Pre-Trib Rapture and Premillennialism are False Doctrines

  • 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.

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,633
113
No idea where you get the idea Thayer's is the "best" lexicon. In fact, in theological and scholarly Biblical studies, Brown-Driver-Briggs is the best lexicon for Hebrew, and Bauer, or BDAG is the best Greek lexicon by far. If you had acutally studied the original languages, you would know this.

Here is one reason why:

"In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that his own acceptance of various errors of history and science in the Bible did not materially detract from his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer

Here's another: (A Unitarian?? Yikes)
  • "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example."
  • https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/lexicon_corrupt.htm
After reading this who cares what Thayer has to say?
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
The reason you haven't proven anything is that the mil is laid out for you in rev 20. As is what precedes it in rev 19.
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.
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
Does anyone know of any references to the the 1000 year reign in the Old Testament? I can't think of any at the moment.
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.
 
Sep 9, 2018
2,244
1,032
113
71
Illinois
After reading this who cares what Thayer has to say?
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
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
John does not claim there are two resurrections in his revelation - there is only one when the subject is understood properly.
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
....speaking of which....you just revealed their mil is almost 2k....so far.
No wonder they work so tirelessly.
They will run out of time eventually

OMG ...TOO FUNNY.
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.
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
I can agree with this. This is the vibe im getting too. In order to know what X or Y text in the OT or revelation means, you have to turn to the amil pastor or expert of some sort.
You cant figure out that on your own.
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.
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
If you believe you are now living in that age(Rev. 20:1-8) isn't that pre mil. ? I mean you cant be living in something("entire age we are currently living in") as you say and say it's false both,lol. If you think about it if you also believe Jesus will return at the end of the age and another will begin this one is (pre) millennium to the next.
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.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
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.
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.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Hello KJV1611. Good to see you joining the conversation again. I would question your interpretation of John 5: 25 being the resurrection of Old Testaments saints because of the immediate context of verse 24 right before it.

John 5: 24, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. "

Jesus is speaking about people hearing Him preach and those that believe in the Father and Him have passed from death to life. So the context in verse 25 is a spiritual resurrection. I see verse 28& 29 being about the physical resurrection. That's why he says the hour "now is" (spiritual resurrections through faith in Him), and the "hour is coming" (physical resurrection at the end of time).
Thanks, this is one my favorite topics. As far as John 5:24 goes have you considered that Christ went to hell and preached to the captives there?

I see where you're coming from though, I just disagree.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
John does not claim there are two resurrections in his revelation - there is only one when the subject is understood properly.
Can you elaborate on that one?
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
Amills have to make prophesy an allegory. Literal interpretation DESTROYS their doctrines.
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.
 
Sep 9, 2018
2,244
1,032
113
71
Illinois
Lets see

1. Amills have to make prophesy an allegory. Literal interpretation DESTROYS their doctrines.
2. Prophesy (according to God) Is use to prove he is the one true God (in the OT we are told if a prophet prophesies, and what he says does not come true, that prophet is a false prophet and should not be listened too)
3. The 1000 years occures AFTER the return of Christ, which occures AFTER the 7th trump.
4. Satan will be bound, so he is not able to decieve the nations. Look at the last 2000 years. satan has been decieving many nations and been using them as puppets to keep Gods word out of their nations)
5. Christ is said to rule with a rod of Iron (look at the last 2000 years. if christ is ruling with a rod of Iron, He is not very successful in keeping evil at bay)
6. Isreal is said to be restored. For the firt time after they were both removed completely (offured 70 AD) they will be restored after they repent and christ will lead them, While gentile familie who refuse to come worship will be punished with NO RAIN


There is so much scripture which when taken literally as prophesy SHOULD be taken that refutes Amil it is not even close.
While they ignore any evidence that we might offer . . . oh, we didn't see that! Translated: We don't want to see that therefore we didn't look.
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
No idea where you get the idea Thayer's is the "best" lexicon. In fact, in theological and scholarly Biblical studies, Brown-Driver-Briggs is the best lexicon for Hebrew, and Bauer, or BDAG is the best Greek lexicon by far. If you had acutally studied the original languages, you would know this.
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.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
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.
I guess you could "separate" them in a sense 16 - but John sees "both" as one in his vision

Can you elaborate on that one?
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.
 

delirious

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
490
97
28
Thanks, this is one my favorite topics. As far as John 5:24 goes have you considered that Christ went to hell and preached to the captives there?
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.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
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.
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.

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".
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..

This is just another lie premills tell all the time to dismiss amill teaching because they don't like it.
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?

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.
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?



One other thing. Premills love to say they are more responsible with the Scripture because they have a "literal hermeneutic".
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



Then why do you guys say the "last day" is more than 1,000 years long? Is that being consistent with your "literal hermeneutic"?
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.

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.
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

eternally-gratefull

Guest
While they ignore any evidence that we might offer . . . oh, we didn't see that! Translated: We don't want to see that therefore we didn't look.
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)
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
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 facts are that mellein does mean imminent look at these scriptures that use mellien and tell us how it can means 1970 years and counting.

Each place were mellein appears in the text the event unfolded almost immediately or in that generation: