The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[ewq1938]

Only the King James Version (and maybe one or two other more obscure versions) quotes it this way, and it only looks plural on first glance. All the kingdoms of the world, the "realms" of earthly kings, are lumped together as one, and have all, collectively, become Christ's. The antiquated language of the New King James muddies this a bit, but it is what it is. Revelation 11:15 in the English Standard Version (ESV) is (or is very close to, in other other versions) as follows:

"Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.'" ​

'Kingdom' is singular in both occurrences in verse 15. These versions are not "different" than the KJV, just clearer.

Apparenmtly you are unable to actually go to a source which will say what form it's in in the manuscripts.

blue letter bible

Inflected: βασιλεῖαι
Root: βασιλεία

Strong's: G932
English: kingdoms
Code: N-NPF
Long: Noun - Nominative Plural Feminine


The word is in the plural form so it is kingdoms not kingdom. Any translation that does not have it in the plural is errant and should be ignored.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, it's scriptural:

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.


Kingdoms plural become his. He now has a heavenly kingdom, and he will have multiple Earthly kingdoms when he returns.

Other translations such as the NIV and NASB say "the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ". Singular kingdom. I believe that is a better translation because it's talking in terms of this entire evil world no longer belonging to "the god of this world", Satan, but belonging to the Father and His Son instead.

What other scripture can you point to which supports your theory that He will have multiple earthly kingdoms when He returns?

There is no return in that passage because the return happened long before the events described.

That passage relates to what will happen at the end of the age. You don't think Jesus will return at the end of the age? If so, what is your understanding of Matthew 24:3 where the disciples asked Jesus what would be the sign of His coming and of the end of the age? Do you see that as being two separate questions with one being about His coming and the other being about the end of the age? Do you think the parts of the Olivet Discourse that relate to His coming don't also relate to the end of the age?

It says "kingdoms" not "kingdom".

In the KJV it does, but not other translations. Are you one of those KJV-only people?

No, I don't. This is a strawman fallacy. Whatever belongs to the son also belongs to his father. Everyone knows that.

But, scripture talks about Jesus delivering the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:22-24). That occurs at Christ's second coming and He is coming at the seventh and last trumpet. So, Revelation 11:15-18 lines up with 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-56.

Also, it indicates that the dead are judged at the last trumpet (Rev 11:18). And Revelation 20:11-15 indicates that the dead are judged AFTER the thousand years and Satan's little season. You're ignoring all of this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Apparenmtly you are unable to actually go to a source which will say what form it's in in the manuscripts.

blue letter bible

Inflected: βασιλεῖαι
Root: βασιλεία

Strong's: G932
English: kingdoms
Code: N-NPF
Long: Noun - Nominative Plural Feminine


The word is in the plural form so it is kingdoms not kingdom. Any translation that does not have it in the plural is errant and should be ignored.

LOL. So, you're saying that any translation that doesn't agree with your interpretation of the verse should be ignored. Wrong. While, there are plural kingdoms in the world, it's talking about the entire world itself belonging to the Father and His Son as one collective kingdom.

Your stance on this has led you to declare something ludicrous. You said in another post that Jesus will have multiple kingdoms on the earth. That's nonsense. Where does scripture every teach such a concept? You acknowledge that He has one kingdom now, which is heavenly, but in the future He will have multiple kingdoms? Why would you believe something ridiculous like that? Why wouldn't you instead believe that He will bring His one kingdom to the earth where it would still be one kingdom?

Also, as usual, you did not go far enough in your research of the Greek word. It is used in the following verses which I'm quoting from the KJV:

Matthew 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom G932 of heaven is at hand.

Should this say "the kingdoms of heaven"?

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom G932 come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Should this say "thy kingdoms come"?

Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom G932 of God!

Should this say "the kingdoms of God"?

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom G932 of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom G932 of God cometh not with observation:

Should this say "the kingdoms of God"?

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom G932 is not of this world: if my kingdom G932 were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom G932 not from hence.

Did Jesus actually say "My kingdoms are not of this world"?

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom G932 of his dear Son:

Should this say "the kingdoms of his dear Son"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Putting on immortality is putting on a body?

A spiritual body, yes. Just read 1 Corinthians 15:35-54. Paul said it will happen in the future at the last trumpet. Our bodies will all be changed at the last trumpet and will put on immortality at that time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No you are just trying to force an issue. Fire happens at the Second Coming, the 6th Seal.

"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;"

This is an indication of fire. No sword mentioned here.

The sword is only symbolic and not literal. The literal method of destruction will be fire. This is very simple, but doctrinal bias has clouded your understanding. Maybe you are just completely lacking in spiritual discernment and can't tell the difference between what is figurative and what is literal, but I tend to think it's more doctrinal bias than an inability to differentiate different types of text.

 

[PinSeeker]

As I said, it's a plurality, a lumping together of all into a singularity. Thinking otherwise is... not thinking.

Grace and peace!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As I said, it's a plurality, a lumping together of all into a singularity. Thinking other wise is... not thinking.

Yep. He's clearly not thinking about the fact that no other scripture teaches anything about the Father and Son ruling over multiple kingdoms in the future. Interpreting scripture with scripture does not appear to be something he has any interest in.

 

[Timtofly]

The sword is only symbolic and not literal. The literal method of destruction will be fire. This is very simple, but doctrinal bias has clouded your understanding. Maybe you are just completely lacking in spiritual discernment and can't tell the difference between what is figurative and what is literal, but I tend to think it's more doctrinal bias than an inability to differentiate different types of text.

Birds do not need to have cooked food. Birds eat raw flesh. Now you have to prove those birds are figurative and eating figurative human flesh to support your Amil bias.

 

[Marty fox]

Birds do not need to have cooked food. Birds eat raw flesh. Now you have to prove those birds are figurative and eating figurative human flesh to support your Amil bias.

The symbolism of the birds eating humans flesh is to be considered cursed. Animal flesh was made food for humans but when humans are eaten by animals they are considered cursed. Biblical times people would of understood this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Birds do not need to have cooked food. Birds eat raw flesh. Now you have to prove those birds are figurative and eating figurative human flesh to support your Amil bias.

If the sword coming out of Christ's mouth is symbolic, which it obviously is, then that means the destruction it causes is described symbolically as well. Very simple. So, no, it's not talking literally about birds eating raw flesh any more than it's talking about Jesus literally impaling and slaying people with a sword that's coming out of His mouth.

While we know that Jesus will literally return, it's described in a symbolic way in Revelation 19. So, we have to look at other text to see the literal way in which the destruction will occur. And, according to passages like 2 Thess 1:7-8, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 20:9 it will be by fire.

 

[PinSeeker]

we know that Jesus will literally return, it's described in a symbolic way in Revelation 19.

Ah, but not just in Revelation 19. Yes, Revelation 19:11-21 is a vision of the final battle. There are six other places in Revelation where it is described and/or alluded to. Revelation 20:7-10 is the seventh.

So, we have to look at other text to see the literal way in which the destruction will occur. And, according to passages like 2 Thess 1:7-8, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 20:9 it will be by fire.

Hmmm... You're taking both 'destruction' and 'fire' out of context, it seems. The destruction is in the sense of ruination (not obliteration or a wiping from existence), and, well, as you probably know, our God is a consuming fire, and fire, throughout the Bible, is symbolic of God's righteous judgment.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Earburner]

Okay, we'll agree to disagree. God issues judgments, for sure. A word search for 'judgment' is very informative about what they are and why He issues them.

There're a bunch of crazy things being thought and said about Revelation and the end times here, but I expected that...

Grace and peace to you.

The determined judgment of God through Jesus is for our good.
The word "judgment" from God should not always form in our heads the expectation of doom.

Here, you can see that judgment/determination of God's will through Jesus, being foretold in Daniel. They are the six works of God that Christ was to "finish".
Dan.9[24] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
1. to finish the transgression, and
2. to make an end of sins, and
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
5. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
6. to anoint the most Holy.

 

[ewq1938]

LOL. So, you're saying that any translation that doesn't agree with your interpretation of the verse should be ignored.

I proved you were wrong, "Nominative Plural Feminine"

There is no interpretation from me just the fact that the word is plural. It's KINGDOMS not kingdom.

 

[ewq1938]

The sword is only symbolic and not literal. The literal method of destruction will be fire.

This is wrong. The people will die from being cut just as a real sword will do. God is powerful enough to use a symbolic sword in that way.

No fire is used by Christ to kill anyone. Not one scriptural shows that.

 

[ewq1938]

Yep. He's clearly not thinking about the fact that no other scripture teaches anything about the Father and Son ruling over multiple kingdoms in the future.

Except the verse I quoted that has kingdoms in the plural.

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

There will be many kings reigning over various kingdoms on the Earth during the Millennium. Interpreting scripture with scripture does not appear to be something you have any interest in.

 

[ewq1938]

If the sword coming out of Christ's mouth is symbolic, which it obviously is, then that means the destruction it causes is described symbolically as well.

Except you claim fire will literally burn them to death which makes you a hypocrite. A sword is not symbolic of fire. You just want to insert fire into the text due to doctrinal bias. That is known as eisegesis.

 

[ewq1938]

30. Did the reign with Christ and the saints becoming kings and priests occur at the cross?

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

"and shall reign" is in the future tense and this was written decades after the cross. Amillennialism often teaches this reign as priests happened at the cross but that violates the future tense John uses proving the reign with Christ could not have started at the cross. It is a future event which validates the Premillennial understanding of this reign.

 

[Zao is life]

Except the verse I quoted that has kingdoms in the plural.

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

There will be many kings reigning over various kingdoms on the Earth during the Millennium. Interpreting scripture with scripture does not appear to be something you have any interest in.

He has kingdoms in his millennium but not in Christ's Kingdom:

24 And the nations [éthnos] of those who are saved will walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.
25 And its gates may not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations [éthnos] into it.
27 And there shall in no way enter into it anything that defiles, or any making an abomination or a lie; but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

01484 ἔθνος éthnos, eth'-nos
a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):--Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

In every verse before the Revelation where [éthnos] appears, it's referring to the (Gentile) nations; and in the Revelation too: Revelation 5:9; Revelation 7:9; Revelation 10:11; Revelation 11:2; Revelation 11:9; Revelation 11:18; Revelation 12:5; Revelation 13:7; Revelation 14:6; Revelation 14:8; Revelation 15:4; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 17:15; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 18:23; Revelation 19:15; Revelation 20:3; Revelation 20:8; Revelation 21:24; Revelation 21:26; Revelation 22:2.

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded. And there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ. And He will reign forever and ever.

The blatant dishonesty displayed by people whenever they really need to change the meaning even of words in scripture in order to make their futile attempts to make scripture comply with their false theology is very, very telling.

 

[Timtofly]

If the sword coming out of Christ's mouth is symbolic, which it obviously is, then that means the destruction it causes is described symbolically as well. Very simple. So, no, it's not talking literally about birds eating raw flesh any more than it's talking about Jesus literally impaling and slaying people with a sword that's coming out of His mouth.

While we know that Jesus will literally return, it's described in a symbolic way in Revelation 19. So, we have to look at other text to see the literal way in which the destruction will occur. And, according to passages like 2 Thess 1:7-8, 2 Peter 3:10-12 and Revelation 20:9 it will be by fire.

No, because fire is also symbolic. You just pick and choose what is or is not literal, to make a point. Birds eating the carcasses of dead humans is as literal as fire is. You can't just yell "figurative" to prove your point.

You are the one claiming Revelation is all symbolic, until you need something to be literal. At least some posters are consistently literal, even if it seems literally impossible. God created everything out of nothing. Even a sword to kill those at Armageddon. But if you are going to stick with figurative visions, then fire from heaven could slso be figurative. The point being they were no longer on earth, but now in the Lake of Fire. Being beemed out of existence, was figuratively viewed as fire. It could have just been them disappearing, and not literal fire at all. Fire was the closest figurative reference John could give to allow us insight on what happened.

Besides the fire from 2 Peter 3 is at the Second Coming, the 6th Seal event, and those same people killed at Armageddon were hiding in caves. John did not say they were consumed by fire. They were killed by a sword over 42 months after fire burned up all the works on earth.

Then 1,000 years later, more humans were transported into the LOF, when they did a protest march across the earth. The Second Coming is not a huge protest march across the earth to Jerusalem. The battle of Armageddon was not a protest march against Satan in Jerusalem. Satan was gathering an army to defeat Jesus returning after 42 months. Perhaps Satan thought if he defeated Jesus, God would allow him more time? 3 totally separate events, that you keep claiming are the same event, even though none of these events even have the same components.

The Second Coming brings Jesus to earth as Prince.

After the final harvest, Satan may be given 42 months.

If so, at the end of the 42 months Jesus comes to end Adam's flesh and blood. This is the battle of Armageddon.

Then 1,000 years later Satan is loosed, to raise another group of deceived people.

Armageddon only happens if Satan is given 100% control for 42 months.

Satan currently does not have 100% control. The Second Coming has to happen first.

In Revelation 20, Satan still does not have 100% control. He only deceives a huge army to attack Jesus as Prince in Jerusalem. The protest fails. This is not because all the sinful works of mankind needs to be destroyed. That already happened 1,000 year prior to Satan being loosed. Satan is only bound after the Second Coming. Satan was bound after having 100% control for 42 months.

When you can show Satan is 100% in control of the earth 42 months prior to a Second Coming, you will prove Amil. Although Revelation 20 never says Satan has 100% control for 42 months. You have to explain why his army was destroyed before he had total control for 42 months.

 

[Zao is life]

How exactly can a dead person stand before God? It's no wonder that you try to deny that Revelation 20:5a is legitimate because that text indicates that the dead referenced in Revelation 20:11-15 will be resurrected first before being judged even if that isn't specified in Revelation 20:11-15 itself.

Your arguments become so ridiculous when you need to defend the defenseless. At least @ewq1938 has a better reason for arguing for a resurrection of the dead mentioned in Revelation 20:12-13.

The word for "stand" =
Strongs 2476 hístēmi
to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively):--abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).

It's literal or figurative:

"And lo, the star which they saw in the east went before them until it came and stood [hístēmi] over where the child was." Matthew 2:9

So was the star standing up? Or lying down?

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand [hístēmi]." (Matthew 12:25).

What's it supposed to say? "A house divided against itself shall not lie down"?

John saw the dead before the great white judgment throne of God. How was he supposed to put it? The dead were lying down before the judgment throne of God?

It's so obvious the dead are figuratively "standing" before the throne of God. The word can be used figuratively.

I don't know why I even bother to respond to your arguments whenever you make ridiculous arguments like this, based on nothing. At least ewq1938 has a better basis for his argument about it (but you don't want to use his argument, so you resort to this type of ridiculousness again).

And you throw in so many ridiculous and false arguments that we always have to waste our time responding to things like this. It's often just a waste of time arguing with you because of things like this.