Doc, you have repeatedly stated that premill was YOUR position before you changed to amill. You are probably the only one who can speak for yourself in this, but do you remember having an INTENT to deceive at that time? For someone to LIE there must be intent. For them to be wrong, they must simply assert something they don't know to be inaccurate. I do not believe premill is wrong. I do believe that amill is wrong.
Especially in Bible prophecy does later word from God further explain earlier word from God. Since the first prophecy was to Eve in Genesis 3, then subsequent prophecy expanded upon that.
In the John 5 passage there are 2 possible resurrections spoken of; and in the Rev 20 passage there are 2 certain resurrections spoken of. You were premill and you know that this is not some spurious, off-the-wall reading. The text surely does commend itself to this interpretation.
The literal hermeneutic is nothing more than a natural reading of the text. If we follow that rule elsewhere, we should follow it here.
To say that premillennialism is an honest interpretation of John 5:25-29 is still a lie. Satan is the liar. And you have believed his lie.
Hey, it happens.
When I was a premill, no one ever did me the favor of pointing out to me that premillennialism contradicts John 5:25-29. When I saw what the text was saying, I abandoned the premill position.
So, people do fall into error. But it would appear that you actually prefer Satan's lie. It has taken over your soul in this matter. You are helpless.
But you are also responsible for the mess you are in.
People are always giving me their testimony of how they sincerely wait upon the Lord for insight. Fine. But this sometime proves to be their excuse for continuing to resist the Truth. They pretend that their idolatrous stubbornness is a lovely thing.
I say that this is what you are doing.
Especially in Bible prophecy does later word from God further explain earlier word from God. Since the first prophecy was to Eve in Genesis 3, then subsequent prophecy expanded upon that.
True, but irrelevant. It does not follow that later texts simplistically explain earlier texts. You seem to be proposing a rule of hermeneutics, but you are actually just offering a fatally flawed understanding of progressive revelation.
[TO BE CONTINUED IN MY NEXT POST]