Dispensationalists are wrong in Rev 20.

[Mindwrencher]

Rev 20. “4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.”
This is where dispensationalists pick and choose how to “interpret” scripture.
Notice that in verse 4 the “beheaded” souls and those not succumbing to the “beast” come to life and reign with Jesus for one thousand years.
Dispensationalists will jump to verse 6 and insist that every christian will reign with Christ in one huge millenial reign.
But read it carefully.
The beheaded souls and those not marked by the beast are the only ones that come to life and reign in verse 4. The rest of the dead come to life AFTER the thousand year reign and that coming to life is described as the first resurrection.
Then John says that those in that first resurrection will reign with Christ for one thousand years.
Notice that the beheaded souls and those not marked by the beast simply “come to life” with no mention of having been resurrected.
So…does John indicate two separate thousand year reigns? Because he is certainly explicit that those souls mentioned in verse 4 reign for one thousand years. After which the “rest” of the dead are resurrected in a “FIRST RESURRECTION”!
And in verse 6 these rising in the FIRST resurrection ALSO reign with Christ for one thousand years AFTER the souls in verse 4 had already reigned for one thousand years.
But dispensationalists will try to fancy footwork their way out of TWO MILLENIAL REIGNS OF CHRIST.
Nice to have a doctrine like “Dispensationalism” where you can pick and choose how passages of scripture can be interpreted in obvious deference to what scripture actually says.
Problem: In Rev 20 dispensationalists cannot explain the TWO MILLENIAL REIGNS without perverting the obvious words in the scripture

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The people in 20:4a are not the identical people being spoken of in 20:4b (who alone are the ones having been killed / martyred / beheaded in the SECOND HALF of the 7 year period... so of course, it says of THESE, "and they lived" [same word used of Jesus in 2:8--G2198--to mean "lived again" after having physically DIED], because these DO need to be "resurrected" (they've DIED) IN ORDER to "reign with Christ" for the 1000 yrs.

The ones spoken of in 20:4a are distinct, and the wording HERE parallels that found in Daniel 7:22 "and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom" [see also vv.[25],27]. I see these (Rev20:4a / Dan7:22) as "STILL-LIVING" saints at the time of the end of the 7 year period (commonly called the "Trib"), just as Dan12:12 is saying there will be "still-living" saints existing at the end of the Trib who will ENTER the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom (where the word "BLESSED" in 12:12 parallels about 8-9 other "BLESSED" passages speaking of the same time-slot and same circumstances).

The ones in 20:4a are not the same persons as in 20:4b (though BOTH are "saints" of the Trib years, as I see it)

 

[Mindwrencher]

The people in 20:4a are not the identical people being spoken of in 20:4b (who alone are the ones having been killed / martyred / beheaded in the SECOND HALF of the 7 year period... so of course, it says of THESE, "and they lived" [same word used of Jesus in 2:8--G2198--to mean "lived again" after having physically DIED], because these DO need to be "resurrected" (they've DIED) IN ORDER to "reign with Christ" for the 1000 yrs.

The ones spoken of in 20:4a are distinct, and the wording HERE parallels that found in Daniel 7:22 "and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom" [see also vv.[25],27]. I see these (Rev20:4a / Dan7:22) as "STILL-LIVING" saints at the time of the end of the 7 year period (commonly called the "Trib"), just as Dan12:12 is saying there will be "still-living" saints existing at the end of the Trib who will ENTER the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom (where the word "BLESSED" in 12:12 parallels about 8-9 other "BLESSED" passages speaking of the same time-slot and same circumstances).

The ones in 20:4a are not the same persons as in 20:4b (though BOTH are "saints" of the Trib years, as I see it)

As I said you have to insert your “interpretation” for it to make sense in the doctrine of dispensationalism. Nothing you just said is even remotely indicated in Rev 20. You are fitting the verse into dispensationalism instead of reading what the scripture says.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

So you see zero correlation between:

--"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and" (Rev20:4a)


--(Dan7:22,25,27) "22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
[...]
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him."




And you do not see the word "and" in 20:4b to indicate a distinct group is next going to be spoken ("and I saw the SOULS OF"... "and THEY LIVED...". In 20:4a it had made NO MENTION OF "the SOULS of," nor that "and THEY LIVED [G2198--LIKE used in 2:8 of Jesus, contrasting the "who DIED" part with "and LIVED [G2198]"]" ...seemingly by contrast with those will will NOT have "died," see... i.e. the ppl in 20:4a...)




Rev2:8 "[re: Jesus] who DIED, and LIVED [G2198]"<--same word used for those in 20:4b (the only ones in this verse who will have died, in the time period being referenced); the ones in 20:4b are simply the LAST ONES/saints to have died (and love again) before the earthly MK age commences.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

(and love again)

EDIT: should read "(and live again)"

lol




[why do they put the "i" right next to the "o" on the keyboard?! ]

 

[1ofthem]

Rev 20. “4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.”
This is where dispensationalists pick and choose how to “interpret” scripture.
Notice that in verse 4 the “beheaded” souls and those not succumbing to the “beast” come to life and reign with Jesus for one thousand years.
Dispensationalists will jump to verse 6 and insist that every christian will reign with Christ in one huge millenial reign.
But read it carefully.
The beheaded souls and those not marked by the beast are the only ones that come to life and reign in verse 4. The rest of the dead come to life AFTER the thousand year reign and that coming to life is described as the first resurrection.
Then John says that those in that first resurrection will reign with Christ for one thousand years.
Notice that the beheaded souls and those not marked by the beast simply “come to life” with no mention of having been resurrected.
So…does John indicate two separate thousand year reigns? Because he is certainly explicit that those souls mentioned in verse 4 reign for one thousand years. After which the “rest” of the dead are resurrected in a “FIRST RESURRECTION”!
And in verse 6 these rising in the FIRST resurrection ALSO reign with Christ for one thousand years AFTER the souls in verse 4 had already reigned for one thousand years.
But dispensationalists will try to fancy footwork their way out of TWO MILLENIAL REIGNS OF CHRIST.
Nice to have a doctrine like “Dispensationalism” where you can pick and choose how passages of scripture can be interpreted in obvious deference to what scripture actually says.
Problem: In Rev 20 dispensationalists cannot explain the TWO MILLENIAL REIGNS without perverting the obvious words in the scripture

I don't prescribe to the Pre-trib rapture. At present, I lean more toward post-trib.

The one thing I can't harmonize with any of the beliefs... pre, mid, or post-trib is an actual 1000 year Millenial Kingdom Reign.

This doesn't make sense to me in any of the contexts.

Why would all these things be done, then for some reason the devil is let loose again after 1000 years to deceive the nations? Who is he going to deceive after that point? It makes no sense to me in the least. So I really can't see how there could be two millennial reigns.

 

[rayzor]

EDIT: should read "(and live again)"

lol




[why do they put the "i" right next to the "o" on the keyboard?! ]

Testimony of man being under the debt of sin.[2 to slow the typist down.The Typewriters used 2 jam when people type on them 2 fast.So they change the order of the letters.

 

[Mindwrencher]

So you see zero correlation between:

--"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and" (Rev20:4a)


--(Dan7:22,25,27) "22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
[...]
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him."




And you do not see the word "and" in 20:4b to indicate a distinct group is next going to be spoken ("and I saw the SOULS OF"... "and THEY LIVED...". In 20:4a it had made NO MENTION OF "the SOULS of," nor that "and THEY LIVED [G2198--LIKE used in 2:8 of Jesus, contrasting the "who DIED" part with "and LIVED [G2198]"]" ...seemingly by contrast with those will will NOT have "died," see... i.e. the ppl in 20:4a...)




Rev2:8 "[re: Jesus] who DIED, and LIVED [G2198]"<--same word used for those in 20:4b (the only ones in this verse who will have died, in the time period being referenced); the ones in 20:4b are simply the LAST ONES/saints to have died (and love again) before the earthly MK age commences.

I do see that correlation. But “they” refers to previous beings identified in Revelation. “They” refers either to Rev 19:1 or Rev 19:14.
In Rev 19:1 it was just a voice which “sounded like” a great multitude.
In Rev 19:14 “they” were the armies of God in Heaven.
Therefore, once again, you must reject that “they” refers to the Armies of God which were in Heaven, and insert “the saints of Earth” in order to preserve your dispensational belief.
And regardless of your identification of “they” in 20:4 the scripture explicitly states that the beheaded and those who rejected the beast ruled for one thousand years, and AFTER they reigned those of the “first resurrection”, at the end of the first thousand years, also reigned with Christ for one thousand years.
Two millenial reigns.

 

[Mindwrencher]

I don't prescribe to the Pre-trib rapture. At present, I lean more toward post-trib.

The one thing I can't harmonize with any of the beliefs... pre, mid, or post-trib is an actual 1000 year Millenial Kingdom Reign.

This doesn't make sense to me in any of the contexts.

Why would all these things be done, then for some reason the devil is let loose again after 1000 years to deceive the nations? Who is he going to deceive after that point? It makes no sense to me in the least. So I really can't see how there could be two millennial reigns.

Neither do I. But if you read Rev 20 LITERALLY as Tim LaHaye preaches, there are two millenial reigns indicated. Dispensationalists deny it, but it is implicitly plain.

 

[Mindwrencher]

I don't prescribe to the Pre-trib rapture. At present, I lean more toward post-trib.

The one thing I can't harmonize with any of the beliefs... pre, mid, or post-trib is an actual 1000 year Millenial Kingdom Reign.

This doesn't make sense to me in any of the contexts.

Why would all these things be done, then for some reason the devil is let loose again after 1000 years to deceive the nations? Who is he going to deceive after that point? It makes no sense to me in the least. So I really can't see how there could be two millennial reigns.

And here is another difficulty for dispensationalists: Rev 22. “And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations…”
Healing of nations? Healing of the saints? Healing of the saints of the nations of earth?
Why would God need a “leaf” to heal anyone in the afterlife? Especially when Jesus healed simply by touching and at times healed without even being near the recipient!!

 

[Aaron56]

Rev 20. “4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.”
This is where dispensationalists pick and choose how to “interpret” scripture.
Notice that in verse 4 the “beheaded” souls and those not succumbing to the “beast” come to life and reign with Jesus for one thousand years.
Dispensationalists will jump to verse 6 and insist that every christian will reign with Christ in one huge millenial reign.
But read it carefully.
The beheaded souls and those not marked by the beast are the only ones that come to life and reign in verse 4. The rest of the dead come to life AFTER the thousand year reign and that coming to life is described as the first resurrection.
Then John says that those in that first resurrection will reign with Christ for one thousand years.
Notice that the beheaded souls and those not marked by the beast simply “come to life” with no mention of having been resurrected.
So…does John indicate two separate thousand year reigns? Because he is certainly explicit that those souls mentioned in verse 4 reign for one thousand years. After which the “rest” of the dead are resurrected in a “FIRST RESURRECTION”!
And in verse 6 these rising in the FIRST resurrection ALSO reign with Christ for one thousand years AFTER the souls in verse 4 had already reigned for one thousand years.
But dispensationalists will try to fancy footwork their way out of TWO MILLENIAL REIGNS OF CHRIST.
Nice to have a doctrine like “Dispensationalism” where you can pick and choose how passages of scripture can be interpreted in obvious deference to what scripture actually says.
Problem: In Rev 20 dispensationalists cannot explain the TWO MILLENIAL REIGNS without perverting the obvious words in the scripture

So, here's the passage from the New King James version:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

The location of the is where I believe you get off track. The "rest of the dead" are not resurrected for judgement until Revelation 20:11.

The "first resurrection" refers to "the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness..." etc. They are the ones who "..shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

This seems fairly elementary so I won't banter this issue with you any more.

Peace,
Aaron56

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And regardless of your identification of “they” in 20:4 the scripture explicitly states that the beheaded and those who rejected the beast ruled for one thousand years, and AFTER they reigned those of the “first resurrection”, at the end of the first thousand years, also reigned with Christ for one thousand years.
Two millenial reigns.

I don't see that at all.

Again, here's how I'm seeing it:

--20:4a are "still-living" saints at the time-slot being referenced (parallel Dan7:22 [25,27]);

--20:4b are those saints having been killed during the SECOND HALF of the 7 years, thus are the LAST SAINTS to have DIED... and be raised again to life... prior to / IN TIME FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (during which MK age they will "reign with Christ" along with others said to be sitting on "thrones")

--where 20:5 says,

Revelation 20:5 Adj-NMP
GRK: οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν
NAS: The rest of the dead
KJV: But the rest of the dead lived
INT: the rest of the dead

... I believe that ^ is saying, "those who were NOT resurrected [because they are not "saints / saved persons"]" so as to exist in and experience the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age, the following verse's persons among THAT category (the dead and unsaved), which verse says,

Revelation 19:21 Adj-NMP [SAME WORD as in the above verse, also in bold]
GRK: καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν
NAS: And the rest were killed
KJV: And the remnant were slain with
INT: and the rest were killed with

... ^ these ppl do NOT enter the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (they were not "saints / believers" / had not come to faith in Christ... thus were "SLAIN" Rev19:21, a verse PARALLEL to the FIRST [of 2] "PUNISH" words in Isaiah 24:21-22[23] referring to the SAME TIME-SLOT as Rev19:19,21 / 16:14-16 / 20:5... whereas the SECOND [of 2] "PUNISH" words in the Isa passage corresponds with the LATER GWTj time-slot Rev20:11-15 referring to "the dead" [the unsaved dead of all time periods, including the 19:21 time-slot--Christ's Second Coming to the earth [/Armageddon time-slot]).




I don't see TWO "MKs," nor that those verses in Rev20:11-15 re: "the dead" (pertaining to the SECOND "PUNISH" word in Isaiah 24:21-22[23]) have any privilege of "reigning with Christ" whatsoever.


Am I misreading you??

 

[1ofthem]

And here is another difficulty for dispensationalists: Rev 22. “And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations…”
Healing of nations? Healing of the saints? Healing of the saints of the nations of earth?
Why would God need a “leaf” to heal anyone in the afterlife? Especially when Jesus healed simply by touching and at times healed without even being near the recipient!!

Yes, it would be rather difficult to come up with a justification or dispensation for some of the verses. It doesn't make any logical sense if you take all of the revelations literally.

I'm no expert on dispensationalism, to say the least. However, with the examples you are giving here, it seems as though dispensationalists would have a lot of kinks to work out.

 

[Aaron56]

And here is another difficulty for dispensationalists: Rev 22. “And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations…”
Healing of nations? Healing of the saints? Healing of the saints of the nations of earth?
Why would God need a “leaf” to heal anyone in the afterlife? Especially when Jesus healed simply by touching and at times healed without even being near the recipient!!

"Your gold medal is for winning the race? But you're standing here, how can you be winning a race?"

The nations are already healed as the passage continues "And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. 4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. 5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever."

At this point I'm not convinced you're not simply looking to find presumed contradictions. Either that, or a teacher you heard was puffed up with supposed "knowledge". If the latter is true I wouldn't listen to him any more. Do something else worthwhile with your time... like eat a sandwich or something.

 

[Mindwrencher]

So, here's the passage from the New King James version:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

The location of the is where I believe you get off track. The "rest of the dead" are not resurrected for judgement until Revelation 20:11.

The "first resurrection" refers to "the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness..." etc. They are the ones who "..shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

This seems fairly elementary so I won't banter this issue with you any more.

Peace,
Aaron56

 

[Aaron56]

I don't prescribe to the Pre-trib rapture. At present, I lean more toward post-trib.

The one thing I can't harmonize with any of the beliefs... pre, mid, or post-trib is an actual 1000 year Millenial Kingdom Reign.

This doesn't make sense to me in any of the contexts.

Why would all these things be done, then for some reason the devil is let loose again after 1000 years to deceive the nations? Who is he going to deceive after that point? It makes no sense to me in the least. So I really can't see how there could be two millennial reigns.

This is a good inquiry.

The gist of the reason is found in Ephesians 3:9-10 "to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places..."

In essence, it was always the intent of God to show His majesty through the church to the powers and principalities in heavenly places (Satan and his angels).

In this, God is not only right to chose humans as His heirs, but, through the saints, He also appears righteous to those who opposed Him from the beginning.

 

[Mindwrencher]

I don't see that at all.

Again, here's how I'm seeing it:

--20:4a are "still-living" saints at the time-slot being referenced (parallel Dan7:22 [25,27]);

--20:4b are those saints having been killed during the SECOND HALF of the 7 years, thus are the LAST SAINTS to have DIED... and be raised again to life... prior to / IN TIME FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (during which MK age they will "reign with Christ" along with others said to be sitting on "thrones")

--where 20:5 says,

Revelation 20:5 Adj-NMP
GRK: οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν
NAS: The rest of the dead
KJV: But the rest of the dead lived
INT: the rest of the dead

... I believe that ^ is saying, "those who were NOT resurrected [because they are not "saints / saved persons"]" so as to exist in and experience the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age, the following verse's persons among THAT category (the dead and unsaved), which verse says,

Revelation 19:21 Adj-NMP [SAME WORD as in the above verse, also in bold]
GRK: καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν
NAS: And the rest were killed
KJV: And the remnant were slain with
INT: and the rest were killed with

... ^ these ppl do NOT enter the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (they were not "saints / believers" / had not come to faith in Christ... thus were "SLAIN" Rev19:21, a verse PARALLEL to the FIRST [of 2] "PUNISH" words in Isaiah 24:21-22[23] referring to the SAME TIME-SLOT as Rev19:19,21 / 16:14-16 / 20:5... whereas the SECOND [of 2] "PUNISH" words in the Isa passage corresponds with the LATER GWTj time-slot Rev20:11-15 referring to "the dead" [the unsaved dead of all time periods, including the 19:21 time-slot--Christ's Second Coming to the earth [/Armageddon time-slot]).




I don't see TWO "MKs," nor that those verses in Rev20:11-15 re: "the dead" (pertaining to the SECOND "PUNISH" word in Isaiah 24:21-22[23]) have any privilege of "reigning with Christ" whatsoever.


Am I misreading you??

"Your gold medal is for winning the race? But you're standing here, how can you be winning a race?"

The nations are already healed as the passage continues "And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. 4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. 5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever."

At this point I'm not convinced you're not simply looking to find presumed contradictions. Either that, or a teacher you heard was puffed up with supposed "knowledge". If the latter is true I wouldn't listen to him any more. Do something else worthwhile with your time... like eat a sandwich or something.

You read it the way you must to defend your doctrine, but the scripture says the leaves were for the healing of nations. Nowhere else in this passage indicates “healing”.
Go eat a sandwich yourself.

 

[Aaron56]

You read it the way you must to defend your doctrine, but the scripture says the leaves were for the healing of nations. Nowhere else in this passage indicates “healing”.
Go eat a sandwich yourself.

Healing is defined in the follow-up verses:
1And there shall be no more curse
2the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it
3His servants shall serve Him.
4They shall see His face
5His name shall be on their foreheads
6There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light.
7they shall reign forever and ever.

I mean, this is elementary syntax.

I once worked in a prison. Inmates who liked to "trap" itinerant evangelists always brought up similar "concerns" they had with the scriptures. They had no interest in the truth, they just wanted to confound the visiting ministers. Sadly, they often could; many people who claim to be ministers are profoundly ignorant of the scriptures.

 

[Mindwrencher]

I don't see that at all.

Again, here's how I'm seeing it:

--20:4a are "still-living" saints at the time-slot being referenced (parallel Dan7:22 [25,27]);

--20:4b are those saints having been killed during the SECOND HALF of the 7 years, thus are the LAST SAINTS to have DIED... and be raised again to life... prior to / IN TIME FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (during which MK age they will "reign with Christ" along with others said to be sitting on "thrones")

--where 20:5 says,

Revelation 20:5 Adj-NMP
GRK: οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν
NAS: The rest of the dead
KJV: But the rest of the dead lived
INT: the rest of the dead

... I believe that ^ is saying, "those who were NOT resurrected [because they are not "saints / saved persons"]" so as to exist in and experience the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age, the following verse's persons among THAT category (the dead and unsaved), which verse says,

Revelation 19:21 Adj-NMP [SAME WORD as in the above verse, also in bold]
GRK: καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν
NAS: And the rest were killed
KJV: And the remnant were slain with
INT: and the rest were killed with

... ^ these ppl do NOT enter the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (they were not "saints / believers" / had not come to faith in Christ... thus were "SLAIN" Rev19:21, a verse PARALLEL to the FIRST [of 2] "PUNISH" words in Isaiah 24:21-22[23] referring to the SAME TIME-SLOT as Rev19:19,21 / 16:14-16 / 20:5... whereas the SECOND [of 2] "PUNISH" words in the Isa passage corresponds with the LATER GWTj time-slot Rev20:11-15 referring to "the dead" [the unsaved dead of all time periods, including the 19:21 time-slot--Christ's Second Coming to the earth [/Armageddon time-slot]).




I don't see TWO "MKs," nor that those verses in Rev20:11-15 re: "the dead" (pertaining to the SECOND "PUNISH" word in Isaiah 24:21-22[23]) have any privilege of "reigning with Christ" whatsoever.


Am I misreading you??

You can see how this passage can be interpreted according to your doctrinal viewpoint.
If the rest of the dead are also saints, then they are raised in a first resurrection AFTER the “martyrs” have already reigned for a MK. Thus two MK’s.
If the rest of the dead are the unsaved, then there is a problem. Because some dispensationalists believe the MK is a time of “everlasting righteousness”. So exactly who does Satan deceive in verse 7?
If there is more than one “resurrection”, then what of Jesus in Jn 5: “28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”, which indicates only one resurrection at the coming “hour”?
“They” ALL are in the grave and they all “come forth” at that “hour”.

 

[Mindwrencher]

Healing is defined in the follow-up verses:
1And there shall be no more curse
2the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it
3His servants shall serve Him.
4They shall see His face
5His name shall be on their foreheads
6There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light.
7they shall reign forever and ever.

I mean, this is elementary syntax.

I once worked in a prison. Inmates who liked to "trap" itinerant evangelists always brought up similar "concerns" they had with the scriptures. They had no interest in the truth, they just wanted to confound the visiting ministers. Sadly, they often could; many people who claim to be ministers are profoundly ignorant of the scriptures.

You are dancing. Healing is done by the leaves of the Tree of Life. Insult all you want, but no syntax in the following verses indicates healing. You evade the truth.
And my efforts in this forum are to make you stronger in the actual word of God and not some doctrine of man. The insults I receive in this forum are typical of people who feel they have it all figured out. But I am not trying to offend or deceive.
May God bless you with every good gift.