First Resurrection Debate Regarding Revelation 20

Blume's Third Rebuttal

THIRD REBUTTAL TO Bobby Boland Proposition : The Bible teaches that the First Resurrection spoken of in Revelation ch. 20 is to be a literal, bodily resurrection of regenerated persons, which is to precede the period known as "the thousand years", which period shall culminate in the general resurrection of all mankind and the final judgement. affirm - Bobby Boland deny - Mike Blume Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star. Rev 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. In his third affirmation, Bro. Boland begins with the letter to the church of Thyatira.  I agree with the affirmation that John's words to the churches were to actual churches in existence at the time.  I do not believe they represent church ages, as William Branham and others made popular.  When John wrote Christ's words to Thyatira, he spoke of conditions they were to deal with in an overcoming manner.  And let us keep in mind that every single church is advised to overcoming in each of the letters.  Then we read the note, "Let him who has ears hear what the Spirit is saying."  In other words, there is a very spiritual application to be receive here.  I believe this IS an apocalyptic note, that is, with signs and symbols.  A cursory reading of the letters would inform any reader of the symbolic involvement in the letters.  Thyatira is told very apocalyptic words -- words which are not intended to be taken physically.  Revelation 2:22 KJV  Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. Will the Lord cast her into a physical bed, whereas He will cast those who commit adultery into great tribulation?  Why a "bed" for this  "Jezebel"?  And it seems obvious that there was not an actual woman named Jezebel in the church, but rather someone who reflected the Old Testament's Jezebel and her ways in Elijah's day. The pertinent point Bro. Boland wishes to address is when Revelation states that power over nations is given to him who keeps God's words unto the end.  As I mentioned, Revelation is not a source for doctrine, otherwise doctrine concerning these things would not have been known throughout the entire history of Acts, until Revelation was written!  And we must base our understanding of Revelation upon the plain teaching in the rest of the bible outside apocalyptic writings.  We already noted there are apocalyptic notes in this letter, itself.  What is and what is not apocalyptic?  And most important of all this note was written to a church then in existence.  These people were told these things.    This was based upon Psalm 2:6-9: Psalms 2:6-9 KJV  Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.  (7)  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.  (8)  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.  (9)  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Anything against Christ will be brought down.  The New Testament teaches quite clearly that Christ has been made universal King already.  Ephesians 2 says He has been set at the right hand throne of God over all power in this world and the world to come.  Eph 2:5-6 says we are seated there with Him, meaning we also are above all powers in this world and the world to come.  In other words, we can enforce our right of position and overcome in this world.  Rev 1:5-6 says we are already made kings and priests by the same blood that washed us to begin with. We know that Christ's seating in Ephesians 1 is the throne, making Him king now, because Psalm 110 refers to that right hand seating as a place from which He "rules" in the "midst of His enemies".  Psalm 110 and Psalm 2 says this is Zion where Christ sits, showing that it is the true heavenly Zion that David's throne foreshadowed, and in which his throne is ultimately fulfilled with Christ, his Seed, sitting on it.  The New Testament repeatedly refers to Psalm 110 and Psalm 2.  We are also come to Mount Zion already! Hebrews 12:22 KJV  But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, Where was His throne?  Mount Zion, and at God's right hand.  Where was He seated?  At God's right hand.  So we have a double notation of being seated with Christ over all powers in this world according to Ephesians 1, and in Psalm 2's and Psalm 110 in connection with Hebrews 12:22.  As we overcome we gain rulership.  Christ's rule is a spiritual reign.  Some might contend that He does not now rule since He is not ruling over secular governments since they do not recognize Him.  However, we must determine our understanding about the nature of His rule from Scripture, and not search in scripture for a predetermined nature of His rule that may not be in scripture.  And I am sure we all agree He makes nations do His pleasing, and even uses dictators!  He used Assyria in olden days to chastize Jerusalem (Isaiah 10). Christ presently is seated on the throne of David, and is not going to do so in a future "millennium".  Peter's sermon in Acts 2 quotes the Psalms and states that David's Seed would sit on his throne.  Acts 2:25-28 quotes Psalm 16:8-11 and notes Christ's resurrection.  Christ is at David's right hand as well as the Father's.  This means Christ is to be seated on David's throne, and that was connected with the thought of His resurrection for that purpose.  He could not remain in death and see corruption.  Acts 2:29-31 shows how Peter explained how David knew that Christ would be resurrected in order to raise up Christ to sit on his throne.  Acts 2:32 affirms positively that God had already raised up this Jesus.  Now, it may be left open for us to see His eating on the throne of David much later in our future, as futurists indeed contend, seeing the text so far only reads that resurrection would prepare Christ for the seating on David's throne.  However, verse 33 clinches the fact that Christ is on that throne now, and that there is no gap of time between His resurrection and ruling on the throne of David by stating Jesus is on the right hand of God and exalted, proven by the issuing forth of what they all saw and heard when the 120 receive the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.  Peter ascribed the reason for the tongues as being the result of Christ's seating at the right hand (in agreement with Eph 1:19-22), which Psalm 110 says is on Zion, which is a reference to David's throne that was on earthly Zion, to which we also have already come (Heb 12:22). And 2:34 says that it is not David who is ascended into the heavens.  And to prove that, Peter quotes David's own words about another, saying, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool." (Acts 2:34-35). So here we read that Christ is resurrected and ascended to SIT ON A SEAT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND.  And it this seating occurs UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool. So the ascension of Christ, that has already occurred, has placed Christ on the THRONE of RULERSHIP UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool. So if Christ is SEATED after we have read how Christ would SIT on David's throne, why should we expect Him to be on one throne in Heaven and then later sit on an additional throne of David on earth at a later time?  How many thrones must He sit on?  According to the context of Acts 2, the throne in heaven at the right hand is the throne of David.  "The throne of David"  speaks no more of the actual physical throne David sat on than does the "House of David" refer to David's kitchen, living room and bedroom.    David's throne is David's family dynasty.  And since Christ would descend from David as David's Seed, then His rulership is called David's throne. Acts 2:36 says this is proof positive that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.  And this brings us to 1 Corinthians 15 once again. This means that Christ is seated and ruling, and means the note in 1 Cor 15 about Him ruling UNTIL enemies are made his footstool, also citing Psalm 110, is already occurring.   Acts 2 explains that 1 Cor 15's ruling of Christ is already occurring. 1 Corinthians 15:25 KJV  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. This scripture informs us that Christ reigns while sitting there before His enemies are made His footstool, and until such a time.    Acts 2:33-35 says this ruling until enemies are made footstool is already occurring.  He is now seated there on THAT throne.    Acts 2:33-35 brings 1 Cor 15's ruling "until" in the present ever since His ascension. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 KJV  For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.  (28)  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Note this all-important point.  I believe futurism stumbles due to not noticing this.  These last verses I cited further reads that although everything is already under Him, all things are not yet subdued beneath Him.  Hence, we see the explanation of how He RULES over all while at the same time He does so UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool, leaving room for enemies to scurry about.  Rulership is indicated by Him having all things put under Him in the past tense indicated by the term "hath" at the start of verse 28.  But He will, future tense, subdue all things that He presently is put over. At this time we must refer to Adam's original position before sin. Genesis 1:26 KJV  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Notice Adam is given dominion.  He had dominion.  As much as God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, He said, "Let them have dominion," and they had dominion over "all the earth".  But note that verse 28 says Adam was to subdue all things next. Genesis 1:28 KJV  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. So He had dominion over all, as a king.  He was next to SUBDUE everything over which he had been given dominion.  This is exactly the way it is with the Last Adam, Christ.  He has dominion now.  All things hath been put under Him.  But not all things are yet subdued.  Putting all under Him and subduing them are two different things!  They CAN be subdued by Him in time, because they are already UNDER HIM. Did Adam have dominion over all earth before He subdued?  Yes.  That is plain that he did not subdue because he fell prey to the plan of the devil.  Adam could have subdued the devil, but he did not.  Christ will not fail with His dominion. Ands note that Revelation 2's reference to Psalm's mention of breaking the potters' vessels to "shivers" or "pieces" as Psalm 2 actually reads.  This is not when dominion begins.  This is destruction of the wicked, after all things are "subdued".  It's not an enslavement of them under one's rulership.  This is important.  In fact, commentator after commentator says this is a reference to Israel being smashed under upon their rejection of the Gospel and the nations of the earth brought into the church instead of them (as Adam Clarke), while futurist John Gill actually makes reference to 70 AD when Israel was crumbled into dust and scattered in the wind, as fulfilled by the destruction by the Romans.  So the putting of enemies under his footstool AFTER the Father hath put all things under the Son's feet, is the subduing of them all.  First we read the Father "hath" put all things under his feet, followed by all things to be subdued, which subduing involves the smashing of all enemies into "shivers." Therefore, Christ presently rules over all on the throne of David.  Jude 1:25 KJV  To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Both now and ever.  Sounds like Ephesians.  Not only in this world, but also the world to come. I said all of this to say that Revelation's letter to Thyatira concerning overcoming and ruling must be understood in light of these plain facts.  And this shows us that we rule now and shall see our enemies dashed to pieces and the wicked destroyed in the future.  We overcome now and spiritually enjoy dominion over the world.  We subdue.  Could it be that the Christ subdues all through the agency of His body the Church, seated with Him on His throne?  While Rev 3:21 says Laodicaeans shall sit on His throne with Him if they overcome, Ephesians 2 :5-6 teaches we are seated with Him on His throne over all things. So there are nations over which we rule now, spiritually, which will be destroyed should they reject the Gospel now.   And it is important to note the spiritual dominion we have.  THROUGH THE GOSPEL we subdue the world to salvation.  We take them from the kingdom of darkness into Christ's marvelous light.  Note that these references of kingdoms relate to the thought of dominion.  And this gives the answer for the subduing.  Why did Paul use the term KINGDOM if this is a spiritual work of salvation?  It is because the entire thought of ruling and subduing kingdoms in this world refers to the entire work of salvation and rescuing souls from the devil's kingdom. Acts 26:18 KJV  To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Colossians 1:13 KJV  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: It is therefore a misrepresentation to say we teach there will be no nations we rule over.  It may not be the rule Bro. Boland predetermines it must be, but as I showed in scriptures, we are ruling now, nonetheless.  We do have authority and power now.  Bro. Boland simply misrepresented what authority this is speaking about due to a preconceived notion that is not founded in the New Testament.  What is founded in the New Testament is our seating with Christ over all powers (nations) in this world and the world to come.  Futurists repeatedly nullify this fact.  Christ gave us authority (exousia) already. Luke 10:19 KJV+  Behold,2400 I give1325 unto you5213 power1849 to tread3961 on1883 serpents3789 and2532 scorpions,4651 and2532 over1909 all3956 the3588 power1411 of the3588 enemy:2190 and2532 nothing3762 shall by any means3364 hurt91 you.5209 John 1:12 KJV+  But1161 as many as3745 received2983 him,846 to them846 gave1325 he power1849 to become1096 the sons5043 of God,2316 even to them that believe4100 on1519 his846 name:3686 Adam was listed as a "son of God" in Luke 3's genealogy.  He had authority in dominion.  We have authority as well. Bro. Boland claimed the nations would be regulated by the scriptures if we did rule over them.  This thought neglects the idea that Christ rules UNTIL and NOT BEFORE all enemies are made His footstool, while all things hath been put under Him already, and David noted in Psalm 110 that Christ rules in the midst of His enemies, implying no requirement for nations to be regulated by the Gospel.  In fact that is why Psalm 2 and Revelation 2 says that He will, future tense, break them to shivers in the future.  Nations who do not submit to His rule now will be destroyed later, not ruled over.  We shepherd nations already!  We preach God's word to the peoples and leaders themselves, to follow Christ through the church.  Futurists think too materialistically through a predetermined mindset concerning what they think rulership is, without noting the references throughout the New Testament as to what the nature of the church's dominion now is. Bro. Boland then cited: 1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Our good brother stated this will not occur at the final judgment because only God engages in this judging then, but Bro. Boland did not provide proof that God does this alone.  The text in question also says we shall judge angels.  And then it adds a contrast to that thought by speaking of things pertaining to this life.  This implies that we shall things that pertain not to this life but to another life! 1 Corinthians 6:3 KJV  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? When will we judge angels if not during the time the fallen angels are judged at the final judgment.  Who is to say we are not involved in the Final Judgment?  We rule with Christ now.  Why not judge with Him then?  The fact is that at the end, the disobedient nations who did not submit to the Kingdom now will be destroyed and broken to shivers then. Bro. Boland claimed the millennium answers to a need to rule over nations before the White Throne judgment takes place.  He would agree with all I have said, and see the millennium as now, if he had not predetermined the nature of the dominion (which he did without scriptural explanation) and had accepted the New Testament's clear teaching that we are presently seated with Christ on His throne that rules over all nations right now in this world (Eph 1:20-22 in conjunction with Psalm 110). Bro. Boland then claimed we receive our rewards at His coming and then proceed to rule in a following millennium, but he did not prove this.  He just stated it as a given.  However, who is to say that the coming of Christ is not immediately before the Great White Throne judgment?  And who is to say we do not get our rewards at that judgment?  The Great White Throne judgment involves an assessment of whose name is in the Book of Life.  This would be entirely redundant if there were only sinners present there.  This demands there be some then present who are judged whose names are in the book of Life.  And note that the people present are judged according to their works.  Does not 1 Cor 3 state we shall be judged according to the works done in the body, not for salvation but for reward?    1 Cor 3 states that such people shall be saved but their works shall be burned up at this rewarding. Hence, the reference to names being written in the Book of Life at the White Throne and the reference to judgment by works.  It fits.  But Bro. Boland has provided no alternative picture that fits using scripture.  He just stated his thought without proof. We know that Christ's coming in 1 Corinthians 15 occurs when the END occurs, after which death is destroyed.  Death is not destroyed at a future coming after which occurs a millennium.  Bro. Boland mistakens 1 Cor 15 to say there is a gap of time between the coming and the end, while Paul stated when the end occurs.... at His coming.  "Then cometh the end." (1 Cor 15:24).  In other words, one might ask, "When does the end come?"  The answer is "Then.  When Christ comes."  And this fits with the overall thought of His rulership UNTIL all enemies are put beneath His feet, in conjunction with the fact that He rules right now (Eph 1:20-22; Psalm 110).  Once again, Acts 2:33-35 proves that such ruling is occurring now already. Bro. Boland then quotes 2Pe 3:3-9 and notes this is a reference to a "thousand years", as though he is linking the thought of a Millennium to 2 Peter 3.  He claimed that 2 Peter 3 is not saying that God perceives time differently than we do.  I do not think Bro. Boland is addressing my actual thoughts concerning that reference.  Nevertheless, it is common sense that God does not perceive time as we do.  We are limited by our short lifetimes when we assess time.  God is not so limited, and is eternal, so He would naturally perceive time differently than we do.  However, it is not wholly correct to say that my opinion of this chapter states that God perceives time differently than humans do, as Bro. Boland seemed to imply in case I did believe that.  I never addressed this in any rebuttal.  Everyone knows that God operates according to His divine schedule.  I agree He does. Bro. Boland then stated the Millennialists use this reference to note that there is a thousand year period in God's schedule.  This is an incorrect correlation of thought using 2 Peter.  The context is saying that despite the length of time endured after a promise, His promise will come to pass whether it is one day or whether it is one thousand years.  The incredible length of time does not negate the promise.  God is able to fulfill something in one thousand years as easily as He is in one day.  That is the proper context of the chapter.  I feel it is strong assumption to say this is speaking about a particular thousand year period as if to say there is a certain "single day" that is part of His schedule in that sense. Peter did not say that in one day God feels it has been one thousand years.  Neither did he say God barely notices a thousand years or one day.  Peter said length of time does not negate the fulfilment of His promise, as though it otherwise is easier for God to fulfill something in one day than it is to fulfill something in one thousand years.  So I agree with Bro. Boland when he stated God could care less how long it takes.  But this in no way suggests that God works on a thousand year day principle.  That is absolute assumption. The reason the Bible reads, "One day is as a thousand years", is because God is saying there is no difference in the ability for Him to fulfill His promise whether it be a day or one thousand years between the promise and the fulfilment.  And I agree it is NOT saying God has no sense of time.  I am at a quandary as to where Bro. Boland got that opinion of preterists.  As I said, I never proposed any such thing to you yet. Seeing the proper context of this reference, it is assumption to state that it has reference to the millennium in Revelation 20.  Bro. Boland then assumes the reference to the "day of the Lord" is the answer to what day the thousand years in 2 Peter points to.   He proceeded to state that the day of the Lord is one thousand years in duration. This cannot be so, since the day of the Lord is the one and the same day through Zechariah chapters 12 through 14.  Zechariah 12 clearly speaks of the crucifixion of the Lord.  Notice that Chapter 12 begins by speaking of a siege against Jerusalem, which is exactly what occurred in 70 AD at the hands of Rome. Zechariah 12:2-3 KJV  Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.  (3)  And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. Verse 3 says "in that day."  Verses 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 also refer to "that day".  Zechariah 12:10 speaks of something that John explicitly wrote was fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  Zechariah 12:10-11 KJV  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.  (11)  In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. John 19:34-37 KJV  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.  (35)  And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.  (36)  For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.  (37)  And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. So "that day" includes the crucifixion!  Let us continue references "that day". Zechariah 13:1 then speaks of that day when a fountain is opened up for the house of David.  Verse 2 and 4 speak of "that day".  13:1 mentions a fountain for the house of David.  Paul said: 1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Ephesians 5:25-27 KJV  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  (26)  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  (27)  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Titus 3:5 KJV  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; A cleansing fountain for sin is clearly what the cross provided.  And this is doubly stressed in the note about "that day", the same "day as Zech 13:1, when an event of the cross fulfilled a prophecy. Zech 14 speaks of nations gathered to Jerusalem, which is what the Roman empire was comprised of and when Rome's armies came down and besieged Jerusalem in 67 AD until 70 AD.  And this is still the same day spoken about in chapters 12 and 13.  The bride, the church, is regarded as New Jerusalem in Revelation 21.  And the word NEW in the Greek there speaks of not an entirely different one, but one rising from the ruins of he old.  And so God considers the church as the progression of the old Jerusalem.  And that is the reason the old Jerusalem is said to be besieged in Zech 14:2, and later the church is implied when speaking about rivers of living water flowing from Jerusalem in verse 8.  Jesus said the living waters were the Holy Ghost.  Out of old Jerusalem, came the New Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, with Rivers of Living water, the Holy Ghost.  And God saw all of that as THE DAY OF THE LORD.  The same day spoken of in Zech chapters 12 and 13.  And for that reason, as well, Peter speaks of Pentecost and 70 AD holocaust as the "last days" as per Joel's prophecy.  He said the outpouring that day was what Joel spoke about the Spirit when he foretold the "last days" (Acts 2:17).  Joel's exact words from the Massoretic text were, "it shall come to pass afterward  (Joel 2:28)." And Joel spoke of the sun turning to darkness and the moon into blood, which is a common old testament metaphor for the end of a kingdom, secular or religious.  So it is all ONE DAY in God's mind. Bro. Boland then stated, "I realise there is more than one "day of the Lord" in Scripture."  Not really.   I believe they all refers to the same thing. Bro. Boland then used a common argument used by others to indicate there was not an actual spiritual death the very 24-hour day Adam sinned.  After citing where God said Adam would die the day he ate, Bro. Boland then indicated that Adam lived 930 years of age, just short of 1000 years, to prove Adam did physically die the day he sinned, since the day is one thousand years.  None of this is explicitly taught in the bible as being so.  Adam did spiritually die the very 24-hour day he sinned.  This is taking a statement of one thousand years being like a day to the Lord and applying to every instance in which it might suit of prophetic doctrine.  However, why is this not applied to the scriptures that state Christ was three days in the grave?  Why is this not applied to the scripture about Christ being in the wilderness 40 days fasting?  We cannot arbitrarily apply something built on such a sandy foundation as speculation to prove a doctrine about millennium.  Not only is Revelation apocalyptic and no basis for doctrine because of it, although it is profitable in confirming doctrine explicitly taught elsewhere, this idea of applying the note of 1000 years being a day to a millennial teaching is nigh unto absurd.  The bible text would have concluded that for us if it were true.  And I say this is a perfect example of making doctrines up using very sandy methods of determination. Bro. Boland then stresses the term "by the same word" in 2 Peter and says it is the "same word" that spoke and created the old world and destroyed the old world.  I see no benefit to his cause in saying this.  I believe this is simply saying that the same power of the Word of God that spoke creation into existence, also spoke and caused destruction in the past by water.  And, therefore, we can count on THAT Word of God.  It never failed in the past when it spoke.  Neither should we think it will fail in our future involved in a yet unfulfilled prophecy from Peter's perspective and day, at least. Bro. Boland then speculates some more without explicit connections related in the scriptures that he refers to, in saying that creation "took seven days."  The seventh day was blessed and sanctified as Sabbath, and he told me to keep that in mind.    He then connected that with God's word to Noah saying "For yet seven days."  And Bro. Boland stated "the same word" dictated the time frame of the destruction of the heavens and earth.  And he stated the world, but not the heavens and the earth, were destroyed in Noah's day.  He said the heavens and earth created in Genesis are still here.  And he stated that "the same word" concerning "the world" of Noah's day are to be applied to "the heavens and the earth", that is, seven days, implying the seven days are seven thousand years, seeing a day is one thousand years, implying a 1000 year millennium is due our time, because the heavens and earth are 6000 years old now, according to his slant on creation of heavens and earth occurring back when Adam was created 6000 years ago.  This is extreme assumption.  This demands that the seven days of Noah's time regarding the "world" be spiritualised as seven thousand years regarding the "heavens and earth".  It is all based upon belief that "the same word" is speaking about a particular statement God made to Noah, and applying the conversion of one thousand years to one day, which the bible does not suggest we do with any time period mentioned in the bible.  One has to blatantly assume such a conclusion when the Bible only stated one day with the Lord is as one thousand years.  We do not read we can use that thought and convert every mention of a day to one thousand years when it suits a predetermined doctrine of prophecy, while we leave other references to days alone without such conversion.  "by the same word," can simply mean the quality of God's Word that was proven to be true when He spoke creation into existence and promised Noah the world would perish in water.  The specific word we are concerned with is originated from God's mouth.  And we can trust such a word.  And that is the exact point Peter made.  It is just as easy for God to fulfill something in one day as it is for Him to speak it and fulfill it in one thousand years.  It's the same Word.  It's from the same GOD who spoke the previous fulfilled prophecies.  2 Peter does not explicitly state that "same word" points to “yet seven days and I will destroy” in Noah's day.  Not to sound condescending, but I have rarely seen such extrabiblical gymnastics with the Words of the Bible.  And this is done to support a doctrine of premillennialism!  Meanwhile the Bible did not make that correlation in explicit terms.  It is assumed that "by the same word" means the exact statement God gave to Noah, and was spoken in Genesis' creation.  That would lead us to accept the possibility that the world was created in seven thousand years rather than seven solar days, while the bible explicitly stated the evening and the morning were the ____ day, implying solar days.  Bro. Boland then continues in this sandy foundation and states that Christ died on the fourth day, since He died 4000 years after Adam.   I believe there is merit to this thought, but we cannot deem it as doctrine, since the bible did not explicitly state it as so.  And Bro. Boland then stated the Millennium would not only be the seventh day from Adam but the third day since Christ.  I have often heard this very reference from those who propose other entire doctrines upon this extreme speculation to state that our day is unique, in contrast to every other generation in the church age.  First, I ask, what makes us so special?  Does it not sound convenient for us to say we are in "the third day" , which third day was significant in Christ's resurrection on the third day, etc?  Does it not depend solely upon the thought that "our day" is the time in which the Lord shall come?  Who said He will come in our day?  No man knows the "day".  Could that mean no man knows which "thousand year period" will occur when the Lord comes?  (chuckle).  Could the hours of the day represent "centuries or decades, since a day represents one thousand years?  So no man knows the millennium nor century in which the Lord shall come?  That is all speculation of the same sort as Bro. Boland's proposition concerning the "same word." I can assess such speculation as great thought!  However, I cannot say it supports doctrine!  That is so sandy a foundation for doctrine that I cannot describe it!  And this has been my assessment of most futurist thinking regarding prophecy.  There is no explicit teaching anywhere in the Bible to state what Bro. Boland has said.  He derives that conclusion.  Whereas preterism does not assume, but takes explicit examples of the same picture in the rest of the bible, for example with the sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood, to determine the meaning in the New Testament prophecies.  In order for Bro. Boland's example of this interpretive style in 2 Peter to be valid, he must find an example where the bible explicitly stated that days are considered one thousand years in a prophecy that is found both spoken and fulfilled within the context of the bible.  And it does not exist. God told Israel that 40 "days" would be turned into 40 "years" in the Exodus, due to doubting His word.  However, that is not 40 "thousand years".  Bro. Boland's methods to prove his doctrine remind me of "snake-oil" salemanship.  I would not expect anyone to use such methods in debating an issue like this in a serious manner.  Such thoughts are interesting, I will give him that!  And they are novel!  There may be some credence to them!  However, they can only CONFIRM what the BIBLE explicitly states, and there is no explicit statement anywhere in the bible that the earth's history will last seven thousand years, with the final thousand being the millennium.  Every generation has said their day was the day when Christ would return, using similar methods as this.  Centuries proved to be an issue when prophecy would be fulfilled, according to some, since the days referred to in Daniel 12:11, 12 were considered as years by the pertinent readers involved in that theory.  1,290 days would be considered 1,290 years to them.  Blessed is he, therefore, that cometh to the 1,335 years!  The point is that every generation looks to something to make "their day" appear as unique and more special than any other.  And what would be more special than the day the Lord returned?  One man used this very same methodology to say that Christ would come in the autumn of 1988.  Bro. Boland's methodology is no different.  The common denominator in them all is the speculation and assumption that we can perform mathematics using statements form the bible that the bible never explicitly stated itself in those mathematical terms. Bro. Boland then speculates on this road of assumption moreso.  He stated that Jesus played out every experience of Israel that involved time periods.  40 days of fasting while Israel spied 40 days, etc.  AND then he claimed that this is proof that Israel's history was a prophetic picture of Christ's life.  Meanwhile the Bible did not make that connection in explicit terms for us.  And to make a doctrine out of it would be to demand we do not require something the apostles explicitly stated, although we are built on their foundation  Doctrines are foundations.  Where did the Apostles explicitly teach this? Bro. Boland then refers to Hosea 6:1-2, to indicate that three days spoken there are prophetic of three thousand years.  Again, nothing in the bible explicitly interprets this as so.  Hence, the danger of futurism's speculations being deemed as "doctrines".  He admitted this refers to Christ's resurrection on the third day.  I contend that is the ONLY conclusion we can arrive at.  But he goes on to ask, "Could this be indicating that after two thousand years, in the third "day" or thousand years, we the church will be "revived" as in raised, or resurrected?"  We cannot base doctrines or confirm doctrines on "could this be?"   There will be no question if it's a foundational doctrine.  It will be stated as so if it's doctrine.  I feel that the error of assessing a doctrine of Millennialism from apocalyptic accounts in Revelation only gives way for further wild speculations such as Bro. Boland is doing in extreme form in 2 Peter 2.  There is no explicit teaching to anything he has said about this.  He must derive such conclusions that were not know to the Apostles.  All he can say is that the Apostles could have believed them, but did not write them in the Bible. Every generation thought they were the unique one to see Christ return.  And they all failed in their hopes.  Bro. Boland simply uses their same determination.  Is the doctrine of His return so ambiguous and foggy as this?  Are we to take the same mannerism of assessing doctrine that has confused generations of believers and been proven wrong again and again?  Or must we stand only upon what is explicitly noted in scripture in teaching form, outside apocalyptic visions, when it comes to doctrine, and base our interpretation of those visions upon what IS explicitly taught elsewhere? The series of speculations continues with Bro. Boland as He references Matthew 12 in which Jesus speaks of the same words in Hosea 6, that regard mercy and sacrifice.  And then He takes verse 8, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day" and claims the millennium is implied in quite Gnostic manners, confirming his theory that Hosea 6 speaks of a millennium after three thousand years since the cross according to Hosea's reference to the third day.  I find this amazingly mystical and gnostic.  No where does the bible make these conclusions.  And if Bro. Boland agrees, but uses this to merely confirm his thoughts, where is the explicit statements which DO say these things?  He cannot turn to revelation 20, for that is apocalyptic!  There is no solid explicit teaching anywhere in the entire bible that states there will be a thousand year period follows the church age.  Does Rev 20 mention "the church age" followed by "thousand years"?  No!  But it is just such statements that are required in the Bible to prove that his theories are correct.  But Bro. Boland is proposing Gnostic mathematics and methodology to prove his point.  What kind of proof is that? Then he connects the thought of "blessed and holy" in Revelation 20 with the thought of the sabbath being blessed.  Again, wild speculation without explicit connection to that effect in the bible itself. He then takes the third day when God would come down on Sinai in Exodus 19, and states even more wild assessments of that speaking of three thousand years. And to vindicate his methods he says, "Brethren, this is not poetic imagery, this is what actually happened. It is historical fact. And it just so happens to be extremely close to what the rest of scripture says about the Coming of the Lord, in fire and in glory, with the sound of the archangel, at the sounding of the trumpet, coming in fire."  But the bible does not make that connection and does not state in doctrinal, explicit teaching fashion that Moses' day foreshadows the coming of Christ to the extent we can make a doctrine out of a millennium at that time!  I could just as easily state that Revelation 4 shows the thunder and lightning, as on the third day of God's descent onto Sinai in Exodus, where in rev 5 Jesus is seen alive from the dead, having been slain.  And I could point out that this prophecy in revelation 4 through 5 is about the resurrection of Christ on the third day when He left Mary saying to her to not touch her, as the High Priest could not be touched upon entering the most holy place, for He had not yet ascended, on that third day since His death, to the Father.  And that the thunder and lightning reminiscent of the third day descent of God in Exodus 19-24.  IN fact I DO say that is the case of Rev 4 through 5.  But I base that upon explicit teachings about the Lord being High Priest who entered and made atonement for our souls upon His ascension the third day.  Bro. Boland, however, has no explicit teachings about anything he proposes.   It's all speculation built on top of more speculation.  It's all "could this be?".  It's all, "It happens to be extremely close to what the scriptures say."    It's not good enough for doctrine. I will avoid referring to the remainder of similar speculations and assumptions that involve three days, as 30000 years, with Abraham, Isaac and "two friends."  Suffice it to say Bro. Boland has not provided an explicit teaching in the entire bible to verify His Millennial doctrine.  I could just as easily, and DO, say that all of this simply points to he work of the cross in the actual three days Christ died and was buried until He resurrected.  I have used the very same pictures to indicate that the work of he cross in our lives is represented by the three days, in order to show us these stories of the Old Testament apply to us spiritually.  But I never go beyond that and say they have implications about the Lord's coming, because the bible does not say any set of three days is three thousand years in explicit terms..  Bro. Boland then stated that chiliaism was the trend before Augustine, and that there were no debates in early writings about the issue before that.  And Bro. Boland has the very unlikely and self-condemning statement, after using very gnostic means and methods of determining his three thousand year doctrine, using these words, " But only the gnostics could deny the literal Millennium!"  I reply that only gnostics would base doctrines of the millennium upon such bases as a third day in scripture referring to three thousand years since the cross until Millennium!  Regarding his alleged silence of non-chiliaist thought before Augustine, I would reply that a ver small fraction of the entire early church writings have even been translated!  It would be silly to stand on the small minority that  HAS BEEN translated to prove his doctrine!  Not only does he assume things the bible never teaches about three days, but now he stands upon what is not even written in the bible, and what is only a minority of what was written after the bible was completed!  Where is any solid foundation from the Word here? Bro. Boland uses guilt by association to prove that preterite thought concerning a present Millennium is guilty of error.  That is simply a bad foundation of debate. In short we cannot claim guilt through associating preterite thought with anyone who claimed similar ideas and did certain atrocities as a result, such as the Roman Catholic Dark Ages.  That is not scriptural debate.  It is faulty debating to say the least. Bro. Boland then deals with my rebuttals. He claimed I did not respond to his point that although we may use different terms for resurrection, it does not follow that we may use resurrection for different things.  Bro. Boland missed my point that synonyms for anastasis ARE used for regeneration.  Bro. Boland did not address the facts I showed where other terms, aside from anastasis, describing Christ's raising form the grave are also applied to regeneration. This renders Bro. Boland's thought that he claimed I did not respond to as being moot.  If I can show that words referring to Christ's rising from the tomb in resurrection are used to speak of regeneration, then my case is proven.  After demanding that the same word anastasis be proven to apply explicitly to regeneration, Bro. Boland himself has taken so many leaps of assumption regarding the three days in which not one time has he provided me with an example of explicit words being found in scripture to that effect in regarding the millennium!  He cannot demand of others what he does not provide himself. And Bro. Boland remarked about my references to Mr Strong and Mr Robertson as not being inspired of God, after referring to early church writings since the bible!  Again, he demands of others what he refuses to do himself!  And he admitted Strong said resurrection is figuratively that of salvation.  I am saying that is the very case in Revelation 20! In response to my reference to John 11:25 as connecting resurrection to regeneration, Bro. Boland said, "John 11:25 does not say regeneration is resurrection. It says Jesus is the resurrection, and that the believer will live, even though he were dead."  Then he said, "It cannot mean regeneration, because that would mean a believer (regenerated already) is still dead, and shall live - in the future."  He is incorrect.   Jesus said that because He is resurrection He said certain things would occur to people, which things are explicitly repeated in other reference to regeneration.  Jesus said because He is the resurrection, "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live."  This is what John also wrote about regeneration in his epistles. 1 John 5:11 KJV  And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 1 John 5:12 KJV  He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 1:2 KJV  (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) Colossians 3:4 KJV  When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Christ IS our life now!  Why?  We are regenerated by Him because of His resurrection!   What is regeneration?  Bro. Boland claimed that it is "an assumption on your part that this salvation 'is associated with resurrection'."  Assumption?  If there was no resurrection there would  be no salvation!  And resurrection causing salvation is certainly connecting resurrection with salvation!  Who can honestly deny that?  Paul emphatically stated that we are alive from the dead, and He claims without apology in Romans 6 that we are to deem ourselves as much alive from the dead as Christ did when He resurrected from the grave. Romans 6:8-11 KJV  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:  (9)  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.  (10)  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.  (11)  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. It is true so much so that we can actually present ourselves to God as those alive form the dead. Romans 6:13 KJV  Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. And that all goes back to Romans 6:8 through11.  It is simply there in black and white print.  We came into union with Christ when He died.  And Romans 6:3-11 explicitly states that this is a union in his crucifixion, His burial and His resurrection from the dead.  Even Strong may assess this as figurative, but God does not.  God assesses this as actuality.  Just because it is spiritual does not mean it is not actual. Bro. Boland then demands I refer to anastasis to regeneration, while at the same time SYNONYMS are used.  He neglected the existence of synonyms!  He has an "exact word theology".  If something referred to Jesus experience when He came from the tomb, which is called resurrection, that is also referring to our regeneration, aside from anastasis, then Bro. Boland's point is moot.  Demanding an exact word is simply not required.  Synonyms do indeed exist, even in the Greek language! To be that consistent, as to demand exact words, as I have already stated, requires the four gospel accounts of the superscription on the cross to indicate four different crosses, seeing not one gospel account is identical in exact words to the other accounts.  Bro. Boland then stated, "I think you failed to see the point I clearly demonstrated. Just because another word is used for resurrection, does not mean resurrection can be used for another word."  That is illogical.  It's not the WORDS that are the final point.  It's what the words describe!  It's the reality those words simply point us to.  If one word points us to the resurrection, and another word also points us to the same thing, then other word that also points to regeneration demands the first one does as well.  We all know the WORD OF GOD is not ink on paper, but is a group of truths those inked words relay to us.  The inked words vary, as languages in themselves vary from one another.  But the SAME SINGLE TRUTH is being proposed.  That is the principle Bro. Boland is missing.  Watch this simple thought: Anastasis is "A". Another word referring to what Jesus experienced when He left the tomb is "B". Regeneration is "C" If A=B and B=C, then A=C! Simple logic!  If another word aside from anastasis is a synonym of anastasis, and also is used to speak of regeneration, then THE MEANING of anastasis is sued for regeneration.  SYNONYMS HAVE THE SAME MEANING.  It's the MEANING THAT COUNTS.  Not the exact word. You asked, "when do you ever use the word "rapture" to refer to being born again?"  Who is to say we cannot use it?  We can speak of the rapture of spirit and soul that occurs when we are saved!  Who would deny such a statement?  No body!  It is true!  But that does not negate a physical "rapture" as well.  In fact, if you do not have a spiritual "rapture" you will not have a physical "rapture" into eternal existence physically! You claim, "you have not shown how Romans 6 refutes the truth that the First resurrection of Rev 20 is a bodily resurrection."  I am saying the information provided in Romans 6 states that the MEANING of resurrection is applied to regeneration.   You claim I have not shown that John 5:22 means regeneration and not resurrection of the body.   Yes I have!  I have shown the same terms used in 1 John refer to regeneration!  1 John states we HAVE THIS LIFE already upon salvation using those same Greek terms.  It does not have to use the term anastasis.  It uses the same terms that are synonymous with anastasis that are used in referring to regeneration elsewhere.  And since the MEANING of the actual words is the TRUTH, then I stand correct.  The MEANING of anastasis applied to regeneration proves my entire case.  It is simply illogical of you to disagree.  In response to my note about Shiloh,  you say, "Ah, but you need to first establish that Shiloh is indeed a direct reference to the person of Jesus Christ. Tradition may demand that "until Shiloh come" be a reference to Christ, but that does not prove anything except that people believe a certain thing."  The fact is that you must admit you believe Shiloh refers to Jesus Christ.  We do not have to prove every single thing you and I both agree on in this discussion.  We would have to start back at creation in genesis 1 and work our way through hundreds of doctrines until we arrive at the fact that the New Testament is true, otherwise, so we could even use New testament to prove prophecy doctrines to be correct, and then interpret them all.    So it is unreasonable for me to demonstrate that Shiloh as used by Jacob means Jesus Christ before you address that point. When I spoke of some people who believe living again in Rev 20 is spiritual and not physical, you defeated your own basis of argument when you spoke of he early church fathers in saying, "Some people are obviously wrong."  Why refer to extrabiblical writings then?  You once again demand of me what you do not demand of yourself.  You claim I am not consistent  in saying what is experience spiritually is experience physically later by sinners in Rev 20.  I am not inconsistent.  Who said the particulars had to be consistent when the overall category of the two issues are one and the same.  There is spiritual resurrection as well as physical resurrection.  Where does the bible say we cannot speak of both as resurrections?  I feel I have adequately proven there is spiritual resurrection in the bible.  And although you resist that proof, it still does satisfy me after all you have said.  And I simply do not base my doctrines upon frivolous thoughts.  And you claim my reasoning is flawed because you said, "Otherwise, we have no way of knowing the meaning of any text, and we will wind up with all sorts of nonsense, like for example Blavatsky's 'Theosophy' approach, or any number of New Age distortions of Scriptural interpretations."  After using blatant assumption in proving the millennium earlier, referring to 2 Peter, you now compare my thoughts of Revelation to occultism simply because I say that there is spiritual resurrection and physical resurrection in revelation 20.  Brother, if I based doctrine on revelation you would have an argument.  But I already stated that nothing in this book is foundation for doctrine.  Profitable, yes.  Foundational, no.  I am standing upon Romans 6 for my doctrine of spiritual resurrection.  You on the other hand based an entire argument for millennium based upon pure speculation of the term " three days" and "seven days".  When I spoke of the first death and the second death you demanded proof for that assertion that the first is physical while the second is spiritual.  I said that Heb 9 speaks of appointment to death only required once.  You said we die twice.  Now, you appear to outrightly contradict Hebrews 9:27 in saying this. The context of Hebrews 9 is speaking about our payment for sin accomplished by Christ.  WE had to die once for sin, therefore Christ died once.  The implication is simple.  He died that appointed death we required of ourselves.  This is the same truth as Romans 6.  His death counts are our own deaths, and thereby frees US from Sin.  We were baptized into His death, making it count as our payment of death for sin.  There is no other way that could cause us to be free from sin as Romans 6:6-11 states we are.  Hebrews 10 states that animal lives were sacrificed every year and could never take away sins.  If one could take away sins, then only one sacrifice in death would suffice.  This stands upon the background truth that the soul that sinneth shall die.  Sacrifice is accomplished vicariously to that meet that required death.  Romans 5 teaches that death came due to that sin.  And hence Hebrews 9:27 states that death is required only once based upon the truth that such a death came to be required due to sin.  So after death is fulfilled, in reference to sin, no further death need be accomplished.  Now, you may argue that further death need not be accomplished, but nevertheless can be accomplished.  However, can you tell me what nature of death is required once for sin, and what sort of further death need be accomplished for some other reason, and what that other reason is?  You cannot answer that.  Nobody can!  It's not explicitly taught in scripture.  So we cannot base a doctrine upon Revelation 20 once again.  Too many open ended questions are left with us after reading Rev 20.  It does not nor does say that the deaths are spiritual or physical.  We are left without knowing after reading Rev 20.  That again is why you cannot base a millennium doctrine from that chapter.  Therefore, as I have always stated, we must look to other explicit teachings in the bible where we are told these things.  You claim I deny Christ's words saying the body is destroyed in Gehenna.  I never denied that at all.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  I am saying that destruction and death are two different things.  The body does not die in gehenna.  It is destroyed there.  I never said it is not destroyed there. You say it is not necessarily untrue to say there is a gap of one thousand years between resurrection of saints and sinners simply because it is not found outside of Revelation.  The fact is it is not conclusive that it is found in Revelation 20!  We are not told the nature of the resurrections in either case of the first and the second!  Neither you nor I can build a doctrine upon such open ended scriptures.  You have not yet been able to understand my reasoning which states that we cannot build doctrines on things in Revelation yet, but this is one good reason.  Aside from it being Apocalyptic, there are not fully explained statements in Revelation 20 about the issue.  You ASSUME it is physical resurrection in both cases.  Revelation does not use the word "Physical", to use your exact-word theology back on yourself.  It does not say "bodily"  in either case!  All we are told in the entire bible is that we die physically and spiritually.  We died spiritually with Christ!  If we were crucified with Christ, and crucifixion is death, and yet this did not occur physically, then what are we left to say how it occurred?  And we are also told that there will be a physical resurrection, and a physical death for most believers.  I say "most" because the resurrection day sees those whoa re still physically alive and remaining to be changed so as to never taste physical death.  That is all the explicit teaching in the entire bible that we have!  You are saying there is more to this understanding by reading Revelation 20, when Revelation says nothing in explicit and complete teaching form. You keep saying that because something is not mentioned elsewhere in the bible, "That does not mean it is not true. It is found in Scripture, that is the point."  But some scripture is not basis for doctrine!  You are still not getting my point.  Revelation is NOT COMPLETE in the sense of tying all loose ends.  It does not say what is and what is not "bodily" resurrection.  You assume it's there, but the exact words are not there.  It's not only not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, but it is not fully explained to your conclusion in Revelation itself!  You keep forgetting that nothings says this pertains to the body in Revelation 20. Despite your accusations to the contrary, my scenario does not contradict scripture.  It agrees with it perfectly.  It just do not agree with your interpretation of other scriptures.  But if anyone is going to know that personal interpretation is not by default what God intended us to read, it should be us ministers!  So do not say I contradict scripture when it's only your interpretation of scripture that I contradict.  That is an empty accusation on your part. You ask, "Where else in Scripture does it say that Jesus is sat down in his father's throne? Only in the Revelation."  Incorrect. Ephesians 1 :19-20 state He is sated at the right hand of the Father, and considering RIGHT HAND meant POWER in that culture, and spoke of a THRONE, then this is stated elsewhere.  Psalm 110 states He is at the Right Hand "ruling."  Again, the MEANING is there everywhere. You also state "alpha and omega" is not mentioned anywhere else about Jesus.  But the MEANING IS!  He is the beginning of creation, and the LAST ADAM.  Each of these cases are not the same nature of the picture of Revelation 20 that you are trying to substantiate.  Each of them are full of meaning that the rest of the Bible already established.  Prove me wrong.  Everything you cite in Revelation is ambiguous and dependent solely upon the rest of the bible's clear statements outside of apocalyptic writing, and in every case you claim it is not apocalyptic but normal reading, you have loopholes that are not tied together in the same context. You speak about the Root of David only in Revelation.  What about the MEANING of  Isaiah 11:1?  What about Jesus' own words how Christ is both David's Lord and seed?  You see, the exact words are not there elsewhere, but the exact meaning is!  And you distort my true thoughts when you say, "Come to think of it, if your 'principle' be true, that anything true must be found in at least two different books of the Bible, we have more problems."  Where did I ever say anything must be in more than place in the bible?  I never said that at all.  I said in respect to Revelation as an entire book, as also goes for Song of Solomon, we must find explicit teaching elsewhere.  You misrepresent my thoughts.  So your comments about a hypothetical belief about hair, etc are ill founded.  I myself preach against the idea that something must be mentioned more than once in the bible for it to be doctrine.  But I also preach it must be mentioned at least ONCE IN EXPLICIT TEACHING FORM in order for it to be considered doctrine.  Make no mistake about it. So when you ask, "But let me ask - where did the apostles teach that a doctrine must be taught in at least two books of the Bible for it to be true?" you build a strawman and tear it down rather than attack my actual beliefs.  Your question does not apply to me.  I do not believe something must be in more than one book of the bible.  You claim "Another unproven assumption"  in response to my assertion that Revelation is apocalyptic.  That is ludicrous!  It is clearly apocalyptic as the sky is blue.  Signs and emblems comprise an apocalyptic writing.  Every chapter has signs in it.  Form the first chapter where a sword comes from Jesus' mouth, it continues so in every single vision.  The book IS symbolic in nature since the very first verses said it was.  Signifying is rooted in the term SIGN.  To relate to using signs.  And if I paint a sign of a christian concert in our church, the actual concert is not occurring where the sign is posted.  And the REVELATION idea of unveiling does not negate the fact that SIGNS are used in that unveiling.  You speak as though something cannot be revealed using signs.  Quite the contrary!  Christ revealed tenets of the Kingdom using parables!  We could more easily understand the spiritual things when they were compared for us wit natural things. The only fog that obscures anyone is neglect of studying early church cultural emblems and such in order to determine what was clearly understood by the churches to whom John wrote.  What is so contradictory to your own assertion is that if futurists were correct, and Revelation speaks of helicopters and rockets and missiles, then everything was VEILED permanently to the first centuries readers to whom this book was outright addressed!! Who said signify means to "to hide truth under codes and ciphers"?  Not me!  Another strawman!  The whole argument I am making is that the first readers understood  all of that as they saw these things throughout the entire bible.  God really wreaked havoc on their minds if these things were saying what futurists contend they are!  Futurists contend these things were sealed until the day of the computer age!  Everyone fails to realize that the first readers were intended to have Christ revealed to them in this book.  I said nothing about Bible codes, etc.  I am saying all is contained in the rest of the Bible and Revelation's emblems point to those instances in the rest of the bible. You said, "When ti says he sent and signified it by His angel to John, it simply means he made this revelation known to John, through His angel."  Of course!  Who does not realize that?  But it was made know THROUGH SIGNS.  SIGNS they were all familiar with... not signs of missiles and so forth they were not familiar with. You said, "The word appears in Acts 11:25, and means that Agabus declared, or indicated, or made known that a famine was coming. The word does not mean 'to cloud by means of symbolism'. It means to indicate, show, make known."  I never said anything is clouded.  You really must stop putting words in my mouth.  I said that the SIGNS were means to familiarize the believers with Christ, using SIGNS they were very much accustomed to knowing about due to their knowledge of especially the old testament.  They did no cloud anything!  The only clouding done is accomplished with folks who look outside the bible for the meanings. You again mentioned Gnosticism after using VERY gnostic methods to speak about the three days and the millennium.  Going to the rest of the bible for explanation of the SIGNS in revelation, where those SIGNS are used in explicit terms is not gnostic at all.  I am afraid you are revealing how futurism is actually gnostic despite your claims preterism is using strawmen to describe my beliefs!  You missed my point in citing Revelations 5th seal.  I was pointing out that the souls beneath the altar were what were seen by John.  In a consistent manner, quite obvious when you recall the fifth seal, John sees souls in Revelation 20.   God is consistent in the same book using the same terms.  And the SOUL IS some immaterial thing that can be detached from the body!  Paul said he would be present with the Lord should he be absent from the body (2 Cor 5:8).  And if PAUL IS A SOUL, then what else is present with the Lord but absent from the body?  Your thoughts do not add up.  Paul also spoke of an experience that he was unable to determine was outside the body or inside the body.  Paul believed you exist outside your body (2 Cor 12:3)!  Peter said he would soon put off his tabernacle (2 Peter 1:14-15), and he never said he would then immediately get another one!  To assume he did is to continue in the same speculation that makes three days three thousand years in so-called prophetic "doctrine".    And so goes futurism. You did not address my point that their bodies were not under the altar in the fifth seal when it said their souls were.  You avoided direct confrontation with that question in the form of your answer.  You just assume souls are not bodiless in Rev. 20 with no proof whatsoever.  Meanwhile you cannot directly address where the bodies are of the souls beneath the altar.  Are their bodies beneath the altar?  Please directly address this this time.  You make many claims about soul without explicit scripture that states what you are saying.  However to be absent form the body and be present with the Lord is an explicit statement that demands what I am saying.  There is no other way to explain it without adding to the statement. However, you then prove my point about signifying and apocalyptic thought used in revelation when you say Abel's blood was not physically screaming form the ground.  And the same term of souls in revelation 20 is clearly connected to the nature of the thought of souls beneath the altar, leaving you with even more troubling thoughts to deal with in assessing your alleged crystal clear interpretation of Revelation 20's physical resurrections. You say you proved Rev 19 as not being the 70 AD coming of the Lord.  You did not prove it.  Just because you claim you did, does not make it so.   Matthew 21:40 speaks of the Lord COMING and that explicitly and without controversy points to 70 AD.  You must agree.  Prove it incorrect.  And my whole point, again, is nothing can be proven in revelation.  revelation only stands upon writings outside itself.  You cannot prove Rev 19 is the coming of Christ in our future.  You cannot prove they are resurrected saints riding with Him.  Where does Revelation 19 says they are resurrected? All we read about them is this: Revelation 19:14 KJV  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. More open-ended questions!  More incomplete thoughts!  Nothing mentioned about resurrection!  This is the entire nature of futuristic interpretation.  Everything is assumed.  We cannot prove it is nor it is not resurrected saints because we cannot prove anything from Revelation.  Doctrine alone is our foundation for proof.  And there is no doctrine explicitly taught in Revelation.  None. You spoke concerning the two groups of resurrected ones in Revelation 20 as by saying, "the second group is said to not live again until 'after' the thousand years, which means they live 'after the first group. Therefore the chronology of the two is undeniably clear from the text itself."  You miss my point.  In what way do they live in contrast to what else? You said my thoughts of His coming at the Great white throne to be absurd because "you have Rev 19 not being this return, even though it describes Him coming in glory and power, and you have Rev 20 at the end being the coming in glory and power, yet the text there says nothing at all about any coming in glory and power, but only of a judgement. I find that backwards, to be honest."  You find that backward because your method of interpretation is reverse.  You are basing 1 Corinthians 15 upon Revelation 20, instead of doing the proper opposite.  All we are told about in 1 Cor 15 is that Christ comes at the end, and now rules until then when He gives up all authority, when the saints are also resurrected.  You take Revelation 20 to clarify that, and say there is one thousand years yet coming while He does not rule now.  1 Cor 15 says otherwise, if you read it more carefully.  It says God hath already put all things under Him and He must rule UNTIL he makes enemies His footstool, when He will then SUBDUE them.  And we can only base Revelation 20 on THAT.  Not vice versa. By the way Revelation 19 speaks of a coming of Christ using the same methods He used in Isaiah 10 when He ascribed Assyria's attacks upon Jerusalem as His wrath.  But writings have witnessed to the effect that there were chariots and horses seen in the clouds over Jerusalem during that time.  However, the scriptural context of the entire thought teaches a 70 AD coming without need for such witnesses.  Again, MATTHEW 21:40 speaks of Him coming then.  All through the bible we have comings of the Lord in invisible manner, yet attributing to them very visible pictures. Isaiah 34:3-7 KJV  Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.  (4)  And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.  (5)  For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.  (6)  The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.  (7)  And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. Did actual mountains melt in actual blood?  Or will they?  Come on, brother.  Revelation is written in the same manner these prophecies are. You question my assertion that only explicit teachings of the apostles are foundation for doctrine.  And you question my shock and I am shocked even more.  It's all so elementary.  It's like trying to define the word "and" to you.  You are telling me that something enveloped amidst clearly symbolic statements can be deemed as doctrine when no such "doctrine" is found anywhere in Plain teaching form in the bible.  Brother, the very definition of the term doctrine speaks about clearly taught issues in the setting of explicit teaching.  Ephesians 2:20 KJV  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Your continued insistence that Rev 20 is doctrinal amazes me beyond description.   If you cannot understand this point I make, then it is little wonder you adhere to a reference of "three days" being  Gnostic proof that a physical millennium is coming.  As much as it is hard to define AND to you without getting the help of Noah Webster, comparing it's commonality to the thought of commonly understood tenets of what makes doctrine to be doctrine, it is hard from me to explain such elementary and basic thoughts of the nature of doctrine.  And the only way I can explain it to you is by asking you if there is an actual  lamb with seven eyes and seven horns into which Christ has been changed, or will be changed?  We find no teaching in the bible that Christ is physically a lamb, although he is spiritually indicated so in light of his sacrifice when John called Him the Lamb of God.  Yet that picture of seven eyes and horns on the lamb is in the same book from which you claim we can take thoughts that are likewise not mentioned elsewhere in the bible and make doctrines out of them.  That is the only way I can think of to verbalize my point I am making.  No one in their right minds would base a doctrine on Christ being come a physical lamb with seven horns.  However, you do the same thing with Revelation 20 and the Millennium!    You deny my statement saying some things are a given.  Brother, that is extreme error on your part.  Her is what a doctrine is.  Someone teaches in a teaching mode wherein people expect to be told foundational DOCTRINES.  Jesus and the apostles did that with their audiences.  It does not need to be said by them that "Okay, This, that I now explain in factual manner, making everything I say after this to be said in the belief that you must build your faith upon these statements, will be what you will call 'doctrine.'   Repeat after me... 'doc',... Good, now say... 'trine'.  Say it together with me, 'doc-trine.'  Good!  Now, 'doctrine'!  Great!  Now listen up..." But who in their right minds would hear John talking about lambs with seven horns and beasts with leopard, bear and lion bodily parts, and giant pearl gates, and transparent gold streets, and mountains falling into seas, set around a thought of one thousand years, where we are not told what is symbolic in Rev 20 and what is not, put that on the same shelf as Acts 2:38? It is a given whether you agree or not.  Reason screams for it. You avoided responding to me when I said, "Show me one instance outside of Revelation where a vision gave forth teachings that were never found in any explicit teaching sessions of the Prophets, Jesus or the apostles."  You said I have the burden of proof.  Sorry, I do not.  You must deal with this in order for me to answer you.  I did not think you could answer that.  No one has yet. You gave statements about something being a first resurrection are not visions.  I agree!  But he saw a vision.  And not only that, you have not proven that the resurrection is physical.  There is no mention of the body.  You demand of me what you refuse to provide yourself.  Yes, it was resurrection.  But what sort of resurrection?  Is it a physical one because the actual WORD anastasis is always used elsewhere for a physical one, while the MEANING of anastasis is applied to spiritual regeneration?  Sorry, no go.  You are inconsistent with your exact-word theology that you demand of me.  You cannot provide it yourself when it comes to Millennium of a thousand years! You said, "And I already proved several times that just because other words are used for anastasis, does not mean that anastasis may be used for other things as well. "  You have not proven it CANNOT be used for other things as well.  See.  It's a two-way street.  You said just because something is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture does not mean it is not doctrine in Revelation?  I can use the same reasoning and say just because Anastasis is not used elsewhere in the bible for regeneration, does not mean it is not used so in Revelation.  But you do not allow me the courtesy of demanding of you what you demand of me.  And when the same MEANING of anastasis is indeed found in application to regeneration, and such in the form of explicit teaching in the bible, I think the weight favours on my side.  You're doctrine is based upon too sandy a foundation --  one upon which I will never base my faith. You ask, "if you are going to make a distinct affirmative of your proposition, and give me opportunity to respond to your points? Or are you simply flowing into your affirmative now? Once I know that, I will know how to proceed."  It's too time consuming to do this all over again in another set of correspondence.  So let's let the thing flow into whatever avenue it evolves.  I already dealt with your thought that there are not two resurrections in the idea of a first and second one involving spiritual and physical.  You limit resurrection"" to the physical on the sole basis the term anastasis never is used for such a thought as regeneration.  I feel satisfied in all good conscience that you cannot make that judgment.  So I continue on. You claim you are amazed at my skepticism about saying Christ's resurrection will cause all men to live, whether sinner or saint.  Do you believe the dead would not be raised had not Christ resurrected?  I agree they shall be.  But would that not have also occurred had not Christ resurrected?  It's too hypothetical for us to say either way, including you. I am claiming that Christ's making men live does not refer to sinners in a resurrection that leads them to hell.  I am saying the statement made in 1 Cor 15 about all being made alive in Christ refers to a contrast from Adam's negative affect.  Christ has a positive affect, and it is not positive that sinners live to be thrown into hell, although that will happen.  The context in 1 Cor 15 is not saying that,  though.  It’s contrasting the failure versus the success.  Your interpretation does not follow that context.  The context is in reference to the ALL WHO WERE SINNERS AND WHO ARE NOW SAVED.  Read the entire chapter.  His giving of life refers to the resurrection of saints alone in this chapter.  Nothing is said about sinners anywhere in this chapter.  You cut out the verse from the rest of the context and say this refers to all people, sinners and saints.  The context refers to all who are saved now.  Paul contrasted those who already died already by the time we read verse 22.  And he speaks of the ALL in the sense that the living believers and the dead believers are together looking for the same hope!  The whole context is a response to the concern the church had about their deceased and much loved believers, as though there is no physical resurrection from the dead for the deceased.  That is why Paul said both they were sleep and they who remain alive will be changed.  You miss this entire influence upon verse 22 to explain the ALL there.  Christ is only federal head of the new creation race of humans.  If was Head of the sinners, then they would be part of His body! You repeat this error when you said, "Then Paul says 'but everyman in his own order'. Thus, Paul is talking about the order of the resurrection, who gets resurrected when."   He is speaking solely about believers.  And he is speaking about contrast of Christ the firstfruits and everyone in the church who is saved who will rise at the end.  He is not talking about sinners anywhere. You said, "What futurists do or the mistakes they make has no bearing on this discussion. I am not a futurist, therefore this objection is merely a straw man."  You are a futurist, whether you admit it or not, when you put the all events of Revelation 20 into the future.  You may not be futurist in some things, but in that chapter, you are compared to me.  And you avoided my statement again here.  Or are you a “partial preterist” ;) You erringly state "The Bible no where says that Christ "ends" His reign when He comes."  Incorrect.  1 Corinthians 15:23-27 KJV  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.  (24)  Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.  (25)  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.  (26)  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.  (27)  For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. The end occurs when Christ comes. He ceases to rule then, because he rules already now, according to verse 27.  God has already put all things beneath Him.  And that is a response to the context that says death is the last enemy.  Even death shall be destroyed, FOR THE DISTINCT REASON that God put all things under Christ already.  All things merely need to be subdued, just as Adam had all under him and then had to proceed to subdue it.  Adam ruled in dominion before things were subdued. I said, "So when Christ comes, and the remainder of the people to be resurrected, in contrast to His resurrection as firstfruits, are resurrected, the end occurs." You responded, "Unfortunately, that is not what he said."  That is exactly what he said. The end MUST occur at His coming, because we read God hath put all things under Him.  That means He rules now, and this is mirrored in Ephe 1:19-22.  That in turn reflects Psalm 110.  And Psalm 110 is directly referenced in 1 Cor 15.  The text actually says the end occurs then!  "Then cometh the end".  When"  Upon His coming!  He speaks of no time period between that coming and the "end".  And the ruling is put into the time before His coming because the extent of His rule when death is destroyed is said to occur in conjunction with the thought that His rule occurs now according to verse 27's statement about having all put under HIM already, past tense.  "Hath put".  And when all things are subdued, then the Son shall cease ruling according to verse 28. 1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1Cr 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Cr 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. You summarized the following: 1. Christ is resurrected. 2. His saints are resurrected when He comes. 3. The end - but notice, the end must be after the reigning. This reigning involves the putting down of all authority, rule, and power. The very last enemy to be destroyed is death. I agree totally!  But you fail to note that there is a RULING after all things have already been put under Him, as Eph 1:19-22 also says is now, BEFORE the subduing of all things.  "Now, has Christ put down all authority, rule, and power, already? No"  I agree.  That is when all things are subdued.  But are all things put under Him already?  Then He rules now!  Until all things are subdued. You then repeat your guilt by association, which is a bad debate tactic when you say, "And brother, if you suggest we are to rule now, in this life, over the nations, before He returns, I suggest you look back at the history of all those who thought the same, and see where such doctrine will lead. It leads to what history books call 'the Dark Ages'."  Your glaring error is that you fail to note that I do not believe it is a secular ruling as the RCC thought it was and claimed secular politics as it's right.  You are a million miles away from my thoughts in this error.  The all important truth is that I believe  we rule spiritually and always have been.  Even you!  You just have not recognized it as so.  And you think rulership is limited to secular and physical government.  Where did you get that idea? You said, "Christ is ruling now, and will continue to rule, and will subdue all authority and power and rule. He rules now and His rule will increase, until it is established firmly (with a rod of iron) over all the nations of this earth. That will be consummated during the Millennium. Then death itself will be destroyed." How can Christ rule now and the saints not rule, if Christ is seated with us in heavenly places from which He rules?  This parallels Rev 3:21!  You have to either state He does not rule now, and neither do we, or He does rule now and so do we!  We're seated with Him!  And 1 Cor 15 says that he rules until all enemies are subdued, and no mention is made of a millennium.  You insert that.  And you do that because you interpret 1 Cor 15 based upon Rev 20, which is the opposite of what you should be doing.  When we let 1 Cor 15 stand alone, we see Him come ONCE and END His dominion.  We do not read of saints beginning to rule then, as you insert in there.  You said, "You assume that if Christ reigns (with us, a key thought you seem to be forgetting) during the Millennium, that must somehow mean He is not reigning now. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are presenting a false dilemma - either Christ reigns now and not in any Millennium, or Christ is not reigning now and will in the Millennium."  Wrong.  You are missing my all-important point.  1 cor 15 mentions no thousand years, and no beginning of the saint's dominion.  You are messing up the context by adding a thought that the church does not rule now, because it is not ruling over governments now, since you assume the only ruling there is is physically involving governments.  Since you take revelation for doctrine, what about Rev 1:5-6?  It says we are kings now!  And since we are ruling with Him now, and there is nothing said about a millennium in 1 Cor. 15, then nothing will occur from now until the end so far as a resurrection occurs.  You have to impose Rev 20 into 1 Cor. 15 to say otherwise, and that is backward theological manner of study. You said,  "The analogy should have been more like 'There will be a death, both of the righteous and the unrighteous.' Does this imply the same event, at the same time? No. It does not imply that at all. It could go either way, I admit that. You would have to admit that as well. What then shall determine the correct way to understand this? Well, Jesus said there would be a resurrection unto life, and a resurrection unto damnation. Revelation speaks of a first resurrection (obviously unto life) implying a second (in connection with the second death, or damnation). The pattern is consistent."  But you fail to  note the distinction, once again, in JOHN 5 of a resurrection before another is mentioned from the grave.  The pattern is just as consistent!  You must admit that! You feel I rely upon Mr Robertson to stand upon truth.  That is a strawman.  I use him to witness of what I already believed.  I did not know what he said before I made my interpretation. You avoid my remarks about how I showed JOHN 5:24-26 uses words that apply to regeneration, due to some debate pattern.  Brother, forget such patterns.  We can delve into this to have a full rounded discussion without waiting your turn to have burden of proof according to a debate pattern.  As I said, I do not have time for another series of discussions with me affirming and you rebutting.  So let us deal with it here. You then fail to respond to another note about Acts 24 by saying something that I stated about it as well.  So we are still left with unsubstantiated thought.  I merely stated what I did to show it is not conclusive, but I agree your thoughts fit Revelation 20 as you hate to agree but must admit mine do as well!  It is all because the resurrection is not stated to be bodily in Rev 20.  You then remark about my bias interpreting 1 Cor. 15.   I am basing my thoughts upon 1 Cor. 15 as though Rev 20 can add nothing to it.  You are not.  You ARE futurist in more areas than I am.  So please accept the title.  Also, I was futurist, as well, and changed because of what I read in 1 COR. 15.  I did not think this up and then look for it in the bible.  The bible changed my thoughts!  1 Cor 15 changed my thoughts!  Not vice versa as you claim. I disagree with your thoughts saying, "Therefore, if that is true, if God's revelation in Scripture is progressive, then Revelation gives previously unrevealed information."  Not true as far as doctrine is concerned.  Not true.  As I said you cannot refuse am an who says Jesus is turned into a lamb with seven horns, otherwise. You reason, "Otherwise, there is no point in having the book at all, and more importantly the title "apocalupsis" is a lie, for it would "reveal" nothing at all!" Oh you are so limited in your perspective.  Must it be unrevealing if it adds nothing to DOCTRINE?  Not at all!  It was dealing with persecuted brethren of John!  Read the first chapter!  They were in Johns' day!  He wrote it to THEM.  And it did add to their confidence in the midst of THEIR troubles as much as Moses' words spoke to the slaves in Egypt about coming out!  Revelation  is like a New Exodus!  And it assured them that their enemies would be defeated.  Christ would end it and slam closed the HQ of persecution which was Jerusalem, under Rome's auspices.  I have several studies.  It revealed what we read about in the intro!  Fear not!  Christ is alive forevermore, and rules!  He is the ancient of days!  He is the son of man!  And John's words, which I find to have a key point in chapter 12, were to encourage them to overcome, as is in each letter to the churches, and bring the devil down who was looming over their heads!  The early church prayed the powers of hell down as a result of John's revelation! Apocalyptic literature is NOT uninspired by virtue of the definition.  God Himself inspired John to write of SIGNS to REVEAL the truth more easily to the churches!  Much like parables in the Gospels!  You agreed, "The Romans were agents of God's wrath against Jerusalem.": and then said, "But that has nothing at all to do with Paul's words to the Thessalonians."  Sure it does!  You said God's Sword is not Rome's Sword!  Isaiah 10 says that Assyria’s attacks and weaponry was altogether God's "rod".  What do you mean it has nothing to do with Paul's words?  It has everything to do with them. "70 AD was punishment on Jews, but 2 Thessalonians promises punishment on Thessalonian persecutors, not Jewish persecutors. Case closed."  Wrong.  Punishment from God on whomever can certainly occur as I have described, due to it's precedent set in scripture. You ask how do I know no one saw God in 2 Samuel 22?  Brother, no man has seen God at any time!  You believe that, do you not?  You say the text of Thessalonians does not require "the two events to be simultaneous, that is all."  But why can it not be simultaneous?  You provide no solid proof either way.  I am saying it still fits with the overall picture. Wow.  I am now done this rebuttal as well.  It can only get bigger.  I do not know what to say that we have not stated.  I had only hoped you would not limit it to your affirmation and my rebuttal, seeing it will take just as long for me to affirm and you rebut.