Pre-Trib Rapture and Premillennialism are False Doctrines
- Thread starter delirious
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
My post #209 appears to prove the impossibility of a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. No one in this thread has answered my argument there. The other mistake you are making is claiming that Rev 19 & 20 are chronological. They are not. In post #208 I show how Revelation recapitulates itself many times. The book is not in strict chronological order.
There is none. If you read the whole Bible and never read Rev 20 you would only get the strong impression that there is one resurrection. Not two resurrections separated by 1,000 years. The premill's get that only from Rev 20. If they understood Rev 20 properly there wouldn't be this confusion and premillennialism would fall apart since Scripture contradicts it.
It's really pretty sad . . . a biblical scholar that people turn to to understand the Bible who himself denies the inerrancy of Scripture. The joke is on all those biblical scholars that are telling us things why we are wrong yet getting their facts from a guy that don't even believe the Bible is true!
Sola Stupididus Idioticus Ignoramus
Sola Stupididus Idioticus Ignoramus
-
1
- Show all
The 1,000 years are a symbolic number. That's how it is used often in the Bible. The first verse of Revelation tells you the book is encoded in "signs" by an angel and given to John. You are taking it literally when Revelation tells you it is not. Let's look at some examples...
Psalm 105: 8, "He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a 1,000 generations." Does this mean the command doesn't apply anymore after 1,000 generations? Of course not. Symbolic number.
Psalm 84: 10, "A day in the courts of the Lord is better than 1,000 elsewhere." Does that mean if I go to Disneyland for 1,001 days it will be better than "a day in the courts of the Lord". Of course not. Symbolic number.
Psalm 90: 4, "For 1,000 years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past and like a watch in the night." Symbolic! Can't have 1,000 equaling a day (24 hours) and a watch in the night (3 hours).
Psalm 50: 10, "For every beast of the field is mine and the cattle on 1,000 hills." Does that mean God doesn't own the cattle on the 1,001st hill? Of course not. Symbolic number.
The number 1,000 means a "fullness or completeness" that's what the number 10 and it's multiples mean in the Bible.
We still use it today in english when we speak. We will say to someone, "I went over this 10 times with you." or "I told you a 1,000 times!"
The 1,000 years of Revelation 20 is not literal. It is symbolic of the fullness of time from Christ's first coming to right before He comes back.
Psalm 105: 8, "He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a 1,000 generations." Does this mean the command doesn't apply anymore after 1,000 generations? Of course not. Symbolic number.
Psalm 84: 10, "A day in the courts of the Lord is better than 1,000 elsewhere." Does that mean if I go to Disneyland for 1,001 days it will be better than "a day in the courts of the Lord". Of course not. Symbolic number.
Psalm 90: 4, "For 1,000 years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past and like a watch in the night." Symbolic! Can't have 1,000 equaling a day (24 hours) and a watch in the night (3 hours).
Psalm 50: 10, "For every beast of the field is mine and the cattle on 1,000 hills." Does that mean God doesn't own the cattle on the 1,001st hill? Of course not. Symbolic number.
The number 1,000 means a "fullness or completeness" that's what the number 10 and it's multiples mean in the Bible.
We still use it today in english when we speak. We will say to someone, "I went over this 10 times with you." or "I told you a 1,000 times!"
The 1,000 years of Revelation 20 is not literal. It is symbolic of the fullness of time from Christ's first coming to right before He comes back.
You don't need to turn to an amill pastor. You need to search your Bible and the answers are there. Just because some passages are difficult doesn't mean we should give up on them. Like I have said before, no one has refuted my post #209 where I used Scripture about the seventh trumpet to show a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is impossible.
It's not "pre-millennium" as you say because the amillennialist believes we are in the millennium of Rev 20 right now and have been since Christ's first coming all the way until right before His second coming. The amillennialist believes that when Jesus returns He brings the new heavens and new earth not a millennium.
The premillennialist believes the 1,000 years are still future PLUS a new heavens and new earth.
The premillennialist believes the 1,000 years are still future PLUS a new heavens and new earth.
I've came to understand that there are only two resurrection, one is the resurrection to life and two is the resurrection of the damned. As I see it from scripture both are in stages.
That's how I see it and I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right but if I see compelling evidence otherwise I will change my view.
That's how I see it and I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right but if I see compelling evidence otherwise I will change my view.
This is the same false argument premills make all the time because it "sounds good". To anybody who knows how to critically think they will see right through this fallacious argument.
Out of all the posts I made in this thread where did i just make Scripture "say whatever I want"? I didn't.
In post #209 i appeared to prove that a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is impossible. No one in this thread has been able to refute that post yet. I used what the Scripture said. I didn't make it say "whatever I want".
This is just another lie premills tell all the time to dismiss amill teaching because they don't like it.
Can you refute the SCRIPTURE I used in post #209 that appears to prove a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is impossible? I'm waiting.
One other thing. Premills love to say they are more responsible with the Scripture because they have a "literal hermeneutic".
Then why do you guys say the "last day" is more than 1,000 years long? Is that being consistent with your "literal hermeneutic"?
You have to say that or premillennialism is proven false. Everybody whether premill or amill tries to interpret Scripture literally when appropriate. There are many apocalyptic passages in the Bible that are not literal but appear to be. This is where the premill fails and the amill gets it right. Especially in the Old Testament prophets.
Out of all the posts I made in this thread where did i just make Scripture "say whatever I want"? I didn't.
In post #209 i appeared to prove that a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is impossible. No one in this thread has been able to refute that post yet. I used what the Scripture said. I didn't make it say "whatever I want".
This is just another lie premills tell all the time to dismiss amill teaching because they don't like it.
Can you refute the SCRIPTURE I used in post #209 that appears to prove a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is impossible? I'm waiting.
One other thing. Premills love to say they are more responsible with the Scripture because they have a "literal hermeneutic".
Then why do you guys say the "last day" is more than 1,000 years long? Is that being consistent with your "literal hermeneutic"?
You have to say that or premillennialism is proven false. Everybody whether premill or amill tries to interpret Scripture literally when appropriate. There are many apocalyptic passages in the Bible that are not literal but appear to be. This is where the premill fails and the amill gets it right. Especially in the Old Testament prophets.
You misquoted what I said. I said that Thayer is considered "one of the best" lexicons not "the best" lexicon as you misquoted me.
The rest of your post is just an ad hominem attack against Thayer and does not disprove the legitimacy of his lexicon. Many people think it is a great lexicon.
Whether you want to use BDAG or Thayer or BDB it doesn't have any affect on what I was saying in my original post. That point was that the Greek word "mello" contains the idea of "certainty" that something is going to come to pass and doesn't mean "about to" in Acts 24: 15. The translation of that word depends on the context because in some places it is appropriate to translate it "about to". The word clearly has more than one meaning.
The rest of your post is just an ad hominem attack against Thayer and does not disprove the legitimacy of his lexicon. Many people think it is a great lexicon.
Whether you want to use BDAG or Thayer or BDB it doesn't have any affect on what I was saying in my original post. That point was that the Greek word "mello" contains the idea of "certainty" that something is going to come to pass and doesn't mean "about to" in Acts 24: 15. The translation of that word depends on the context because in some places it is appropriate to translate it "about to". The word clearly has more than one meaning.
I guess you could "separate" them in a sense 16 - but John sees "both" as one in his vision
The first resurrection is being born again which all Christians go through - John is specifically speaking of those "resurrected" during the 40 year millennium during the 1st century as the "first resurrected"
"anastasis" can be understood in it's literal sense or figurative.
The first resurrection is being born again which all Christians go through - John is specifically speaking of those "resurrected" during the 40 year millennium during the 1st century as the "first resurrected"
"anastasis" can be understood in it's literal sense or figurative.
If you want to extend His earthly ministry to those in the grave after He dies and before His resurrection I suppose you can do that if you want. Did people get saved by His preaching in hell? I don't think so. Hebrews 9: 27, "It is given to men once to die and then the judgment." I don't see a possibility in the Scriptures to get saved after you die.
I think He was probably just referring to His listeners in John 5: 24-25 believing in Him and passing from death to life.
It sounds like you are saying the seventh trumpet of Revelation was fulfilled at Jesus' resurrection and so Rev 11: 18 was fulfilled when he arose and took old testament saints to heaven with Him. Is this what you are trying to say? If I have misunderstood you I apologize.
I don't see how this interpretation is possible. The seventh trumpet occurs in Revelation after many other trumpets and I don't see how it could be applied to His first coming and resurrection since none of those previous trumpets had happened yet at Christ's first coming.
I think the Scripture is pretty clear the seventh trumpet is about Christ's second coming and that is where you see in Rev 11: 18 the saints and prophets along with the rest of the dead being raised for judgment. It is the Great White Throne judgment.
I think He was probably just referring to His listeners in John 5: 24-25 believing in Him and passing from death to life.
It sounds like you are saying the seventh trumpet of Revelation was fulfilled at Jesus' resurrection and so Rev 11: 18 was fulfilled when he arose and took old testament saints to heaven with Him. Is this what you are trying to say? If I have misunderstood you I apologize.
I don't see how this interpretation is possible. The seventh trumpet occurs in Revelation after many other trumpets and I don't see how it could be applied to His first coming and resurrection since none of those previous trumpets had happened yet at Christ's first coming.
I think the Scripture is pretty clear the seventh trumpet is about Christ's second coming and that is where you see in Rev 11: 18 the saints and prophets along with the rest of the dead being raised for judgment. It is the Great White Throne judgment.
E
Yet it is true, And even more importantly. Notice you only respond to this, and ignore all the scriptural proof of events which are going to take place.. That says quite alot.
All you gave was what YOU THINK is going to happen. You did not PROVE anything. The first thing you need to do is get off your high horse. Most of the poeple I have on ignore are proud people who think they are gods gift to the uniververse. And like to attack people over non essential doctrines such as this.. As typical. You seem to be just like them, But I will not judge you yet..
Now you give a strawman, You can;t prve it, So you have to say we do not like it.
You ever think maybe we do nto like it because IT IS NOT TRUE?
I proved you wrong with my post. Which you did not even refute or even try. If those things are true, your whole post is destroyed. So How about you prove the points I made wrong,, Whats wrong, are they too hard for you?
See. You did not even read my post. ALL prophesy should be LITERALLY INTERPRETED. Otherwise ANYONE CAN MAKE PROPHESY SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT, and NO ONE CAN PROVE IT WRONG
The last days are as long as God wants it to be. We are in the last days right now.. So before you start judging me, why do you not stop for one second and listen to what I have to say.
See here is the problem
You take allegories and make them spiritual (interpretations)
I take them literally, and take them to mean literal events which will take place (using historical precedence, as most of daniels prophesies were literally fulfilled (the ones which have not have yet to happen) and even Jesus literally fulfilled all prophesies concerning his first advent, Including comming to Jeruslam riding on a donkey literally to the the day 69 weeks of years AFTER daniels week started. And he was “cut off”less then 7 days (literal 24 hour days) later. Just as prophesied.
Either way, You can not PROVE me wrong anymore that I can honestly PROVE you wrong (except for past events concerning christ which literally occured which I am sure we both agree on. (So to attack each other, and call each other names, and to say YOUR WRONG NO MATTER WHAT is 1 childish, 2 unchristlike, and 3 one of the reason most people hate christians in the first place. Because they tear each other apart over non essential doctrines which have NOTHING to do with ANYONES eternal life.
Now. Can you respond to everying else I said, or are you one of those who nit pick only things they feel they can argue against?
In which case I can just allow you to join your bretheryn know it alls where you belong.
All you gave was what YOU THINK is going to happen. You did not PROVE anything. The first thing you need to do is get off your high horse. Most of the poeple I have on ignore are proud people who think they are gods gift to the uniververse. And like to attack people over non essential doctrines such as this.. As typical. You seem to be just like them, But I will not judge you yet..
Now you give a strawman, You can;t prve it, So you have to say we do not like it.
You ever think maybe we do nto like it because IT IS NOT TRUE?
I proved you wrong with my post. Which you did not even refute or even try. If those things are true, your whole post is destroyed. So How about you prove the points I made wrong,, Whats wrong, are they too hard for you?
See. You did not even read my post. ALL prophesy should be LITERALLY INTERPRETED. Otherwise ANYONE CAN MAKE PROPHESY SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT, and NO ONE CAN PROVE IT WRONG
The last days are as long as God wants it to be. We are in the last days right now.. So before you start judging me, why do you not stop for one second and listen to what I have to say.
See here is the problem
You take allegories and make them spiritual (interpretations)
I take them literally, and take them to mean literal events which will take place (using historical precedence, as most of daniels prophesies were literally fulfilled (the ones which have not have yet to happen) and even Jesus literally fulfilled all prophesies concerning his first advent, Including comming to Jeruslam riding on a donkey literally to the the day 69 weeks of years AFTER daniels week started. And he was “cut off”less then 7 days (literal 24 hour days) later. Just as prophesied.
Either way, You can not PROVE me wrong anymore that I can honestly PROVE you wrong (except for past events concerning christ which literally occured which I am sure we both agree on. (So to attack each other, and call each other names, and to say YOUR WRONG NO MATTER WHAT is 1 childish, 2 unchristlike, and 3 one of the reason most people hate christians in the first place. Because they tear each other apart over non essential doctrines which have NOTHING to do with ANYONES eternal life.
Now. Can you respond to everying else I said, or are you one of those who nit pick only things they feel they can argue against?
In which case I can just allow you to join your bretheryn know it alls where you belong.
E
If they do not know the events I am talking about in my post. Then they have not studied prophetical events concerning the end and they have thus just destroyed any and all confidence that they have any idea about what they are talking about (I would tend to think they are spoon fed what to believe, but have not studied it themselves)
