And it was not a statement contradiction. Please read my reply.
End of Days
- Thread starter OMC
- 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.
It was. You just ignored it in your response. And there is zero evidence of this being text to speech. AI is formulating your responses as there are a lot of evidence of it in your responses themselves. So you may start out with voice to text, but you don't leave it there. AI then formulates a response, and that is what you paste. You can be dramatic and act like "lets kill the disabled guy" and attack my character, but that doesn't change the fact that you absolutely use AI to do FAR more than just text to speech.
You are proving my point every time you speak, because instead of answering Scripture with Scripture, you retreat into suspicion, accusation, and tone‑policing, as though calling my words “AI‑generated” somehow overturns the verses I quoted; but Scripture does not bend to your frustration, and your irritation does not excuse you from the command, “He that is of God heareth God’s words” (John 8:47), nor from the rebuke, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Prov. 18:13). You are not contending for truth—you are contending against the discomfort of being contradicted by the text, and instead of engaging the passages, you attack the messenger, which is the very behavior James condemns when he says, “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James 1:22). If you want to be taken seriously, then stop hiding behind accusations and bring the Scripture that proves your claim; until you do, your complaint is not discernment—it is deflection, and deflection is not a mark of a person submitted to the Word. Block me if you hate me so much. Frankly, I’m surprised you stuck around this long. Appreciate the effort.
The last Seleucid King of the North ended with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Here is when he died:
| Daniel 11:19 - Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found. |
My Commentary:
Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes was on a military and plundering campaign in Persia/Elam when his forces suffered defeats. Around the same time, he received infuriating news that his armies in Judea had been defeated by the Maccabees. He tried to urgently rush back to his capital in Antioch to restore order and his authority, but he fell gravely ill and died on the way in the city of Tabae (modern-day Isfahan, Iran) in 164 BCE.
…but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.:
The way in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes died is debated. Interestingly, one rumor is that he stumbled and fell from his chariot. He would later succumb to the injuries. Not only is this the end of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the Book of Daniel, but it is also the end of the 'Prince of Grecia' era and the belly and thighs of Brass. From this point forward, the Book of Daniel transitions into the alluded to 'Prince of Rome' era and the legs of Iron. The reign of the Little Horn of Daniel 8 begins.
The next verse is about Julius Caesar, the next King of the North after Antiochus IV Epiphanes:
| Daniel 11:20 - Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. |
My Commentary:
Then shall stand up in his estate…:
Nearly a century has passed since the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Rome takes over the Seleucid Empire. Julius Caesar is the new King of the North. Rome is the 'Little Horn' of Daniel 8, and the Sixth Head. The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is still future as the deadly wound healed.
…a raiser of taxes…:
Julius Caesar is well known for raising taxes.
…in the glory of the kingdom…:
After Pompey the Great conquered the region in 63 B.C., Judea was made tributary to Rome. Under Julius Caesar in 47 B.C., a system was established where the local Jewish rulers, specifically the High Priest Hyrcanus II and his administrator Antipater, were made responsible for collecting and paying these tributes.
…but within few days he shall be destroyed…:
Julius Caesar ruled as dictator for life (dictator perpetuo) for only about one month. He was granted the title between late January and mid-February in 44 BC and was assassinated on March 15, 44 BC (the Ides of March).
…neither in anger, nor in battle:
Many scholars view this as a prophecy of an assassination, specifically of Seleucus IV Philopator. Here we apply the assassination interpretation to Julius Caesar.
Octavian becomes the next and *FINAL* King of the North:
| Daniel 11:21 - And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. |
My Commentary:
And in his estate shall stand up a vile person…:
Augustus/Octavian replaced Julius Caesar. Augustus was deeply despised by many. As a ruthless dictator who dismantled the Republic, he faced severe hatred from political rivals, victims of his proscriptions, and conquered peoples across the empire who suffered under his oppressive taxation and imperial rule.
…to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom…:
Augustus did not inherit the throne in the traditional, undisputed line of succession. He officially took power under the humble guise of Princeps (First Citizen), avoiding the traditional, royal trappings of "honor."
…but he shall come in peaceably…:
Augustus maintained the illusion of a restored Republic while holding ultimate authority over the military, treasury, and laws.
and obtain the kingdom by flatteries…:
This aligns perfectly with Augustus's political brilliance. He famously consolidated ultimate power through charm, diplomatic negotiation, and "flattery" of the Senate and the Roman public.
What do you think the phrase 'and with many ships' means? Lol.
Herod appears all over the Book of Daniel. Why wouldn't God prophesy about the 'King of the Jews'? Daniel is not a 'history lesson' about insignificant people. King Herod is a major player here. Many verses in Daniel are about him.
That is your (or your AI's) opinion which I, as well as many others, completely disagree with. You have debunked nothing I have stated.
Here we go again. You discredit yourself with your constant drivel that adds nothing to the discussion. Enough already. I've already had to snip out a bunch this garbage already. I asked a question and now I have to deal with an AI throwing a temper tantrum. This is absurd.
Do you not get the fact that you waste people's time with your constant walls of text that go nowhere? We have better things to do then compete with robots pumping out post after post of meaningless fluff faster than people can respond to. It's tiresome and rude of you to do that.
Again, could you please spare me from your A.I.'s incessant arrogant patronizing drivel? My time here is extremely limited.
Last answer you get from me. Your incessant arrogant patronizing drivel is not worth the pearls.
You’re asserting your timeline as if confidence equals correctness, but once we submit ourselves to the actual flow of Daniel’s narrative, its grammar and structure refuse to let Antiochus, Julius Caesar, and Octavian carry the “king of the north” sequence all the way through, because the text itself pushes beyond the Seleucid line, beyond Rome’s early rise, and into a figure whose actions, geography, and end simply do not fit the historical men you’re forcing into the passage. I'm done with you.
I am someone who builds all doctrine directly from the biblical text itself—letting Scripture’s grammar, context, and inspired logic govern every conclusion rather than any external system or tradition. This is based solely on Scripture and I encourage all who read this to test what is written here.
When I interpret “the abomination that maketh desolate” in Daniel, I begin with the fact that Daniel uses the phrase in a technical, covenant‑judicial sense. It always refers to a hostile, sacrilegious act that desecrates the sanctuary and triggers desolation — the cessation of proper worship, the ruin of the holy place, and the outpouring of divine judgment. Daniel never applies this term to anything righteous, anything God‑ordained, or anything the Messiah accomplishes. It is always the act of an enemy profaning what is holy.
In Daniel 9:27, the abomination appears in connection with the stopping of the daily sacrifice and the destruction that follows.
The structure is clear: a covenant is violated, worship is halted, and a profaning act stands in the holy place.
The result is desolation. This is not symbolic language; it is covenant‑sanction language.
A hostile ruler intrudes into the sacred sphere, defiles it, and God responds with judgment.
In Daniel 11:31, the abomination is described again as a concrete act: forces “pollute the sanctuary,” remove the daily sacrifice, and set up the abomination. The verbs matter — pollute, remove, set up.
This is physical desecration, not metaphorical apostasy.
Daniel is describing a hostile intrusion into the holy place that destroys its function.
The abomination is the act that causes desolation, not the desolation itself.
Daniel 12:11 ties the abomination to a countdown — “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up…” Again, the pattern is identical: removal of proper worship, installation of a profaning act, and the desolation that follows. Daniel uses the phrase consistently and technically.
It is always a pagan intrusion into the sacred sphere.
Daniel’s usage is covenantal. Israel’s worship is the center of covenant life. When a hostile power enters that sphere and defiles it, the covenant curses activate. The abomination is the trigger for desolation — the visible sign that judgment has arrived.
Daniel never spiritualizes this.
He never applies it to the Messiah.
He never treats it as metaphor.
It is always a literal profaning act by a hostile ruler.
When Jesus cites Daniel in Matthew 24:15, He is telling me to carry Daniel’s meaning forward without alteration.
The abomination in Matthew must match the abomination in Daniel — a hostile desecration of the holy place that signals impending judgment.
Jesus does not redefine the term; He reaffirms Daniel’s definition.
So when I explain the abomination in Daniel, I stay inside the biblical pattern: a pagan intrusion, a profaning act, the cessation of proper worship, and the desolation that follows.
Daniel never uses the term for anything righteous, never for anything God ordains, and never for anything Christ accomplishes.
It is always the sign that covenant judgment has arrived.
When I interpret “the abomination that maketh desolate” in Daniel, I begin with the fact that Daniel uses the phrase in a technical, covenant‑judicial sense. It always refers to a hostile, sacrilegious act that desecrates the sanctuary and triggers desolation — the cessation of proper worship, the ruin of the holy place, and the outpouring of divine judgment. Daniel never applies this term to anything righteous, anything God‑ordained, or anything the Messiah accomplishes. It is always the act of an enemy profaning what is holy.
In Daniel 9:27, the abomination appears in connection with the stopping of the daily sacrifice and the destruction that follows.
The structure is clear: a covenant is violated, worship is halted, and a profaning act stands in the holy place.
The result is desolation. This is not symbolic language; it is covenant‑sanction language.
A hostile ruler intrudes into the sacred sphere, defiles it, and God responds with judgment.
In Daniel 11:31, the abomination is described again as a concrete act: forces “pollute the sanctuary,” remove the daily sacrifice, and set up the abomination. The verbs matter — pollute, remove, set up.
This is physical desecration, not metaphorical apostasy.
Daniel is describing a hostile intrusion into the holy place that destroys its function.
The abomination is the act that causes desolation, not the desolation itself.
Daniel 12:11 ties the abomination to a countdown — “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up…” Again, the pattern is identical: removal of proper worship, installation of a profaning act, and the desolation that follows. Daniel uses the phrase consistently and technically.
It is always a pagan intrusion into the sacred sphere.
Daniel’s usage is covenantal. Israel’s worship is the center of covenant life. When a hostile power enters that sphere and defiles it, the covenant curses activate. The abomination is the trigger for desolation — the visible sign that judgment has arrived.
Daniel never spiritualizes this.
He never applies it to the Messiah.
He never treats it as metaphor.
It is always a literal profaning act by a hostile ruler.
When Jesus cites Daniel in Matthew 24:15, He is telling me to carry Daniel’s meaning forward without alteration.
The abomination in Matthew must match the abomination in Daniel — a hostile desecration of the holy place that signals impending judgment.
Jesus does not redefine the term; He reaffirms Daniel’s definition.
So when I explain the abomination in Daniel, I stay inside the biblical pattern: a pagan intrusion, a profaning act, the cessation of proper worship, and the desolation that follows.
Daniel never uses the term for anything righteous, never for anything God ordains, and never for anything Christ accomplishes.
It is always the sign that covenant judgment has arrived.
Are you sure about that?
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.
In fact, I always found it amusing that science has used the term "big bang" to describe the beginning of the universe while the Bible uses the words, "great noise" to describe the end of it.
Good morning btw
Your objection misunderstands Peter’s argument because you are treating “pass away,” “melt,” and “burned up” as annihilation language, when Peter himself immediately interprets the event as renewal: “We look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13).
The fire imagery in verse 10 is purifying, not obliterating; it is the same pattern seen in the flood analogy Peter uses earlier (3:6–7): the world was destroyed, yet not annihilated — it was cleansed and renewed.
The “elements” (stoicheia) melting refers to the dissolution of the present corrupted order, not the erasure of creation’s existence.
Your “big bang vs. great noise” comparison is clever but not exegetical; Peter is not describing cosmic non‑existence but cosmic transformation, the same continuity‑through‑renewal pattern Paul uses for the resurrection body (1 Cor 15).
Scripture never teaches the universe will cease to exist; it teaches that God will burn away corruption and bring forth a renewed creation where righteousness dwells.
Good morning btw
Your objection misunderstands Peter’s argument because you are treating “pass away,” “melt,” and “burned up” as annihilation language, when Peter himself immediately interprets the event as renewal: “We look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13).
The fire imagery in verse 10 is purifying, not obliterating; it is the same pattern seen in the flood analogy Peter uses earlier (3:6–7): the world was destroyed, yet not annihilated — it was cleansed and renewed.
The “elements” (stoicheia) melting refers to the dissolution of the present corrupted order, not the erasure of creation’s existence.
Your “big bang vs. great noise” comparison is clever but not exegetical; Peter is not describing cosmic non‑existence but cosmic transformation, the same continuity‑through‑renewal pattern Paul uses for the resurrection body (1 Cor 15).
Scripture never teaches the universe will cease to exist; it teaches that God will burn away corruption and bring forth a renewed creation where righteousness dwells.
Let's look at 2 Peter 3:5-7 like you suggested.
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
It starts by describing the world and the state it was in before God/Jesus formed it. It was covered in water and was a void according to Genesis, chapter 1. God/Jesus had to separate the waters to separate it from the sky and He had to create the sun, moon, and stars in order to give it light. Afterwards he had to plant vegetation, create birds and animals to put on it and then He finally created Adam to place on it. In verse 6 above, it shows that the world in the state it was originally in had perished.
I think it is very telling that it says that the "earth was standing out of the water and in the water", but it was considered "perished".
So, I don't consider a "perished" world being formed all over again as a renewal. It's a complete restructuring. When you read what the dimensions are of Heaven (the New Jerusalem) in Revelation 21 & 22, it doesn't fit within the mold and dimensions of the earth as we know it either.
Brother, your reading of 2 Peter 3:5–7 is importing Genesis 1 into Peter’s argument and then treating “perished” as if it meant non‑existence, but Peter is not describing the primordial chaos — he is describing the pre‑flood world, which “perished” in the same sense Jesus uses for people who perish: judgment, not annihilation.
The earth did not cease to exist in Genesis 7; it was catastrophically transformed, and Peter explicitly uses that event as the analogy for the final fire.
“Standing out of the water and in the water” is not a description of a void planet but of the antediluvian world shaped by God’s ordering of waters (Gen 1:6–10).
The point is continuity‑through‑judgment: the world that “perished” is the same world that emerged renewed.
Likewise, the present heavens and earth are “reserved for fire,” not for erasure; the stoicheia melting is the dissolution of the corrupted order, not the destruction of matter itself.
Your argument that New Jerusalem “doesn’t fit the dimensions of the present earth” misunderstands Revelation’s imagery — the city is symbolic of God’s dwelling with His people, not a literal cube requiring a different planet.
Peter’s logic is consistent: the flood destroyed the world without annihilating it, and the fire will do the same — purge, transform, renew — producing the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells.
2 Peter 3:5-7 is absolutely describing the primordial chaos of the world before it was formed. There is no mention of Noah or the flood in this chapter. It mentions the heavens being of old, which dates back to before Noah.
Once the earthly Millennial Kingdom reign is over and the Heaven is brought down, there is no more need for an earth as we currently know it. The Bible tells us in Revelation 21 & 22 that it doesn't need a sun or a moon because Jesus is the light of it. The streets are clear as crystal and glass and there will be no more sea because only the River of Life (Jesus) runs through it. Heaven may be brought to the location where the current earth sits, but the dimensions won't be the same.
When I did a search for the meaning of the "earth standing out of the water and in the water", this is what I got:
- Material Origin: The earth was compact or consisted of water-based elements. Biblical commentaries note that the Greek word sunestōsa (standing/consisting) indicates the earth was made from the chaotic waters described in Genesis 1:2, establishing water as the fundamental substance of creation.
- Structural Cohesion: The earth is "in" or "by" water because it is held together by internal moisture and humidity. This internal water maintains the earth's solidity and fertility, preventing it from dissolving into dust.
2 Peter 3:11 - Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
Now, while I agree with you that there is form of cleansing/renewal/geographical change process that takes place on the current earth to prepare for Jesus' Millennial Kingdom reign on it, I absolutely believe that it will eventually be dissolved by fire in order to make room for Heaven when it is ready to come down and replace it.
Brother, 2 Peter 3:5–7 is not describing primordial chaos; Peter explicitly anchors his argument in the flood, and he says so plainly: “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”—that is Noah’s world, not Genesis 1:2, and the very next verse contrasts that world with “the heavens and earth which are now,” proving he is talking about two historical eras of the same creation, not pre‑creation chaos versus present cosmos.
Your commentary quote about sunestōsa (“consisting”) simply echoes Genesis 1:6–10—the earth formed by God’s ordering of waters—not a void planet.
And “perished” in Peter never means “ceased to exist”; it means judgment, the same way people “perish” without being annihilated. Likewise, “dissolved” (v.11) refers to the dissolution of the corrupted order, not the erasure of matter itself—Peter’s analogy only works if the final fire does what the flood did: catastrophic transformation, not replacement.
Revelation 21–22 does not require a different planet; New Jerusalem is apocalyptic imagery of God’s dwelling with His people, not a literal cube needing a new cosmic chassis. Your system requires annihilation because it assumes heaven must “replace” earth, but Peter’s argument is continuity‑through‑judgment: the same creation that once “perished” by water will be purged by fire and become the “new heavens and new earth, The fire will purge the same way the waters did. The earth is getting a facial scrub, yeah a lot gets removed but the head is there,
Personally, I believe 2 Peter 3 is showing us another instance of "Prophetic Telescoping" or a dual and different fulfillment of things to come (as we discussed in another thread). I think a better argument you could have used to support your view would have been to point us back to 2 Peter, chapter 2, verses 5 & 6.
However, that still doesn't change the descriptions being used for the New Jerusalem/Heaven in Revelation 21 & 22. It will be totally different from earth as we know it when the 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ is over. Which brings us back to our last debate regarding the 1,000 years and Jesus' Millennial Kingdom period. Do you still believe that it's being carried out in the "heavenly" realms even though people will still be repopulating and dying at extremely old ages and judged immediately for their sin? Or do you believe that it will be carried out on the "renewed" earth before all are judged at the Great White Throne Judgement in Revelation 20, after the 1,000 years are over?
I found something else interesting about whether everything is just "renewed" or whether there will actually be a totally new creation in Isaiah 65:17 below...
Revelation 20:11 is the immediate context before the New Jerusalem appears. John sees the great white throne judgment and notes: "I saw no place for heaven and earth, or for sea or springs, for they had passed away." The "no place" language is strikingly total — it's not that the old order is being renovated, but that it has simply ceased to occupy space. This is the verse most often paired with 2 Peter 3:10 as the strongest case for literal, complete annihilation.
Matthew 24:35 / Mark 13:31 — Jesus says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." The parallel with Psalm 102:26 (see below) suggests the same kind of total "passing away."
Psalm 102:25–27, quoted in Hebrews 1:10–12 — "They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment… you will change them like a robe, and they will pass away." The "wear out like a garment" imagery implies the old creation is discarded entirely, not patched up.
Isaiah 65:17 — "For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind." The Hebrew verb bara (create) is the same word used in Genesis 1:1, which some argue implies creation ex nihilo — a wholly new act, not a renovation.
While I'm willing to accept a renewing of the current earth for the purpose of God/Jesus' Millennial Kingdom reign on it, I still believe there will be another fulfillment where the earth as we know it will be completely dissolved to make way for the New Jerusalem/Heaven, even if it sits in the same place where the earth once existed.
It's always good talking to you! I appreciate these discussions that make us dig deeper and harder for answers even when we won't always agree!
Same here, my friend, and I truly appreciate your patience and kindness in our conversations.Personally, I believe 2 Peter 3 is showing us another instance of "Prophetic Telescoping" or a dual and different fulfillment of things to come (as we discussed in another thread). I think a better argument you could have used to support your view would have been to point us back to 2 Peter, chapter 2, verses 5 & 6.
However, that still doesn't change the descriptions being used for the New Jerusalem/Heaven in Revelation 21 & 22. It will be totally different from earth as we know it when the 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ is over. Which brings us back to our last debate regarding the 1,000 years and Jesus' Millennial Kingdom period. Do you still believe that it's being carried out in the "heavenly" realms even though people will still be repopulating and dying at extremely old ages and judged immediately for their sin? Or do you believe that it will be carried out on the "renewed" earth before all are judged at the Great White Throne Judgement in Revelation 20, after the 1,000 years are over?
I found something else interesting about whether everything is just "renewed" or whether there will actually be a totally new creation in Isaiah 65:17 below...
Revelation 20:11 is the immediate context before the New Jerusalem appears. John sees the great white throne judgment and notes: "I saw no place for heaven and earth, or for sea or springs, for they had passed away." The "no place" language is strikingly total — it's not that the old order is being renovated, but that it has simply ceased to occupy space. This is the verse most often paired with 2 Peter 3:10 as the strongest case for literal, complete annihilation.
Matthew 24:35 / Mark 13:31 — Jesus says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." The parallel with Psalm 102:26 (see below) suggests the same kind of total "passing away."
Psalm 102:25–27, quoted in Hebrews 1:10–12 — "They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment… you will change them like a robe, and they will pass away." The "wear out like a garment" imagery implies the old creation is discarded entirely, not patched up.
Isaiah 65:17 — "For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind." The Hebrew verb bara (create) is the same word used in Genesis 1:1, which some argue implies creation ex nihilo — a wholly new act, not a renovation.
While I'm willing to accept a renewing of the current earth for the purpose of God/Jesus' Millennial Kingdom reign on it, I still believe there will be another fulfillment where the earth as we know it will be completely dissolved to make way for the New Jerusalem/Heaven, even if it sits in the same place where the earth once existed.
It's always good talking to you! I appreciate these discussions that make us dig deeper and harder for answers even when we won't always agree!
So, two things.. your stand is:
(1) that the millennium must be an earthly era with death, childbirth, and sin, and
(2) that “new heavens and new earth” must mean annihilation rather than renewal.
correct?
Same here, my friend, and I truly appreciate your patience and kindness in our conversations.
So, two things.. your stand is:
(1) that the millennium must be an earthly era with death, childbirth, and sin, and
(2) that “new heavens and new earth” must mean annihilation rather than renewal.
correct?
1) Yes, I believe that the Millennium Kingdom happens (after the Sheep & Goat Judgement) on the current earth because there will be earthly people who survive the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22) and who will continue living, dying, and repopulating during the 1,000 year time of peace according the book of Isaiah.
2) Yes, I believe that by the time we reach the new heavens and earth, that we and everything on the earth, will be considered a new creation in a literal sense. There will be no more repopulating or dying. The Bible tells us that Satan, hell, and death will have already been done away with. The description of the New Jerusalem/Heaven in Revelation 21 and 22 don't even meet the shape or dimensions of the current earth either. I believe that it will replace the current earth entirely, even if it sits in the same location.
WHAT? No He did not and no one says He did except modern day preterist. 2nd century Church writers all believed it was future, strange how EVERYONE missed this false coming you guys peddle. Jesus returned and NOTHING happened outside of a city being destroyed by Romans? What a LAME coming!
An entire covenant was ended and a people who were once highly favored were no more.
According to Scripture, the millennium cannot be a post‑return era with mortal survivors, because every passage describing Christ’s return places resurrection, final judgment, and the destruction of death at His coming (1 Cor 15:23–26; Matt 25:31–46; Rev 20:11–15), leaving no category of humans who continue dying and repopulating afterward; and the “new heavens and new earth” cannot be a replacement planet, because the Bible consistently describes renewal, not annihilation — creation is “set free” (Rom 8:21), the world is purified as in the Flood (2 Pet 3:6–7), and the “passing away” of the first earth is the passing of the old order, not the destruction of the material world (Rev 21:1). The New Jerusalem’s cube shape is temple imagery, not planetary geometry, showing God’s presence filling creation, not replacing it. So the scriptural sequence is: Christ returns → resurrection → final judgment → death destroyed → new creation revealed, with no thousand‑year gap of mortal life in between, and no cosmic swap‑out of the planet.