Another simple disproof of Amil: No more sea

[Naomi25]

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.

You know...I confess I find it...interesting that you spend so much time and energy insisting that things must be taken and read in a strictly literal sense...as we find them. And yet, here we are, reading something that tells us "one hour", and you dismiss it as being literal, jeer at me for suggesting you do....
...And then do not provide any sort of reasoned argument why you should not hold up your own hermeneutic.
A more suspicious person would think it was because you could not.
But, I confess...I am getting very close to the point where I do not care to discuss it anymore. You are certainly free to believe as you will, as am I.

 

[ewq1938]

You know...I confess I find it...interesting that you spend so much time and energy insisting that things must be taken and read in a strictly literal sense...as we find them. And yet, here we are, reading something that tells us "one hour", and you dismiss it as being literal, jeer at me for suggesting you do....
...And then do not provide any sort of reasoned argument why you should not hold up your own hermeneutic.
A more suspicious person would think it was because you could not.

I could but I don't want to spend the time doing so. Do your own work on this and you will figure this out for yourself. I already gave you a clue when I told you the word is not a number. You just skipped over that when you replied.

 

[Timtofly]

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.


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.

Show me where in Scripture these sheep and goats physically died. The dead are those outside of Christ. The quickened are those made spiritually into the Family of God. There are billions of dead walking around on earth, outside of Christ. They are not physically dead. Those alive today are the ones judged at the Second Coming. Most are spiritually dead.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

That one hour is when all humanity comes together to defeat Christ at Armageddon.

They literally will get nothing done. Except they will all die in that one hour.

 

[Naomi25]

I could but I don't want to spend the time doing so. Do your own work on this and you will figure this out for yourself. I already gave you a clue when I told you the word is not a number. You just skipped over that when you replied.

Friend...I have already sorted it. You are the one, in my opinion, making contrary claims, then conveniently not backing it up.
This is where I get off...
Have a lovely day.

 

[Naomi25]

That one hour is when all humanity comes together to defeat Christ at Armageddon.

They literally will get nothing done. Except they will all die in that one hour.

Another win for 'literalism'.
Because 'Armageddon' happens, chronologically, before this. Which would, in any sense of reading a passage in a strictly literal way, make what you've just suggested nonsensical.
Not to mention the fact that literalism would also insist that saying that 'giving authority' to someone could not mean "being defeated, getting nothing done and dying".
Those who hold to a hermeneutic of 'literalism' cannot be faithful to it.

 

[ewq1938]

Friend...I have already sorted it. You are the one, in my opinion, making contrary claims, then conveniently not backing it up.

The word for "hour" is not a number. Anyone with a Greek dictionary can verify this fact.

All Greek numbers are literal, including all of them in the book of Rev.

 

[ewq1938]

Another win for 'literalism'.
Because 'Armageddon' happens, chronologically, before this. Which would, in any sense of reading a passage in a strictly literal way, make what you've just suggested nonsensical.
Not to mention the fact that literalism would also insist that saying that 'giving authority' to someone could not mean "being defeated, getting nothing done and dying".
Those who hold to a hermeneutic of 'literalism' cannot be faithful to it.

This is a strawman fallacy since there is no one here who holds to a hermeneutic of 'literalism'.


Both Amill and Premill hold doctrines that recognize both literal and symbolic things in scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

Another win for 'literalism'.
Because 'Armageddon' happens, chronologically, before this. Which would, in any sense of reading a passage in a strictly literal way, make what you've just suggested nonsensical.
Not to mention the fact that literalism would also insist that saying that 'giving authority' to someone could not mean "being defeated, getting nothing done and dying".
Those who hold to a hermeneutic of 'literalism' cannot be faithful to it.

I guess you have never read much about how treatise work between nations when they jointly declare war against other nations? They give themselves the power and authority to do so.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

Do you not understand how Satan can promise people one thing, but what they get is something entirely different?

Chapters 17 and 18 are describing Armageddon. Has nothing to do with literalism, nor chronological order. 17 and 18 are parenthetical descriptions of the 7 vials.

If you want wooden literalism, read historist who try to claim they know the exact historical context of Revelation.

If after 42 months those 10 horns don't have a kingdom, when do you think Satan is going to give them one? How about the earth, after Satan drives God away? Do you think they would join Satan to fight if they have read the book of Revelation, and read how it actually ends?

Your literalism thinks they have to have kingdoms and only have those kingdoms for 1 hour. That is not what that verse says. The term one hour is found a couple other places in both chapters. It is one hour of destruction. Are you going to say it just means indefinite destruction for years?

How is it literalism if I interpret that verse as Satan promising 10 influential humans 10 kingdoms, if they defeat the Lamb?

Scripture already points out that is what they attempt to do:

"These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

How many Armageddons will there be when Nations come together to fight the Lamb? You are the one trying to put plural "Armageddons" into chronological order. Not me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is a false "fact". That does not happen at the second coming.
He clearly was

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

This verb is in the present tense in the Greek manuscripts so this “taking vengeance” happens during the second coming.

2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

“shall be punished” is in the FUTURE TENSE which means that the everlasting destruction ie: GWTJ/LOF is NOT happening at the second coming but is a FUTURE event after the second coming just as Premill teaches and exactly opposite of what Amill teaches.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 Interlinear: who shall suffer justice -- destruction age-during -- from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength,

biblehub.com

You can verify in the link above that the verb tisousin is in the future tense: verb tense: future indicative active.

Amill will AVOID this fact as much as possible because it destroys the false teachings it espouses!

No, he expressly said it did not happen on that day, using a future tense verb. He is Premill because he knew the eternal punishment of the wicked was a future event to the Coming. Once again, Amill ignores the verb tense to force the LOF punishment to happen at a time it does not happen. That's classic eisegesis, an Amill foundation.

You endlessly spout nonsense. Of course the judgment of casting the wicked into the lake of fire happens AFTER the wicked who are alive when He comes are destroyed. But, there is no indication in 2 Thess 1:6-10 nor in a passage like Matthew 25:31-46 that the wicked are cast into the LOF long after the living wicked are destroyed. That is complete nonsense and a case of twisting the text to fit your doctrine.

In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus very clearly taught that both the righteous and wicked will be gathered before Him AT THE SAME TIME when He comes with His angels. And then the judgment of both the righteous and the wicked will commence at that point. It's ludicrous to think that He would wait 1,000+ years to judge the unsaved after He gathers them together with the saved before His throne. Yet, that's what you believe. And you think you're making a strong argument here? It could not be any weaker.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

Are you purposely acting dumb here? No one was saying that the word translated as "hour" is a number. It is the Greek word translated as "one" (heis - Strong's G1520) that is in question here, not the Greek word translated as "hour" (hōra -Strong's G5610). Do you take the reference to "ONE hour" in verses like Revelation 17:12 literally, as in you see it as being equivalent to literally ONE hour, as in 60 minutes?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Everything you don't like is fizz and bubble, so you just paste your usual stuff over it.

JW's reject Jesus' personal reign on earth for a thousand years, as you do.

And JW's believe the thousand years occurs after Christ returns, as you do. So, get out of here with this JW nonsense and leave them out of it.

 

[Naomi25]

The word for "hour" is not a number. Anyone with a Greek dictionary can verify this fact.

All Greek numbers are literal, including all of them in the book of Rev.

That's a very....interesting way to wiggle out your problem. Or attempt to.
Words still have their meaning. As I'm sure you agree. And I'm sure, in any language you choose today, an hour is still 60 minutes. Basic facts do not falter in the face of dodgy doctrine.
Tell me. When the word 'hour' is used throughout the NT, what does it usually mean? If we look, we see it still holds the meaning of 1) a quantity of time, and 2) usually a finite amount of time...a short period of time.


Matthew 6:27 - And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?

---

Matthew 10:19 - When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour.

Matthew 20:5 - So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same.

---

Matthew 20:6 - And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’

Matthew 20:12 - saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’

---

Matthew 24:36 - “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

That is only in Matthew. The whole NT is rife with examples of how "hour" is used exactly as we use 'hour'. Greek language or no.
Which brings me right back to my point and argument. Which I'm afraid you still haven't disproven.

 

[Naomi25]

This is a strawman fallacy since there is no one here who holds to a hermeneutic of 'literalism'.

This is the point where I scratch my head in bafflement. If no one here holds to 'literalism', why on earth have you been arguing so hard for it?

And...is it me building a strawman if you present post after post claiming we must take things literally?

I don't know...seems like if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...its got a good chance of being a duck...

Both Amill and Premill hold doctrines that recognize both literal and symbolic things in scripture.

Ah. So now we get some traction. So...Premill does recognize symbolism.
Actually...I already knew this. I can't remember if I mentioned it to you or if it was in my posts to timtofly. But sure...I've heard other dispensationalists admit to the symbolic nature of numbers in scripture. Of imagery.
So...again...it's part of my bafflement that so many here fight against it so hard. Or, conversely, think folks like the Amil or 'evil' for doing the very same thing.
Ultimately, we do the same thing: let scripture interpret scripture. We pull the interpretation of symbols, from other passages in scripture where the symbol is already explained for us.

 

[Naomi25]

I guess you have never read much about how treatise work between nations when they jointly declare war against other nations? They give themselves the power and authority to do so.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

Do you not understand how Satan can promise people one thing, but what they get is something entirely different?

Uh. This is hurting my brain. So...you guys, who insist we must take everything that is written literally, actually want me to believe that this passage is actually saying that 'giving authority' to these guys, is in reality, meaning that they're being defeated?

I mean. Sure. I totally get that. I mean, its the theme of the whole book, right? God gives Satan and his players just a short time to do their thing.
But, I mean...come on.

Literally? Here's the 'literal' meaning: "power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior"

Now...either you believe a person needs to read the thing 'literally', or you recognize the fact that things can hold meanings other than a strictly literal reading. Metaphor, symbolism, analogy. All scary ideas, I'm sure, but things we use all the time in our own lives and language; our stories and communication, that somehow doesn't take away from expressing certain truths.

I suppose the big question really is: do you think God is able to use whatever form he likes to communicate his truths to us? Is he limited in this regard? Do you think he is incapable of communicating his truths in anything but a strictly literal word sense?

Chapters 17 and 18 are describing Armageddon. Has nothing to do with literalism, nor chronological order. 17 and 18 are parenthetical descriptions of the 7 vials.

I still have many open-ended questions in regards to Revelation. But...I don't know if I can buy the idea it must be read in chronological order. I mean...can we really believe that Armageddon goes down at the end of Chapter 16, followed by a voice from heaven declaring "it is finished!", and then we see the biggest earthquake the world has ever seen, where the mountains flee away and all the cities of man fall.

And then, next chapter, it almost calmly goes on and goes "oh...by the way John, check out this thing over here...there's this city and this religious system, and they're working together, and this stuff goes down..."

Really? Didn't all cities collapse, on account of the incredible world ending earthquake? Weren't we told 'it is finished'?

Anyway...it doesn't fly for me.

If you want wooden literalism, read historist who try to claim they know the exact historical context of Revelation.

If after 42 months those 10 horns don't have a kingdom, when do you think Satan is going to give them one? How about the earth, after Satan drives God away? Do you think they would join Satan to fight if they have read the book of Revelation, and read how it actually ends?

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying, or the point your making here. Sorry.

Your literalism thinks they have to have kingdoms and only have those kingdoms for 1 hour. That is not what that verse says. The term one hour is found a couple other places in both chapters. It is one hour of destruction. Are you going to say it just means indefinite destruction for years?

Well...perhaps you're not following me terribly well. Firstly, I'm trying to point out that numbers are not always used literally in Revelation. Here would be one example. Which you seem to agree with.
Second...to read into "giving them authority" as "destruction" is rather priceless.
Even someone like me, who is happy to see the symbolism rife within the book, is happy to accept it is what it says it is. These "kings" are given authority for a time to persecute God's people. We see this corroborated in Daniel 11 and 12 and how the AC pursues the saints.

We know it is only for a season, one ordained by God, but for that season, those kings will have very real authority on the earth, just as Satan has had very real authority upon the earth.

How is it literalism if I interpret that verse as Satan promising 10 influential humans 10 kingdoms, if they defeat the Lamb?

It's not. At all. I'm not sure what it is. I suppose it's an assumption over what gets the 'kings' on board.

Scripture already points out that is what they attempt to do:

"These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

How many Armageddons will there be when Nations come together to fight the Lamb? You are the one trying to put plural "Armageddons" into chronological order. Not me.

No. No I don't believe I was attempting to put plural "Armageddons in there. Perhaps that might be the case if you then also insist on keeping to a chronological order...but I don't believe I was making that claim.

We know the kings fight against the Lamb. We know that everyone who doesn't have their name in his book of Life will, one way or the other, rebel against him. For what reason, we don't know. Pride, ultimately, I suppose...it is the default emotion of the human heart.

I don't totally understand what you are trying to get across, I'm afraid...and I'm not sure you totally understand what I'm saying. So...I'm not sure our conversation will be totally edifying in that regard. I suppose we can muddle onwards a bit...but it doesn't seem all that beneficial if we're talking past one another.

 

[ewq1938]

This is the point where I scratch my head in bafflement. If no one here holds to 'literalism', why on earth have you been arguing so hard for it?

I haven't. This is a made up accusation. Some things are literal while some things are symbolic.

 

[Timtofly]

You endlessly spout nonsense. Of course the judgment of casting the wicked into the lake of fire happens AFTER the wicked who are alive when He comes are destroyed. But, there is no indication in 2 Thess 1:6-10 nor in a passage like Matthew 25:31-46 that the wicked are cast into the LOF long after the living wicked are destroyed. That is complete nonsense and a case of twisting the text to fit your doctrine.

In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus very clearly taught that both the righteous and wicked will be gathered before Him AT THE SAME TIME when He comes with His angels. And then the judgment of both the righteous and the wicked will commence at that point. It's ludicrous to think that He would wait 1,000+ years to judge the unsaved after He gathers them together with the saved before His throne. Yet, that's what you believe. And you think you're making a strong argument here? It could not be any weaker.

You make the same point by stating Jesus has put off judgment for 1993 years. Revelation 20:5 clearly states the rest of the dead have to wait.

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished."

You have to acknowledge that their judgment is postponed for your symbolic millennium.

Once again, why is it ok to wait during Amil's millennium, but not ok to wait in Premil's millennium?

Christ comes to judge those physically alive at the Second Coming. The rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are over. Those judged at the Second Coming are cast live into the LOF. They don't ever physically die. Where do you get they have to physically die first?

Matthew 13:40

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."

LOF

Matthew 25:41

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:"

LOF

We know the LOF happens at the Second Coming, 1,000 years before the GWT.

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Who claims there is no LOF until 1,000 years later? No premil I know says that.

 

[Timtofly]

I still have many open-ended questions in regards to Revelation. But...I don't know if I can buy the idea it must be read in chronological order. I mean...can we really believe that Armageddon goes down at the end of Chapter 16, followed by a voice from heaven declaring "it is finished!", and then we see the biggest earthquake the world has ever seen, where the mountains flee away and all the cities of man fall.

Armageddon is covered in 16, 17, 18, and 19.

Armageddon is that one hour of time, Satan's empire is destroyed.

No, I don't do literal, like you accuse me of. Try context for what is literal and what is not.

Compare Scripture with Scripture to figure out chronological order. Revelation certainly is not in reverse order, where what is given first happens last, and what is given last happens first. Neither is it a set of 7 recaps at different camera angles. Starting from a beginning and ending 7 different times. No one can prove that other than with a jumbled up mess.

 

[Naomi25]

I haven't. This is a made up accusation. Some things are literal while some things are symbolic.

Ah. Got it.
You're allowed to say we 'overspiritualise' when we say 'some things are literal, while some things are symbolic', but when we say you focus too hard on literalism, its a 'made up accusation'.
Got it.
I do find it funny, all things considered.
People say that the 'danger' with spiritualizing Revelation is that you can 'make it say whatever you want'. However, at least we tend to be consistent in our interpretations.
You've quite happily taken 'one hour' and 'a thousand years' and insisted the first cannot function in any sort of a time way, especially in a 60 minute duration, because it was not written as "60 minutes", regardless of what the clear and 'literal' meaning of the word IS...and then swung onto 'a thousand years' and insisted it HAS to mean that exact period of years, regardless of how its written out. Following your logic, shouldn't it be written as 1000 years...numerically?
Consistency!

 

[Naomi25]

Armageddon is covered in 16, 17, 18, and 19.

Armageddon is that one hour of time, Satan's empire is destroyed.

No, I don't do literal, like you accuse me of. Try context for what is literal and what is not.

Compare Scripture with Scripture to figure out chronological order. Revelation certainly is not in reverse order, where what is given first happens last, and what is given last happens first. Neither is it a set of 7 recaps at different camera angles. Starting from a beginning and ending 7 different times. No one can prove that other than with a jumbled up mess.

It's all dandy then, isn't it? You don't do literal. I don't do spiritual. Everyone has Revelation all sorted, and its certainly not backwards, forwards or happening at the same time.