Both Pretribbers and Preterists are clearly wrong that great tribulation begins with the DOTL.

[PinSeeker]

Okay. But, my post must have spawned yours, at least, since no one was talking about 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 before I mentioned it. So, it came across that you thought when I said the earth would be destroyed that I was saying it would be annihilated and I wanted to clear that up from my own perspective so as not to be misrepresented.

You said, "mass, global destruction." Not my words... yours. Maybe you should have defined "mass, global destruction." Whatever. No need.

Grace and peace.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You said, "mass, global destruction." Not my words... yours. Maybe you should have defined "mass, global destruction." Whatever. No need.

Grace and peace.

Agree with your last two words of the first line. Plus, I've explained my view of this on this forum many times before, so didn't think there was a need to do it again. And the flood was mass, global destruction and didn't result in annihilation, so...yeah. Whatever, though.

 

[PinSeeker]

...the flood was mass, global destruction and didn't result in annihilation, so...yeah. Whatever, though.

This time God will burn everything up, though, right? <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Marvelloustime]

And they loved not their lives unto death . SO allow one more reminder .
HE who endures TO THE END the same shall be saved . To the END .

@amigo de christo

 

[Davidpt]

This time God will burn everything up, though, right? <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

Speaking of something like that. Let's consider this scenario.

There is a ship out at sea. It catches fire and the fire is out of control and humanly impossible to put out at this point. The fire has already destoyed any and all life preservers, lifeboats, etc. Everyone still alive aboard the ship are doomed and they clearly know it. Which death should we assume they might choose, given they have a choice? Staying aboard the ship risking being burned to a crisp eventually? Or jumping overboard risking drowning eventually?Obviously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

And it really makes sense, that as bad as it is to drown to death, thus not a pleasant way to die, that God has found a loophole. He doesn't have to drown everyone just like He promised. He simply comes up with a way to kill everyone off that is hundreds if not thousands of times more horrific than drowning, burning everyone and everything to ashes. I hope none of these Amils that believe that think there will be animals in the new earth. How could there be if the entire animal kingdom is wiped out entirely, including all creatures living in bodies of water, such as ponds, lakes, rivers, seas, oceans.

Maybe you can't drown any of those during a flood, but no way could they survive the intense heat that would be millions of degrees F per this scenario, and the intense smoke that would be from one end of the earth to the other. I'm just not on board with nonsense like that. My mind is unwilling to accept that absurdity. And not because I'm Premil, but because it is profoundly absurd, period. Which then begs the question, the fact Revelation 19 involves the 2nd coming as well, where in all of Revelation 19 does it remotely depict that the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames and that everyone and everything still on the planet at the time are being burned to ashes? Then using feasting birds imagery to convey that, as if that makes a lick of sense per a scenario like that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This time God will burn everything up, though, right? <smile>

Sure. Why not? Destroying (not annihilating....always need to clarify that, apparently) the earth is obviously something that God has done before. And sending fire down on earth is also something He has done before, but just not the entire earth. How else is He going to remove the wicked and renew the earth except by fire? Why not by fire? I don't understand the objection to this at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Speaking of something like that. Let's consider this scenario.

There is a ship out at sea. It catches fire and the fire is out of control and humanly impossible to put out at this point. The fire has already destoyed any and all life preservers, lifeboats, etc. Everyone still alive aboard the ship are doomed and they clearly know it. Which death should we assume they might choose, given they have a choice? Staying aboard the ship risking being burned to a crisp eventually? Or jumping overboard risking drowning eventually?Obviously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

And it really makes sense, that as bad as it is to drown to death, thus not a pleasant way to die, that God has found a loophole. He doesn't have to drown everyone just like He promised. He simply comes up with a way to kill everyone off that is hundreds if not thousands of times more horrific than drowning, burning everyone and everything to ashes.

You obviously have Amils like me in mind here, so let us reason together. You are misrepresenting my, and many other Amils, understanding of what is going to occur. You are acting as if we believe that God will take His time burning up the earth and that people will be running around on fire and screaming while trying to put the fire out and so on. No. That's not what we believe. How long do you think it took Sodom and Gomorrah to be burned up? The indications are that they were destroyed by fire instantly. As fast as Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. So, with that in mind, drowning is much worse than being instantly destroyed by fire.

If you have a problem with the idea of God sending fire down on people in general, then does what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah bother you? Do you believe God was overly cruel when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by fire? Or is your objection only based on the type of scenario you're describing, which does not accurately represent what I believe, as I explained?

You can't refute an opposing belief by misrepresenting it. That's just not reasonable. Please address what we actually believe.

I hope none of these Amils that believe that think there will be animals in the new earth. How could there be if the entire animal kingdom is wiped out entirely, including all creatures living in bodies of water, such as ponds, lakes, rivers, seas, oceans. Maybe you can't drown any of those during a flood, but no way could they survive the intense heat that would be millions of degrees F per this scenario, and the intense smoke that would be from one end of the earth to the other. I'm just not on board with nonsense like that.

You can't have beliefs that are based on your emotions rather than on scripture. That's how people end up believing in things like annihilation rather than the biblical teaching of eternal torment. Eternal torment seems overly cruel and unjust to them just as you think would be the case if all animals are destroyed. God has never said that animals are eternal creatures or that He would dwell with animals forever. He does not have a personal relationship with animals. Only with humans and angels.

My mind is unwilling to accept that absurdity.

What is absurd about the idea that animals are not meant to exist for eternity and that only humans and angels are? Why does scripture not place the significance on animals that you do? What scripture can you use to back up your beliefs about this?

And not because I'm Premil, but because it is profoundly absurd, period. Which then begs the question, the fact Revelation 19 involves the 2nd coming as well, where in all of Revelation 19 does it remotely depict that the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames and that everyone and everything still on the planet at the time are being burned to ashes? Then using feasting birds imagery to convey that, as if that makes a lick of sense per a scenario like that.

Revelation 19 is symbolic. Clearly, Jesus is not going to slay people with a literal sword coming out of His mouth or literally tread them in a winepress at His second coming. So, we shouldn't assume that the description of birds consuming people's flesh who were killed by the sword coming out of Christ's mouth should be taken literally, either.

 

[amigo de christo]

You obviously have Amils like me in mind here, so let us reason together. You are misrepresenting my, and many other Amils, understanding of what is going to occur. You are acting as if we believe that God will take His time burning up the earth and that people will be running around on fire and screaming while trying to put the fire out and so on. No. That's not what we believe. How long do you think it took Sodom and Gomorrah to be burned up? The indications are that they were destroyed by fire instantly. As fast as Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. So, with that in mind, drowning is much worse than being instantly destroyed by fire.

If you have a problem with the idea of God sending fire down on people in general, then does what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah bother you? Do you believe God was overly cruel when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by fire? Or is your objection only based on the type of scenario you're describing, which does not accurately represent what I believe, as I explained?

You can't refute an opposing belief by misrepresenting it. That's just not reasonable. Please address what we actually believe.


You can't have beliefs that are based on your emotions rather than on scripture. That's how people end up believing in things like annihilation rather than the biblical teaching of eternal torment. Eternal torment seems overly cruel and unjust to them just as you think would be the case if all animals are destroyed. God has never said that animals are eternal creatures or that He would dwell with animals forever. He does not have a personal relationship with animals. Only with humans and angels.


What is absurd about the idea that animals are not meant to exist for eternity and that only humans and angels are? Why does scripture not place the significance on animals that you do? What scripture can you use to back up your beliefs about this?


Revelation 19 is symbolic. Clearly, Jesus is not going to slay people with a literal sword coming out of His mouth or literally tread them in a winepress at His second coming. So, we shouldn't assume that the description of birds consuming people's flesh who were killed by the sword coming out of Christ's mouth should be taken literally, either.

Revelation nineteen is exactly as JESUS said . MY WORDS shall be your judge on the last day .
It sure do represent their judgment of wrath , WHICH IS laid down by JESUS himself against them .
To the trenches one and all . We gots us a harlot selling love and by her love has seduced many to A LIE .
And that LIE omits THE DIRE NEED TO BELIEVE ON JESUS . T HUS Damantion awaits all who bought it .
We cannot serve both TRUTH and A LIE . WE MUST MAKE OUR CHOICE TODAY . ITS EITHER TRUTH or A LIE
but it cannot b e both one serv es .