No, Revelation 20 does not locate sin and sinners in the 1,000 year reign of Christ.
They are all killed at Armageddon. There are no humans left in Adam's dead corruptible flesh at the start of the Millennium.
You would have to conclude that Adam's flesh continues on into eternity, and contradict your own erroneous teachings. Sinners are mentioned in Isaiah 65 which you teach is the age to come, ie your eternity. The word sinner is not found once in Revelation 20. You foist that onto the text to prop up and defend you erroneous and Scripture contradicting eschatology. You wave sin away with general sweeping symbolism from Isaiah 65. So wipe it away from Revelation 20 as you did for Isaiah 65, as Isaiah 65 is the same time period as Revelation 20.
I said those in Revelation 20 were sinners after they were consumed by fire, and existing in the LOF. They were not born into sin nor sinners at birth. They were deceived by Satan and then physically dead sinners. That is how disobedience works. They are not a sinner until after they disobey God. Adam and Eve were dead sinners after Adam disobeyed God, not prior to Adam's disobedience.
Do we sin because we are born sinners, or because we consistently disobey God? Are you saying sinning is genetic and passed down from generation to generation?
What is passed down is the state of death. No one becomes mortal after their first act of disobedience. They are born in Adam's mortal image. Has nothing to do with being a sinner nor sinning. That is when an individual disobeys God.
You have yet to point out the laws of the Millennium. Current laws don't count. You claim the OT law is not re-instated, so the OT laws don't count. You claimed Eve was a sinner because she was deceived. That is not possible. It was deception that made her eat and give a bite to Adam. Eve did not disobey God. Adam did. Paul said Adam brought sin into the world, not Eve. Being decieved is not sin. Disobedience to God is sin. Marching across the earth is not sin. Unless you provide the Scripture that claims marching across the earth in large numbers is against the law.
You are making stuff up in your imagination, and calling it sin. If I did that, you would call that nonsense. So call your imagined excuses why there cannot be a sin free Millennium just your own nonsense.
Imaginations? That is what it is to think billions of wicked turning their backs on Christ, rejecting His commands, embracing Satan, and then attacking the people of God is not sin and sinners. That is delusionary.
Isaiah 65?
The inclusion of the phrase “Accursed an hundred years old sinner” is simply a solemn reminder to the reader that the fate of the unbeliever is starkly different to that being depicted for the believer on the new earth. In the midst of his joy at the revelation of the new earth the Old Testament prophet compares the bliss, blessing and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in hell. The solemn thought is: the eternal horror and hopelessness that will be the lot of the wicked is not just for a short time, it is forever. There is no sense that the wicked are on the new earth here. Isaiah is not describing more of the same as Premil teaches. The new earth is not a repeat or rehash of this corruptible age. This must be forced into the text.
The writer is simply making a comparison (in the midst of his joy at the thought of the new earth) between the bliss and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in the lake of fire. There is no sense that the wicked are on the earth here.
The sinner will indeed be accursed in eternity. Throughout Scripture God concentrates on the elect, and often attaches a postscript in regard to the wicked. That is all we are looking at in the phrase: “sinner old hundred years is cursed.” Their condition is eternally sealed and irreversible - it is hopeless.
There is no record of death on the new earth for the elect in the original Hebrew; only for the wicked who are experiencing eternal wrath in the Lake of Fire. Here is a notable difference between Amil and Premil, Amils believe the wicked are all judged when Jesus comes and banished into a lost eternity, Premil on the other hand (amazingly) rewards the wicked at the end (especially those who fight against Jerusalem at the end) by allowing them to inherit the new earth. The gorge between these two views couldn't be further.
The result of the fall and the damage of the curse continue on, however, not on the new heavens and new earth. The wicked have their own eternal abode – the Lake of Fire. The wicked will remain in the awful ongoing reality of the curse for time and for eternity. This is too terrible to even contemplate. This text is definitely not saying there will be mortal sinners on the new earth after the coming of Christ, as some argue. It is just saying sinners will remain accursed (even a hundred years after the appearing of the new heavens and earth). It could easily have said a thousand years or a million years. In short: They will remain accursed for all eternity.
So what is the meaning of Isaiah 65:20? It is simply presented in such a way as to indicate that there will be no ageing or death during the eternal state. It cannot in any way indicate that righteous children will die in eternity – a fact that few would deny. Such an absurd notion would obviously disregard plain truth, and contradict repeated Scripture to the contrary. This assumption is reinforced by the introductory language of same passage in question, which says, “there shall be no more thence an infant of days.” This seems to be worded in such a way as to in some way explain the great mystery of eternity. It appears to be contrasting what we on earth would deem long-life to what in eternity would be considered mere infancy. Scripture tells us, death is totally and finally destroyed at the Second coming for the believer.
As we have already stated, we can be assured Scripture never in any place contradicts itself. Therefore, it is either our understanding that is limited or the original Hebrew that is imperfect. We know it can’t be the latter. Common-sense alone tells us there must either be infants after Christ’s coming or else no infants. There are plainly no in-betweens. Such an absurd notion is impossible. The language of Isaiah 65:20 seems to be used in order to impress the idea that there will be no more growing old and no dying during this time. Anyway, if a natural child was to literally live to be a hundred years old then it would no longer be a child. So, it seems to be a hyperbole statement used to underscore the spiritual truth that there will be no more death or sorrow.
