[Jean Chauvin]

x, the whole point of 1 Corinthians 15:51,52 is to denote specifically that not all will be physically dead at Christ's return and not all will be raised from the dead.

"Resurrection of the dead" does not necessarily involve receiving a "glorified" body.

Some notable "resurrections of the dead" where a glorified body was ~not~ received:

• Lazarus
  
• The rich man's daughter
  
• The widow's son
  
• The child Elijah raised from the dead
  
• Eutychus

~Necessarily~ then, being "raised from the dead" is not the same thing as receiving a "glorified body".

"Resurrection of the dead" is simply bringing to life what was dead.

However, you "now" realize that this poses a problem for the premillennial interpretation of Rev 20:4. To overcome this problem you must ~REDEFINE~ "resurrection of the dead" and claim that people who will ~never~ DIE will be "resurrected from the dead"...

...just like you:

• Redefine the Greek word zao found in Rev 20:4 to mean "resurrection of the dead" when it ~only~ means "live"

• Redefine the Greek word krima found in Rev 20:4 to mean "authority to judge" when in ~only~ means "verdict/judgment/sentence"

• Redifine "hour" in John 5:28,29 to be 1000+ YEARS long

• Add 1000 years into 2 Peter 3 when it is not remotely found in that passage

• Add 1000 years in to 1 Corinthians 15 when it is not remotely found in that passage

• Add 1000 years into John 5:28,29 when it is not remotely found in that passage

• Change Isaiah 65 to be talking about the "millennial kingdom" from what the text explicitly declares is a description of the "New Heavens and the New Earth"

I could go on!

All this editing done to back up a supposedly "literal" interpretation which is said to be based on the "clear" teaching of Rev 20:4! LOL!

If Rev 20 is as "clear" as you claim and if your intepretation is so "literal" as you claim, WHY THE NEED to add words to that text and change the definitions of the words in that text???

Perhaps if you'd just allow the text to speak on it's own, matters would clear up!

Ah! But that would entail a rejection of Premillennialism! And you are stubborn! You don't ~wan't~ to do that!

Jean

[xzins]

I've always believed that the final generation was raptured and that the rapture is a bestowing of a glorified body. In fact, I've always been TAUGHT that. This is not new.

Your many, many, many words are always fodder for thought.

[the_doc]

Bump for your #2497.

I would add that the premills are not merely inserting the literal thousand years into various verses (which is a crime of eisegesis), but doing this even when they clearly don't fit (which is a crime of contradiction).

The premills' interpretation of 2 Peter 3 is a great example of this. Peter's entire argument concerning the long delay of the Lord's return is based on the idea that as soon as the Lord returns, He is going to judge the world and burn it up and start over with the NHNE. To read some kind of additional thousand years into the passage is to defy the text, not interpret it.

I never saw this when I left premillennialism two decades ago. (I just saw it a couple of years ago.) But I think it's pretty important.

Notice that my amillennial argument from 2 Peter 3 agrees exactly with Luke 19:12-25.