Why I'm Premil

[Davy]

Unless symbols are specified in the text, and the meaning given, such an interpretation simply lacks Biblical authority.

Much love!

Meaning that unless God's Word 'says' a given number is metaphor, then it is meant to be literal. Right?

This is why some folks err greatly by abusing the 'day for a year' theory, turning God's Word into a numerology book by applying it outside the Scripture where God gave it. The Israelite scribes actually had a system called Gematria, which is used in their system of Kabbalah, the assigning of number values to Hebrew letters. That is where the guy who wrote the Bible Codes book got his information, from Jewish Mysticism of the occult rabbinical tradition. So those who came up with the Amillennial tradition of men actually are similarly doing what the occultic Jews did with their Kabbalah system based on God's Word.

 

[marks]

Meaning that unless God's Word 'says' a given number is metaphor, then it is meant to be literal. Right?

I'm not saying there is always a statement to that effect, however, the contexts seems pretty clear to me. A day is as a thousand years is a conceptual simile. "Is as" shows this is simile, and "the Lord is not slow as some count slowness" shows this simile concerns our characterization of the passage of time. And that's just how language is normally used.

This is why some folks err greatly by abusing the 'day for a year' theory, turning God's Word into a numerology book by applying it outside the Scripture where God gave it. The Israelite scribes actually had a system called Gematria, which is used in their system of Kabbalah, the assigning of number values to Hebrew letters. That is where the guy who wrote the Bible Codes book got his information, from Jewish Mysticism of the occult rabbinical tradition. So those who came up with the Amillennial tradition of men actually are similarly doing what the occultic Jews did with their Kabbalah system based on God's Word.

Yep. Turn the simile into a formula, use that to "decode" passages, and end up with that as your authority instead of the plain saying of the Bible.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's a strange reaction to what Randy said, because I understood him clearly in what he said about the Revelation 20 revealing in simplicity that it can 'only' happen at Christ's future return and thereafter.

Yes, I'm fully aware that is his OPINION, but that's all it is. But, I was talking about his understanding of Revelation 22:19 in particular. Can you not see that? I'm saying his understanding of that verse is wrong. I wasn't saying that his understanding of Revelation 20 is wrong because he already knows I believe that, so I don't need to say it again.

And it's not at all difficult to grasp that in that Scripture. And the Old Testament prophets back those future events up also. Zechariah 14 reveals Christ reigning on earth over all nations, literally, and requiring all nations to come up to Jerusalem from year to year to worship, or there will be no rains upon their lands. It even reveals the return of God's River in Zechariah 14, which is another testimony of the future of Revelation 21.

What is clearly 'wrong' is men's false tradition of Amillennialism that tries to talk down anyone who proclaims the Revelation Scriptures as it is actually written and understood in context of the rest of The Bible.

You're all talk. You base your interpretation on a passage that would imply future animal sacrifices if it's taken literally and refers to the future (Zechariah 14). Do you believe that animal sacrifices will be reinstated? If so, you couldn't be more wrong and for some reason you don't understand what an insult that would be to Christ's sacrifice.

Why are you content with interpreting Zechariah 14 and Revelation 20 in such a way that contradicts a lot of other scripture? Are only Zechariah 14 and Revelation 19-20 in your Bible?

Can you reconcile your false Premil doctrine with all of scripture? Not even close. Please tell me how you interpret this passage:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

How about this one:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Or this one:

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Or this one:

Matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It means nothing to me for you to claim that Amillennialism is false. Show me. Show me how Premil can be reconciled with passages like the ones I quoted above. Otherwise, I can't take you seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Meaning that unless God's Word 'says' a given number is metaphor, then it is meant to be literal. Right?

Where is this concept found in scripture itself? It looks like you came up with it from your own imagination. Let's put your claim to the test.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

There is no indication here that the reference to "a thousand generations" is metaphor, so does that mean this is referring to a literal one thousand generations? Which would mean that God's promises are limited in duration instead of being forever?

Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

This does not say that the word "thousand" is a metaphor in this verse. So, does this mean that God only owns the cattle upon literally one thousand hills rather than the cattle upon all hills?

This is why some folks err greatly by abusing the 'day for a year' theory, turning God's Word into a numerology book by applying it outside the Scripture where God gave it. The Israelite scribes actually had a system called Gematria, which is used in their system of Kabbalah, the assigning of number values to Hebrew letters. That is where the guy who wrote the Bible Codes book got his information, from Jewish Mysticism of the occult rabbinical tradition. So those who came up with the Amillennial tradition of men actually are similarly doing what the occultic Jews did with their Kabbalah system based on God's Word.

Do you think the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 equate to 490 (24 hour) days?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Oh I can see how the number 1000 could be taken symbolically, given the fact so much in terms of timelines are spoken against in the Scriptures. "Times and seasons are in the domain of God."

However, given the warning not to tamper with the words of the Revelation, I'm nervous about taking away from an explicit statement without clear indication it is not being literal.

It's clear that it's not literal when you take the rest of scripture into account, so it doesn't have to be explicit in the Revelation 20 text itself.

Scripture teaches that Christ reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 2:19-22, Rev 1:5), that we are priests now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9), that Satan is bound now (Heb 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8, Acts 26:18, etc.), and that all people will be resurrected on the same day (John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:1-2, Acts 24:15) and all people will be judged at the same time (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 25:31-46, Acts 17:31, etc.). And it teaches that all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies on the day Christ returns at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:50-54) while all unbelievers will be killed on that day (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:11-21). So, when you take all of this into account when interpreting Revelation 20, there's nothing to be nervous about when discerning that the thousand years are not referring to a time period on earth after the return of Christ.

 

[Marilyn C]

Where do you see that in Micah 4?

Micah 4. `Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD`S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us of His ways, and we shall walk in His paths."

For out of Zion the law will go forth and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between many peoples, and rebuke strong nations afar off; they shall beat their swords into ploughshares; and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.` (Micah 4: 1 - 3)

 

[Marilyn C]

I like this. The only thing I would disagree with, and it's minor, is that the 7 years is only a 3.5 years, according to Dan 7. And it is 3.5 years of Antichrist's reign, but not the 70th Week of Daniel, in my humble opinion.

Hi Randy,

I agree that Dan. 70th week, and the trib, are different lengths, however they still run concurrently.

Why do you say that the trib, is only 3.5 years, when the A/C actually rules for 1,260 days, 42 months, 3.6 years. (Rev. 13: 5)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correct. Apostle Peter revealed in 1 Peter 5:8 that Satan as a roaring lion walks about seeking whom he may devour. That is obviously meant for the 'present world time', not the world to come when Jesus returns.

Premils conveniently ignore the verse which follows that one.

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

Just because Satan roams around as a roaring lion doesn't mean he is free to devour anyone he wishes. All we need to do to get him to go away is resist him, as James taught here:

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

This doesn't say "resist the devil and he might flee from you if you're lucky". No, it says "resist the devil, and he WILL flee from you. Was this true in Old Testament times? No. It's true because Satan is bound. He is restrained. He can't just basically do whatever he wants like he was able to do in Old Testament times. He no longer hold the power of death that he used to keep people in slavery to the fear of death in Old Testament times.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

This passage illustrates the tremendous effect that Christ's death had on Satan. It took Satan's power of death that he used to keep people in bondage away. Now, because of Jesus, people have the hope of eternal life and they don't need to fear death anymore. And all we need to do is resist the devil and he must flee from us. God's people have power over the devil in New Testament times that His people didn't have in Old Testament times and that is because we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Satan can't do anything against those who have the Holy Spirit and he can't stop us from shining the light of the gospel into the world. That is what his binding is about. It's not about him being completely incapacitated as premils imagine.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Micah 4. `Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD`S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us of His ways, and we shall walk in His paths."

For out of Zion the law will go forth and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between many peoples, and rebuke strong nations afar off; they shall beat their swords into ploughshares; and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.` (Micah 4: 1 - 3)

That is talking about "the latter days" or as some translations put it "the last days". When are the last days, Marilyn? In the future during a supposed "Millennium" as you claim? No.

Please read the following which shows us when the latter/last days are. This is what Peter said in response to some people claiming that those who were filled with the Holy Spirit must be drunk on the day of Pentecost long ago:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

According to Peter the last days had begun already long ago on the day of Pentecost and they continue on while people call on the name of the Lord and are saved. in 2 Peter 3:3-4 he indicated that the last days lead up to the return of Christ. So, your claim that Micah 4:1-3, which occurs during the latter/last days, is about a future Millennium can't possibly be true since the latter/last days cover the New Testament time period up until the return of Christ. You are not allowing scripture to interpret scripture for you, which is a big mistake on your part.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And God has feathers, since we hide in His wings.

Typical immature response from you.

You had said this:

Unless symbols are specified in the text, and the meaning given, such an interpretation simply lacks Biblical authority.

So, can you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said this since it clearly is not true? I gave an example where it isn't true with the reference to the sword coming out of Christ's mouth. Is that explained to be a symbol? No, it isn't. So, according to what you had said that would mean it must be referring to a literal sword. But, that is clearly not the case. So, your statement is clearly false.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy,

I agree that Dan. 70th week, and the trib, are different lengths, however they still run concurrently.

Why do you say that the trib, is only 3.5 years, when the A/C actually rules for 1,260 days, 42 months, 3.6 years. (Rev. 13: 5)

I don't know why anybody should think time, times and half a time, 42 months, and 1260 days are not the same period of time? It originates from Dan 7, where it reads a time, times and half a time. It is reiterated in Dan 12.7. (Dan 12.11-12 refers to another prophecy, the prophecy of Antiochus 4. I believe Dan 12 is a brief summary of the major visions in the book that Daniel's people need to know about.)

Some people believe there must be two sets of 3.5 years, because in Dan 9 we read that in the midst of the 70th Week Messiah is cut off. That leaves 3.5 years yet to be fulfilled. I used to believe that, but do so no longer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's clear that it's not literal when you take the rest of scripture into account, so it doesn't have to be explicit in the Revelation 20 text itself.

Scripture teaches that Christ reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 2:19-22, Rev 1:5), that we are priests now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9), that Satan is bound now (Heb 2:14-15, 1 John 3:8, Acts 26:18, etc.), and that all people will be resurrected on the same day (John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:1-2, Acts 24:15) and all people will be judged at the same time (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 25:31-46, Acts 17:31, etc.). And it teaches that all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies on the day Christ returns at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:50-54) while all unbelievers will be killed on that day (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:11-21). So, when you take all of this into account when interpreting Revelation 20, there's nothing to be nervous about when discerning that the thousand years are not referring to a time period on earth after the return of Christ.

You have to understand how Premils take it. I understand all of your points, and we may never be able to agree. But it takes 2nd place to just getting along as Christians. WPM recently became exemplary in this regard, a true Christian in my book. Not that I'm his judge anyway--he stands or falls before the Lord. And I believe the Lord is pleased when His people get along.

So not to be cantankerous, let me just let you see how Premils might see all of these facts.
1) We both agree that Christ is ruler now, but not that his reign on earth has begun.
2) We both agree that we are priests now, but we have not yet begun to reign on earth with Christ.
3) We both agree that Satan was in a sense "bound" for the moment that Christ forgave our sins. The story of the "strong man" was just a principle by which Christ proved that God is stronger than Satan. Satan was not powerful enough to stop our redemption, and could no longer accuse us. But he continues to be free to be prince of this world, and rage against God's People, the Church.
4) We agree that at some point all who have not yet been judged will be sentenced together. We believe that will be at the end of the Millennium. But people are judged in different incidents throughout history, and there will be a special judgment when Christ comes back to defeat Satan and Antichrist.
5) We both agree that all Christians at the end of the age will be resurrected and rewarded. But we do not agree that mortal human history will continue after that event, making another resurrection and another judgment necessary.
6) We both agree that all of Antichrist's army will be defeated, and his rebellion completely quashed at Christ's 2nd Coming. But we do not agree that all of mortal humanity will die at that point in time.

You see, we all believe in Scriptures. We just see them differently, perhaps due to a lack of information or detail. Depending on whether you see the Millennium as literal or symbolic, you will see these things differently.

I agree that Rev 20 need not explicitly explain that the Millennium is symbolic if it is obviously so from how it is framed, perhaps in reference to other former Scriptures. But I don't see anything that makes this necessarily symbolic except that the number appears to be "rounded off." On the other hand, since God is in charge, He can work with exact units of time. You have to decide. It really isn't worth fighting over.

I certainly don't mind if you or WPM or anybody else wishes to emotionally appeal to your chosen position. I just want to remain on good terms with you all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's like someone committing adultery on his wife and then saying, "I didn't *intentionally* wish to commit adultery on her!"

Goodness gracious. Are you even trying to see my point? Your analogy here doesn't fit with my point AT ALL. if someone commits adultery, they know what they are doing. If someone mistakenly misinterprets the book of Revelation, they don't realize it. How are those two things the same when one is on purpose and the other isn't? Please read my post again because you are clearly missing my point.

If you change the meaning of the book of Revelation you can always say, "I think this," or "I think that." But if you say, "I know this changes the meaning, because I'm sure it was meant to be taken symbolically," then you're out on a limb cutting the limb off you're hanging onto.

What in the world are you talking about? I don't believe I am changing the meaning of the book of Revelation. Why would I purposely change the meaning of the book? That's ridiculous. I would never do that. I fear God too much to ever even dream of doing that.

I agree--it is completely within our rights to speculate, as long as we say we're speculating. The minute we claim we are not speculating, and still change the words or their meaning, we are intentionally changing the words from what they would normally mean.

What are you talking about? I am not changing anything. I'm interpreting the book in such a way that doesn't contradict my understanding of the rest of scripture. Do you have some kind of problem with that concept? How does that approach equate to intentionally changing the meaning of the book? That is nonsense.

No, that's not how I'm coming across here. I said that it damns some people, and that's exactly what is said.

Not people who are sincerely trying to interpret the book the best they can while trying to not interpet it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. It's talking about people PURPOSELY taking away from the book. Do you really think that Amils are doing that? If that's your opinion of Amils, then I don't want anything to do with you anymore. That would mean you're allowing your opinion on this one doctrine to affect how you see people, overall. As if my belief in Amil defines who I am as a person. Are you kidding me? Please stop this nonsense.

And I said that if some people are damned for changing the words, then there must be some negative consequences for those who change the words' meaning carelessly.

Is that what you think we Amils are doing? I would hope you would have more respect for us than that.

I know you're just trying to interpret things the best you know how.

Do you? I"m not getting that impression from other things that you're saying.

But you don't come across with humility in that way, which would be expected if there is a curse on changing words.

There is nothing wrong with having confidence in what you believe. You clearly are quite confident about what you believe. Why is that okay for you, but not for me? I acknowledge that I could be wrong about my understanding of Revelation 20. But, I obviously strongly believe that I'm not. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. You clearly strongly believe that your interpretation is correct, also. There's nothing wrong with that. If we act like our opinions and interpretations are facts then it becomes a problem. But, I don't ever say that my beliefs are facts.

But I agree with you--the curse is largely for those who maliciously change the meaning.

Just "largely"? What does that mean. It's only for those who purposely change the meaning, as I've been saying.

Again, this is being told to the Church, so that we also should be careful in how we try to interpret words if it changes the literal meaning.

Do you think Amils aren't careful? We only interpret it the way we do because of what we see taught in scipture, overall. We try to be very careful not to interpret any given verse or passage in such a way that contradicts any other scripture. Don't you think that's a good approach? Is that an approach that could lead to our condemnation? I would think not.

It's a tough warning, and I don't think it will take away our salvation if we err.

I agree. I had said something else, but just edited it because I misread what you said here.

However, I share this because this is how the warning affects *me.*

Great. It's too bad you worry about this so much, but that's you.

I don't care if you're not bothered. It affects me that way, and naturally, I'm concerned if it could do harm to my brothers and sisters, as well. Your life is yours to do with as you please.

Of course.

 

[Truth7t7]

Scripture addresses error with simplicity.

The devil roams about like a roaring lion . . .

He roams about. He is not bound.

Much love!

Of course Satan is presently bound from "Deceiving The Nation's To Battle", just as Revelation 20:1-9 explains

Many That Promote Millennialism Falsely Teach, Satan Cant Be Presently Bound Because Evil Exist In The World?

Satan Is Presently Bound As Is Clearly Seen In (Revelation) 20:7-8 Below That Interprets (Deceive The Nations) Is To Battle, Not General Evil In The World Presently.

Satan Is Loosed At The End Of The Tribulation When The 6th Vial Is Poured Out As Seen In (Revelation) 16:12, The Deception Is Devils In False Miracles Going Forth To The Kings Of The Earth, To Gather Them To The Final Battle

 

[Truth7t7]

What are you talking about? I am not changing anything. I'm interpreting the book in such a way that doesn't contradict my understanding of the rest of scripture. Do you have some kind of problem with that concept? How does that approach equate to intentionally changing the meaning of the book? That is nonsense.

Not people who are sincerely trying to interpret the book the best they can while trying to not interpet it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. It's talking about people PURPOSELY taking away from the book. Do you really think that Amils are doing that? If that's your opinion of Amils, then I don't want anything to do with you anymore. That would mean you're allowing your opinion on this one doctrine to affect how you see people, overall. As if my belief in Amil defines who I am as a person. Are you kidding me? Please stop this nonsense.

Is that what you think we Amils are doing? I would hope you would have more respect for us than that.

Do you? I"m not getting that impression from other things that you're saying.

There is nothing wrong with having confidence in what you believe. You clearly are quite confident about what you believe. Why is that okay for you, but not for me? I acknowledge that I could be wrong about my understanding of Revelation 20. But, I obviously strongly believe that I'm not. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. You clearly strongly believe that your interpretation is correct, also. There's nothing wrong with that. If we act like our opinions and interpretations are facts then it becomes a problem. But, I don't ever say that my beliefs are facts.

Just "largely"? What does that mean. It's only for those who purposely change the meaning, as I've been saying.

Do you think Amils aren't careful? We only interpret it the way we do because of what we see taught in scipture, overall. We try to be very careful not to interpret any given verse or passage in such a way that contradicts any other scripture. Don't you think that's a good approach? Is that an approach that could lead to our condemnation? I would think not.

Revelation 22:19 seems to imply that, though.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Having your name in the book of life means you are saved, so it seems that having your name taking out of it would mean you are not saved.

Great. It's too bad you worry about this so much, but that's you.

Of course.

It my observation and opinion that you see in scripture what will support your teaching and belief

Example: Revelation chapter 11 and the (Two Witnesses) seen below, you deny that they will have "Literal" bodies that die, and will lay in a "Literal" street in this world

It's my opinion that your "Remove" the literal scriptural interpretation with symbolic allegory to allow for your teachings and beliefs, and you have been clearly shown this truth to the contrary

The (Two Witnesses) Will Have Literal Physical Bodies That Die, And Will Lay In A Literal Street In This Literal World, As A Literal World Watcges In Celebration Of Their Death

Jesus Is The Lord

Revelation 11:7-12KJV
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have to understand how Premils take it. I understand all of your points, and we may never be able to agree.

It's clear that we never will agree on this. Both of us have our minds made up about this. That is obvious.

But it takes 2nd place to just getting along as Christians.

Of course. You know nothing about me personally, so why do you always think you can judge everyone just by what they say on a forum like this? I have a life apart from this and you know nothing about it. So, don't judge me and make any assumptions about me just from what you see from me on this forum. It's not your job.

WPM recently became exemplary in this regard, a true Christian in my book. Not that I'm his judge anyway--he stands or falls before the Lord. And I believe the Lord is pleased when His people get along.

Of course. There are some very childish people on this forum who hurl insults with every post they make. That gets frustrating and I do tend to snap back at them out of my frustration with their childishness. I acknowledge that I need to work on that and just try to ignore their insults.

So not to be cantankerous, let me just let you see how Premils might see all of these facts.
1) We both agree that Christ is ruler now, but not that his reign on earth has begun.
2) We both agree that we are priests now, but we have not yet begun to reign on earth with Christ.
3) We both agree that Satan was in a sense "bound" for the moment that Christ forgave our sins. The story of the "strong man" was just a principle by which Christ proved that God is stronger than Satan. Satan was not powerful enough to stop our redemption, and could no longer accuse us. But he continues to be free to be prince of this world, and rage against God's People, the Church.
4) We agree that at some point all who have not yet been judged will be sentenced together. We believe that will be at the end of the Millennium. But people are judged in different incidents throughout history, and there will be a special judgment when Christ comes back to defeat Satan and Antichrist.
5) We both agree that all Christians at the end of the age will be resurrected and rewarded. But we do not agree that mortal human history will continue after that event, making another resurrection and another judgment necessary.
6) We both agree that all of Antichrist's army will be defeated, and his rebellion completely quashed at Christ's 2nd Coming. But we do not agree that all of mortal humanity will die at that point in time.

Randy, I already knew all of that. Why exactly did you think you needed to tell me these things as if I didn't already know what you believe?

You see, we all believe in Scriptures.

Is there anything else obvious that you would like to tell me? Sorry, I'm just kidding here. I just don't understand why you felt the need to tell me something that we all know (or at least should know).

We just see them differently, perhaps due to a lack of information or detail. Depending on whether you see the Millennium as literal or symbolic, you will see these things differently.

Of course.

I agree that Rev 20 need not explicitly explain that the Millennium is symbolic if it is obviously so from how it is framed, perhaps in reference to other former Scriptures. But I don't see anything that makes this necessarily symbolic except that the number appears to be "rounded off."

I see no reason why the text itself has to somehow indicate that it's symbolic in order for it to be symbolic. Tell me, does the following verse specifiy that the word "thousand" is not being used literally?

Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

There's nothing here which indicates that the word "thousand" is being used symbolically, but we can still discern that it is because it would be ridiculous to think that God would only own the cattle on a literal one thousand hills rather than the cattle upon all of the hills.

So, verses like this one show that the number "thousand" can be used figuratively in scripture without anything in the text itself which specifically indicates as such.

On the other hand, since God is in charge, He can work with exact units of time. You have to decide. It really isn't worth fighting over.

I don't believe that can be determined from the text itself. We need to determine that from what scripture as a whole teaches about the things that Revelation 20 talks about such as Christ's reign, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment and so on. I've already explained my understanding of all that.

I certainly don't mind if you or WPM or anybody else wishes to emotionally appeal to your chosen position. I just want to remain on good terms with you all.

That is my desire as well. I'm tired of all the childish insults thrown around here. It's constant. I am going to try to not be part of that anymore.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It my observation and opinion that you see in scripture what will support your teaching and belief

Is that not true of everyone, including you?

Example: Revelation chapter 11 and the (Two Witnesses) seen below, you deny that they will have "Literal" bodies that die, and will lay in a "Literal" street in this world

It's my opinion that your "Remove" the literal scriptural interpretation with symbolic allegory to allow for your teachings and beliefs, and you have been clearly shown this truth to the contrary

Jesus Is The Lord

Revelation 11:7-12KJV
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

Are you saying you believe that Revelation 22:19 applies to me? That would be a very serious accusation.

You have clearly shown your OPINION of what Revelation 11:7-12 means, but I am not obligated to agree with your OPINIONS and Revelation 22:19 has nothing to do with what I think about your OPINIONS.

 

[Truth7t7]

You have clearly shown your OPINION of what that means, but I am not obligated to agree with your OPINIONS and Revelation 22:19 has nothing to do with what I think about your OPINIONS.

It's Not My Opinion, It's God's Words Before Your Eyes That Are A "Fact"

The (Two Witnesses) Will Have Literal Physical Bodies That Die, And Will Lay In A Literal Street In This Literal World, As A Literal World Watches In Celebration Of Their Death

Jesus Is The Lord

Revelation 11:7-12KJV
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

 

[Marilyn C]

I don't know why anybody should think time, times and half a time, 42 months, and 1260 days are not the same period of time? It originates from Dan 7, where it reads a time, times and half a time. It is reiterated in Dan 12.7. (Dan 12.11-12 refers to another prophecy, the prophecy of Antiochus 4. I believe Dan 12 is a brief summary of the major visions in the book that Daniel's people need to know about.)

Some people believe there must be two sets of 3.5 years, because in Dan 9 we read that in the midst of the 70th Week Messiah is cut off. That leaves 3.5 years yet to be fulfilled. I used to believe that, but do so no longer.

Why don`t you Randy?

 

[Marilyn C]

That is talking about "the latter days" or as some translations put it "the last days". When are the last days, Marilyn? In the future during a supposed "Millennium" as you claim? No.

Please read the following which shows us when the latter/last days are. This is what Peter said in response to some people claiming that those who were filled with the Holy Spirit must be drunk on the day of Pentecost long ago:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

According to Peter the last days had begun already long ago on the day of Pentecost and they continue on while people call on the name of the Lord and are saved. in 2 Peter 3:3-4 he indicated that the last days lead up to the return of Christ. So, your claim that Micah 4:1-3, which occurs during the latter/last days, is about a future Millennium can't possibly be true since the latter/last days cover the New Testament time period up until the return of Christ. You are not allowing scripture to interpret scripture for you, which is a big mistake on your part.

So are the nations `learning war no more?`