led to man's sin.

Satan existed...yes...I'm not contending that. But unless you can show me scriptural evidence that says sin and corruption affected both mankind and physical creation before we are told it does in Genesis 3, then I'm afraid you won't convince me its anything but speculation at best.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes, and it isn't a point of dispute so why bring it up? The issue is that Christ is not ruling the nations with a rod of iron with his saints now. That only starts at the second coming. Multiple passages prove this.

Why bring up the passages that speak of Christ ruling and reigning now in a conversation about whether he's ruling and reigning now?
Gee...that is a good question.
Point of fact is: you were the one who insisted that unless he was ruling "with a rod of iron" that he couldn't be ruling at all. Which...sorry, seems to be excluded by the very existence of the bible verses that speak of him ruling and reigning sans rod of iron. Indeed, as I suggested in my previous post, it would seem to support the idea that he can be ruling and reigning now...sitting at the right hand of the Father in authority now after triumphing upon the cross...but still have a final time of judgement and 'iron rod' ruling ahead of him.
What you really need to prove, biblically, is that just because a 'rod of iron' ruling is spoken of when he returns in judgement, that that must therefore mean he cannot still be ruling and reigning now. In other words...you must disprove those verses speaking of him ruling and reigning now, of...well...speaking of what they're speaking of. Which I wish you luck in.

And this was done using literal and exact periods of time. You claimed numbers in Rev were used in a symbolic way but you did not cite any. The truth is that all Greek numbers in the NT are exact numbers.

Ok. No one...absolutely no one reads this Peter reference as literal. No one looks at this and says "ah yes....God experiences 1000 years as a single day. And conversely when a thousand years has passed by for him, only a day has gone by."
Also....absolutely no one looks at this and says "ah yes, 1000 here means a tree".
To say that numbers must both be strictly literal, but conversely lose all meaning AS a number, is opposite sides of the same sort of nonsense....
Numbers will always represent numerical idea, else language and ideas cease to hold meaning. But, as we see in the verse above, numbers used in symbolic ways, don't always need to represent the exact numeric value displayed.
Unless you're going to try and tell me with a straight face that God truly does experience a day as 1000 years and 1000 years in a day.

Or...how's about this one?

Revelation 17:12
And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast.

These "10 horns" are 10 Kings. Kings that we are told later in v16 will make the 'harlot' desolate. In Daniel we are told '10 Kings will arise', and that out of them will come a 'little horn'. Basically, between Daniel and Revelation we see that these 'kings' and the Antichrist are 'given authority'.

Here's the issue with insisting numbers must be literal. "One hour" is hardly enough time for the Antichrist and his boys to do all the things they are prophesied to do...is it? We know God gives them authority to make war on the saints. To turn on the harlot. Goodness...the whole 7 years they have almost free reign on the earth. But....1 hour? Hmmm. That's a little problematic, isn't it?

 

[ewq1938]

Here's the issue with insisting numbers must be literal. "One hour" is hardly enough time for the Antichrist and his boys to do all the things they are prophesied to do...is it?

It's plenty of time being that is not speaking of 60 min. The word is also not a number but you would know that had you bothered to study the word at all.