Confusion about the Law.

[Happy Trails]

Because those who believe the Millennium is the 1,000 year period of rest, believe that the Days of Creation are 1,000 year periods of time. That's one of the ways they justify the need for a 7th 1,000 year period of time after Jesus returns.

They believe that Day = 1,000 years and thus the 7th Day must mean the Millennium time period, contrary to Leviticus 23:32.

They use 2 Peter 3:8 (inaccurately) to support the idea that the Days of Creation are these millennial time periods and claim there will be a 7th which will be an era of rest as the Commandment prescribes, ignoring the literal nature of Genesis 2:2-3.

I suppose you could believe in obeying the 10 Commandments, literally, and believe in a Millennium time period, but you might not be very familiar with all of the facets of the Millennium concept. For instance, one of the main beliefs about the need for the Millennium is that the land promises to Israel were not completed by God and must be fulfilled when Jesus returns. Joshua makes very clear that all of the promises were fulfilled thousands of years ago. So that excuse goes out the window.

There is no verse anywhere in scripture that states anything at all about any 1,000 year time period outside of Revelation 20:1-7. So the entire doctrine is made up from 7 verses in one book that are supported nowhere else in scripture.

To take the 10 Commandments literally, which I fully support, while also embracing a doctrine that is very non-literal and based on almost 100% supposition is a little imbalanced, but to each his own I suppose.

O....M....G...!!!!
Thank you so much for making it so easy.

Let me say that since you have decided that I am using a verse "inaccurately" and am also "embracing a doctrine that is very non-literal and based on almost 100% supposition," making me "unbalanced," (followed by a smug addendum) then know that I feel that I can address you the same way.

Leviticus 23:32 is Yom Kippur. On the 9th day of the 7th month we are to fast for 24 hours. It has literally NOTHING to do with the weekly Sabbath.
It is a fast between Yom Teruah and Sukkot, and no work should be done. It is the fast that Paul observed before his ship wreck. Occurring in the Fall, it would be a marker to know that more dangerous weather would be probable at sea. Acts 27:9

Why not go ahead and cite verse 39? That verse contains the word "Sabbath." That is obviously all you are looking for. You want to try and look like you know what you're talking about, but, you are failing miserably. Verse 39 is ANOTHER annual Sabbath that occurs on the first day of Sukkot. If you knew what you were reading, you would realize that verses 7, 8, 21, 25, 35 and 36 are also Sabbaths because they instruct the reader to do no servile work. But, like most biblically illiterate Christians, you did a word search with the word "Sabbath" and read the one verse that contained it, and thought you were finding some kind of revelation. All you did was prove you don't know the subject matter.

You are complaining that the doctrine is being formed from 7 verses of Scripture, yet, "Jesus did away with the Law," and "Sunday is the Lord's Day" are made from LESS THAN A SINGLE VERSE!

You SHOULD BE completely embarrassed by the ridiculous nature of your claim and your bogus attempt at documentation. It proves that you don't even know that you don't know what you are talking about. Yet, you have the arrogance to claim someone ELSE is using Scripture "inaccurately." And the claim that Genesis 2:2-3 can ONLY be taken as literal, and NOT prophetic, means you are going to have to let go of a ton of prophecies from the OT. All that Isaiah stuff you say is about Jesus is OUT. The entire book of Daniel has to be scrapped and Jeremiah should NOT have been quoted by Peter, OR Paul, because they are obviously using those verses "inaccurately," as well.

I could literally continue for 2,000 MORE words about how little you know about the subject. But, I won't embarrass you any further.

Keep in mind, however, that I have no problem putting you in your place, and can do it without effort.

Have a nice day.

 

[GEN2REV]

O....M....G...!!!!
Thank you so much for making it so easy.

Let me say that since you have decided that I am using a verse "inaccurately" and am also "embracing a doctrine that is very non-literal and based on almost 100% supposition," making me "unbalanced," (followed by a smug addendum) then know that I feel that I can address you the same way.

Leviticus 23:32 is Yom Kippur. On the 9th day of the 7th month we are to fast for 24 hours. It has literally NOTHING to do with the weekly Sabbath.
It is a fast between Yom Teruah and Sukkot, and no work should be done. It is the fast that Paul observed before his ship wreck. Occurring in the Fall, it would be a marker to know that more dangerous weather would be probable at sea. Acts 27:9

Why not go ahead and cite verse 39? That verse contains the word "Sabbath." That is obviously all you are looking for. You want to try and look like you know what you're talking about, but, you are failing miserably. Verse 39 is ANOTHER annual Sabbath that occurs on the first day of Sukkot. If you knew what you were reading, you would realize that verses 7, 8, 21, 25, 35 and 36 are also Sabbaths because they instruct the reader to do no servile work. But, like most biblically illiterate Christians, you did a word search with the word "Sabbath" and read the one verse that contained it, and thought you were finding some kind of revelation. All you did was prove you don't know the subject matter.

You are complaining that the doctrine is being formed from 7 verses of Scripture, yet, "Jesus did away with the Law," and "Sunday is the Lord's Day" are made from LESS THAN A SINGLE VERSE!

You SHOULD BE completely embarrassed by the ridiculous nature of your claim and your bogus attempt at documentation. It proves that you don't even know that you don't know what you are talking about. Yet, you have the arrogance to claim someone ELSE is using Scripture "inaccurately." And the claim that Genesis 2:2-3 can ONLY be taken as literal, and NOT prophetic, means you are going to have to let go of a ton of prophecies from the OT. All that Isaiah stuff you say is about Jesus is OUT. The entire book of Daniel has to be scrapped and Jeremiah should NOT have been quoted by Peter, OR Paul, because they are obviously using those verses "inaccurately," as well.

I could literally continue for 2,000 MORE words about how little you know about the subject. But, I won't embarrass you any further.

Keep in mind, however, that I have no problem putting you in your place, and can do it without effort.

Have a nice day.

Wow. THREE hours later and that's the best you could come up with? We don't need to hear your excuses as to why it took you that long, the frantic nature of your post speaks volumes about you.

For the record, I wasn't attacking you in the least. I was simply explaining my previous post.

Which, by the way, you didn't even come close to explaining how the two concepts don't contradict each other. You shouldn't be so defensive and easily frightened that you might look inept. When you respond like you did, that's exactly how you look.

Your fears will always meet you halfway.

The Bible says 'do not fear' 256 times. Probably so we don't make an arse of ourselves when we fly off the handle trying desperately to look like we know what we're talking about.

I was just having a conversation; I thought we were in agreement about the Commandments. No big deal.

No, you don't have to throw out all prophetic books in scripture because Revelation is non-literal and non-linear. The book itself claims it is - in the very first verse, so does its introduction. Those who are familiar with it ... know these things.

All of the prophetic books also support the end times passages from: Matthew 24:29-31, Isaiah 13:9-11, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:22-26. So there would be no need to throw them out; they all comply.

Revelation 20:1-7 stands all alone in its highly symbolic nature and is contradicted, as I've already stated, by many passages, prior and post, within the same book.

Now, maybe try a little class and confidence in your next response; try not to look so much like a frightened house cat screaming in a shrill frantic tone and hissing and scratching your way out of a tight, terrifying cage.

It's just a conversation.

But do hurry, 3 hours is far too long to convince anybody of your confident grasp of the material.

God bless.

 

[Happy Trails]

I have a life that is much more important than this forum. And, in case you didn't get it, I dismantled every single one of your claims.

 

[GEN2REV]

I have a life that is much more important than this forum. And, in case you didn't get it, I dismantled every single one of your claims.

Nokay.

Happy trails!

 

[GEN2REV]

I have a life that is much more important than this forum. And, in case you didn't get it, I dismantled every single one of your claims.

By the way, you never answered my original question.

Do you believe in keeping the Ten Commandments?

You kept talking about the Law this and Law that, but you never seemed to specify your definition of the Law.

Do you keep the 10 Commandments?

 

[Robert Gwin]

I don't know what laws Christians have. There is only One Law and One Lawgiver.

I don't believe I said "salvation is dependent on that obedience."
I believe I said we SHOULD obey YHVH, not that we HAVE to.
A person who loved the one that made his salvation possible would WANT to obey.
A person filled with the Spirit of YHVH would be passionate and excited about obeying him.
They would know that the Law is what guards them from the pollution of idols.

Sometimes, it is impossible do all that the Law would require.
However, one would try to do all he could. After all, that is HOW YHVH teaches his people. A person who wanted to know the heart and mind of his Creator would need to know what he said, why he said it, and why it is important.

If salvation depended on obedience, how much obedience is required? 100%? 70%? 51%?

Salvation is a free gift. It's such an awesome gift that I want to show YHVH how much I appreciate it. I do that by obeying him.

I don't want to be standing at the bottom of Zion wishing I could walk up, enter the city and actually SEE Jesus sitting on His throne. I would hate to think stubbornly holding on to the traditions of men would cheat me out of that experience.

You are correct no one has to obey Jehovah's commands, but those who love Him do 1 Jn 5:3. If you disobey the serious commands, you will not inherit the Kingdom 1 Cor 6:10. You are correct that salvation is not based on works, and the gift is the same for all, everlasting life. So what is the judgment based upon, basically your heart condition. What you give according to your capabilities. Take for example the example of the widow that put in a gift of little value, Jesus accepted her sacrifice way above everyone else, why? Her heart sir, she gave her all. Noah was preserved through the flood, why? He did just so! Gen 6:22

 

[GEN2REV]

in case you didn't get it, I dismantled every single one of your claims.

On the contrary, you embarrassed yourself. And no, you didn't dismantle anything but your own credibility here.

You didn't even so much as address all my points. You never even touched the land promises and Joshua verses. Understandably so; there is nothing you could have posted to counter them.

Keep in mind, however, that I have no problem putting you in your place, and can do it without effort.

Well you sure made a good show of "putting me in my place" with all your screaming and yelling and waving your arms and making wild claims about your mastery of the subject while exhibiting a juvenile understanding of all matters presented. Apparently I'm firmly in my place looking down upon you with pity.

Your long, and completely unnecessary, ridicule of the Leviticus 23:32 verse missed the mark by a mile. The point being made there was about the 24 hour period of time, as opposed to any 1,000 year period. Which you yourself bolstered with your own comment about the 24 hour period.

You also didn't even attempt to present any examples of verses in scripture, outside of Rev. 20, that speak specifically of any 1,000 year period of time in reference to the Millennium.

If you're feeling a bit more together today, you can give it your best second effort to "put me in my place". Might wanna study up a bit, and do some stretching, before you attempt to take on such a heavy load again.

Good luck.

 

[Happy Trails]

I will start by apologizing for my response to what seemed like an attack on me personally. Maybe you WERE trying to clarify something i didn't get. However, your comments were directed at me. Saying "they say" while quoting me, and supposedly reading my mind in the process was, in my view, calling ME unbalanced and deceptive. I am also in the process of watching my mother go from a literary genius to a babbling vegetable. I can get a little stressed over it. I am the last guy in line...

Again, my apologies.

Hear is what you said, and here's why I disagree:


======


Because those who believe the Millennium is the 1,000 year period of rest, believe that the Days of Creation are 1,000 year periods of time. That's one of the ways they justify the need for a 7th 1,000 year period of time after Jesus returns.

(Why would someone feel the need to justify something that is plainly stated?)

They believe that Day = 1,000 years and thus the 7th Day must mean the Millennium time period, contrary to Leviticus 23:32.

(How is it contrary? A day is a day. It can have prophetic meaning as well as literal meaning. If that is not true, then Daniel's 70 week prophecy cannot be true.)

They use 2 Peter 3:8 (inaccurately) to support the idea that the Days of Creation are these millennial time periods and claim there will be a 7th which will be an era of rest as the Commandment prescribes, ignoring the literal nature of Genesis 2:2-3.

(Why would the days of the Creation week NOT be prophetic? What about them says they CANNOT be? Exodus 20:8-11 says the reason the Sabbath is to be kept is that it is a reminder that Creation was a 6 day event followed by a day of rest. Exodus 31:17 says it is a sign of belief in that very thing. Why would that model NOT be the model for all of human history?)

I suppose you could believe in obeying the 10 Commandments, literally, and believe in a Millennium time period, but you might not be very familiar with all of the facets of the Millennium concept. For instance, one of the main beliefs about the need for the Millennium is that the land promises to Israel were not completed by God and must be fulfilled when Jesus returns.

(I have never heard anyone say that, nor does it even make sense to me.)

Joshua makes very clear that all of the promises were fulfilled thousands of years ago. So that excuse goes out the window.

(Really? Where does he make that clear? If Joshua said all the promises were fulfilled then the promise of a coming Messiah would have been fulfilled before Jesus was born.)

There is no verse anywhere in scripture that states anything at all about any 1,000 year time period outside of Revelation 20:1-7. So the entire doctrine is made up from 7 verses in one book that are supported nowhere else in scripture.

(Yes. There is. 2 Peter 3:8, which paraphrases Psalm 90:4, states that a day to YHVH is like 1,000 years. The 6 days of Creation were followed by a Sabbath. Your insistence that it CANNOT BE a prophetic shadow is the issue. You don't like the idea, so you say "this cannot mean that." But, it can. In addition, Peter's topic when using this quote is end-time events.

The 1,000 year reign is when the righteous reign on the earth. 2 Peter 3:13-14. Only the blameless are there. At the end, those that didn't make the cut (first resurrection) are raised and judged. Those that received the mark of the beast are cast into the lake of fire. But, lots of folks who were disobedient, yet did not take the mark, will now be able to live on the earth. They are the people from Revelation 22:15. They disobeyed, but they didn't worship the beast. They are the ones who do not have the right to the tree of life or entry into the city. They are alive and they are on the earth. For how long, I don't know.

You suggest that the number of verses is relevant to its merits of a doctrine.

How many verses of Scripture say that the Sabbath should be changed to Sunday? Answer: None.
How many verses say that YHVH's instructions about observing his appointed times should be ignored? Answer: None.
In fact, Daniel 7:25 says that the king that tries to destroy YHVH's people will do that very thing.
How many verses of Scripture say that unclean animals are now food? Answer: None.
How many verses say that when people die, they go immediately to heaven? Answer: None.
How many verse say that eternity is spent in heaven? Answer: None.

Unscriptural doctrine is the hallmark of Christianity.)


To take the 10 Commandments literally, which I fully support, while also embracing a doctrine that is very non-literal and based on almost 100% supposition is a little imbalanced, but to each his own I suppose.

(You claim that the 1,000 year reign is not literal. Is the resurrection of dead not literal? Are the new heaven and new earth not literal? Is the Throne where Jesus will sit to judge the world not literal? I don't see how you get there.

Anything "not literal" about the book of Revelation is only imagery, not doctrine. There aren't literal locusts with the power of scorpions. But, the events are literally happening on a time line that was established at Creation and seen in the heavens. Genesis 1:14

Hope to talk again soon. But, if I am gone for a day, or two, it is likely much more important than this forum.

 

[GEN2REV]

Apology accepted. No worries.

(Really? Where does he make that clear? If Joshua said all the promises were fulfilled then the promise of a coming Messiah would have been fulfilled before Jesus was born.)

When read in context, I was referring to the land promises to Israel.
Joshua 21:43-45
Joshua 23:14-15

2 Peter 3:8 does not say that a Day = 1,000 years. It just doesn't. Most who use it to make this false claim never post the second half of the verse.
"... one day (upon the earth) is with the Lord as a thousand years, AND A THOUSAND YEARS (upon the earth are) AS ONE DAY (with the Lord)."

Psalms 90:4 does not say that a Day = 1,000 years. Again, it just doesn't say that, no matter how it is twisted.
"For a thousand years in this sight (Lord) are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

A traditional 'watch in the night' is a period of 3-4 hours. It doesn't align with the explanation that is given to make this verse claim that a Day = 1,000 years.

Besides all that, those verses have nothing at all to do with anything written in Rev. 20 whatsoever.

You don't like the idea, so you say "this cannot mean that." But, it can. In addition, Peter's topic when using this quote is end-time events.

I don't like false doctrine. You are correct about that. If it doesn't positively align with scripture in its entirety, I do not like it. Can you guess who else doesn't like it?

Yes, Peter is speaking of people getting impatient about Christ's return in that chapter. What he says in that particular verse is tantamount to "Time is not experienced the same way to God as it is to us." We are inside the 3-dimensions of time, space and matter. God is not. He created this 3-dimensional reality. If He created it, He cannot exist inside of it. He is Spirit. A day for us cannot possibly equal 1,000 years for God. There is no time in His spiritual dimension. That is part of the reason He can see the end from the beginning.

The 1,000 year reign is when the righteous reign on the earth. 2 Peter 3:13-14. Only the blameless are there. At the end, those that didn't make the cut (first resurrection) are raised and judged. Those that received the mark of the beast are cast into the lake of fire. But, lots of folks who were disobedient, yet did not take the mark, will now be able to live on the earth. They are the people from Revelation 22:15. They disobeyed, but they didn't worship the beast. They are the ones who do not have the right to the tree of life or entry into the city. They are alive and they are on the earth. For how long, I don't know.

These passages all align perfectly:
Matthew 24:29-31
Isaiah 13:9-11
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

But none of them align with Revelation 20. There are no passages anywhere in scripture that align with its reference to a 1,000 year period after Christ's return. So, I ask you: What do we do with that then?

For me, if something doesn't align with concepts in scripture that are well established by multiple texts, then they simply must mean something else. There is a significance to Rev. 20, but not as a doctrine that will take place after Christ's return. There just isn't any support for that.

You suggest that the number of verses is relevant to its merits of a doctrine.

No, I refer to its tiny footprint in the Bible with absolutely no support from any other scripture anywhere. It does have a purpose, as does all scripture, but not as the Millennium doctrine that it has been made out to be.

Unscriptural doctrine is the hallmark of Christianity.

I agree that it is the hallmark of modern mainstream false Christian doctrine that is widely taught and blindly accepted by the masses. But God Himself has commented upon that travesty.

Hosea 4:6

You claim that the 1,000 year reign is not literal. Is the resurrection of dead not literal? Are the new heaven and new earth not literal? Is the Throne where Jesus will sit to judge the world not literal? I don't see how you get there.

Besides the throne, specifically, all those concepts are well established by multiple books, in multiple places, in the Bible. God is a Spirit and His Throne is in heaven, a spiritual dimension. Jesus' (who is God - John 1:1, 14) has a kingdom, but it is not in this physical world. John 18:36

The throne, and God's kingdom, are both very real, but they likely will never exist physically in this current world.

 

[Happy Trails]

Apology accepted. No worries.
When read in context, I was referring to the land promises to Israel.
Joshua 21:43-45
Joshua 23:14-15

I see nothing about those two passages of Scripture that mean any fulfillment of any other prophecy or promise regarding Israel has been stopped by Israel coming into the Land for the first time. In fact, the second passage says the future promise to Israel is to destroy them and remove them from the Land because they are disobedient. But, one would have to read the next verse to get that in context.

2 Peter 3:8 does not say that a Day = 1,000 years. It just doesn't. Most who use it to make this false claim never post the second half of the verse.
"... one day (upon the earth) is with the Lord as a thousand years, AND A THOUSAND YEARS (upon the earth are) AS ONE DAY (with the Lord)."

The absence of "=" means it is a verbal equation, not a mathematical one. The preface for the statement is, "do not remain ignorant," or "do not be oblivious to." To what are we to not be oblivious? We are not to be oblivious to the fact that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. If the point were being made that "any amount of time could be any other amount of time," then a day could have been compared to 10,000 years, or 100,000 years. But, it wasn't. It was compared to 1,000 years, and we are specifically told to NOT be ignorant that the comparison is made in the Psalms.

Psalms 90:4 does not say that a Day = 1,000 years. Again, it just doesn't say that, no matter how it is twisted.
"For a thousand years in this sight (Lord) are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

A traditional 'watch in the night' is a period of 3-4 hours. It doesn't align with the explanation that is given to make this verse claim that a Day = 1,000 years.

Here you rely on the punctuation of a 400 year-old translation to "prove" your point. However, this would not be the first, or last dubious interpretation triggered by clumsy translating. A more literate understanding would be:

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past. (Comparative statement #1)
And as a watch in the night, thou carriest them away as with a flood. (Comparative statement #2.)
They are as a sleep.
In the morning they are like grass which groweth up.

It is not a comparison of a watch being the same as a day or 1,000 years. It is the lesson that such a short period of time is so easily carried away and that some could more easily understand it because they know what it means to sleep through one.

Besides all that, those verses have nothing at all to do with anything written in Rev. 20 whatsoever.
I don't like false doctrine. You are correct about that. If it doesn't positively align with scripture in its entirety, I do not like it. Can you guess who else doesn't like it?

That is your claim. However, there is NO reason to think that a specific duration of time should be ignored simply because it is in the book of Revelation. I think it lines up perfectly with the rest of Scripture. I think the most repeated Commandment is "guard the Sabbath." This lesson is for those who have paid attention to human history. I think the 1,000 year period is just as valid as the 42 months of Revelation 11:2 and 13:5. Are we now to NOT believe the time period when the beast persecutes YHVH's people? Is it going to be 3 and a half years, or is that now open for debate? Will there be a hope of it ending, or is it going to be indeterminate? If every word of YHVH is our life, then all of them mean something, even if they appear obscure. Will the 2 witnesses actually prophesy for 1,260 days? Daniel 8:4 and 12:12 specify 1,300 days and 1,335 days as markers for other events. They are only mentioned once. Does that mean their absence everywhere else in the Bible means they are invalid?

Yes, Peter is speaking of people getting impatient about Christ's return in that chapter. What he says in that particular verse is tantamount to "Time is not experienced the same way to God as it is to us." We are inside the 3-dimensions of time, space and matter. God is not. He created this 3-dimensional reality. If He created it, He cannot exist inside of it. He is Spirit. A day for us cannot possibly equal 1,000 years for God. There is no time in His spiritual dimension. There is NO reason to think that there is no marking of time in the supernatural. It may be different time than we have. But, NOTHING suggests there CANNOT be time in the supernatural. In fact, it makes more sense that there IS time in the supernatural. That is part of the reason He can see the end from the beginning. That may be evidence that time in the supernatural is different. But, it is NOT a certainty that there is no time at all. In fact, this entire discussion is about them being comparable, not exclusive to the natural universe. Therefore, it cannot be cited as a reason why the comparison cannot be made.
These passages all align perfectly:
Matthew 24:29-31
Isaiah 13:9-11
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

But none of them align with Revelation 20. There are no passages anywhere in scripture that align with its reference to a 1,000 year period after Christ's return. So, I ask you: What do we do with that then?

All of those passages refer to events leading up to the return. The 1,000 year period is after the return. The time of the return is all that concerned them. What happens afterward is of no concern. They already knew of "the world to come." So, there is no alignment problem. Your analysis is like saying someone reported on the events leading up top the kickoff, but because they never mentioned the half-time show, there can't be a half-time show.

For me, if something doesn't align with concepts in scripture that are well established by multiple texts, then they simply must mean something else. There is a significance to Rev. 20, but not as a doctrine that will take place after Christ's return. There just isn't any support for that.
No, I refer to its tiny footprint in the Bible with absolutely no support from any other scripture anywhere. It does have a purpose, as does all scripture, but not as the Millennium doctrine that it has been made out to be.
I agree that it is the hallmark of modern mainstream false Christian doctrine that is widely taught and blindly accepted by the masses. But God Himself has commented upon that travesty.

Hosea 4:6 The lack of knowledge here is the absence of the Torah. It says, "seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God." That is the lack of knowledge. For someone who is always mentioning context, this is a good time to acknowledge it. It is in the context of the Torah that the comparison exists in the first place.
Besides the throne, specifically, all those concepts are well established by multiple books, in multiple places, in the Bible. God is a Spirit and His Throne is in heaven, a spiritual dimension. Jesus' (who is God - John 1:1, 14) has a kingdom, but it is not in this physical world. John 18:36

The throne, and God's kingdom, are both very real, but they likely will never exist physically in this current world.

They WILL exist here. That is what "the new heavens and new earth" are all about. It is "Olam HaBa," the world to come.
Isn't the New Jerusalem coming down to earth, and God will dwell among his people, and he will be their God?

I don't see anything that doesn't line up except your interpretation. There is a world to come. It is going to be exactly like this one, except it is renewed. Time will pass, and there will be markers for time. How else can people observe the Feast of Tabernacles? Zechariah 14 is all about the Day of YHVH, and the subsequent society that lives on the earth. Verse 16 begins the explanation about YHVH punishing the people who do not come to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles. Where did those people come from? They are the second resurrection.

2 Peter 3:10-16 We look for a new heaven and new earth, wherein dwells righteousness.
For 1,000 years, ONLY the people who obeyed YHVH will live on the earth. After 1,000 years, the rest of the dead are raised. And they will come to Zion to worship YHVH, but will not be allowed to enter the city. They are the people outside the city who are mentioned in Revelation 22:15. YHVH's people will have a Sabbath full of righteousness before the rest of the dead are raised and judged, and some are allowed to live on the earth.

Revelation 22:15 Outside the city are "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." How did they get there? How did these "obviously not righteous" people end up living outside the New Jerusalem? Why are they NOT in the Lake of Fire? How is their presence an example of righteousness dwelling on the new earth? Hmmm...