Biblicalcontradictions - Tumblr Posts
The Fallacies of Millennialism
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
This article is partly excerpted from chapter 10 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” Therein, I explain that there are not 2 resurrections but only one! Daniel 12.2 explicitly mentions that both the saved & the damned will be resurrected TOGETHER in one general resurrection. By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Notice what the passage of Rev. 20.4 (KJV) actually says:
“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them: and I
saw the souls of them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of
God, and which had not worshipped the
beast, neither his image, neither had
received his mark upon their foreheads, or
in their hands; and they lived and reigned
with Christ a thousand years.”
Notice that the verse doesn’t tell us if and when they were resurrected. Only that they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; (not “for” a thousand years).
Then, the following verse (Rev. 20.5) goes on to say:
“But the rest of the dead lived not again until
the thousand years were finished. This is
the first resurrection.”
But that’s the only resurrection! Biblically speaking, there is no other physical resurrection. And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. We erroneously assume that the previous verse (v. 4) mentions an earlier resurrection. Not so! Revelation 20.4 and 20.5 appear to be two different versions of the SAME resurrection!
It seems to me that Revelation 20 verses 4 and 5 are talking about the *same resurrection* but in light of varying reward scenarios. The implication is that the believers of verse 4 (probably the tribulation saints or the recently deceased) lived and reigned after the thousand years (καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ . . . τὰ χίλια ἔτη)! Similarly, in verse 5, the rest of the dead (presumably the believers who had been dead for many centuries) were not raised from the dead until the thousand years were finished, which is the first resurrection:
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τὰ
τελεσθῇ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ
πρώτη.
In other words, it appears that the faithful throngs (both the recent dead and those who had been dead for a long time) took part in the first resurrection after the thousand years had passed. But the details of their rewards——namely, that they lived & reigned, and that they were resurrected——are differentiated for a more comprehensive elaboration!
5 Questions Need to be Asked
A) According to the text, when does the 1st resurrection take place? Answer: when the thousand years were finished (Rev. 20.5)!
B) Can there be 2 resurrections? Answer: No. There can’t be 2 physical resurrections. According to the Bible, there is only one (Dan. 12.2)!
C) Which physical resurrection is explicitly mentioned in Rev. 20? Answer: The one in verse 5, which is said to occur at the end of the millennium or at the end of the thousand years. Verse 4 does not explicitly mention a resurrection. It simply says: καὶ ἔζησαν (and lived). It doesn’t say that they came back to life or that they were resurrected, as some modern Bible versions do. Nor does the original Greek text have any parentheses, as you find in the NRSV. It reads:
καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ
ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ
χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη
(Rev. 20.4 SBLGNT).
The textus receptus has it as follows:
καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ
ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ
χριστοῦ τὰ [the] χίλια
ἔτη;
The Greek New Testament doesn’t say “for” a thousand years. And the Greek word μετά can be translated as either “with” or “after” Christ. In other words, this could also be translated or paraphrased as follows: [after] the thousands years were completed, they lived and reigned forever. In other words, the original Greek text doesn’t say “for” one thousand years.
D) which resurrection is referred to as the 1st resurrection? Answer: the one in verse 5 that occurs when the thousand years are finished. The one in verse 4 is neither mentioned as a resurrection nor as being the first.
E) So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). Answer: They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! The only explanation is that the people who are said to reign with Christ are the same people who took part in “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20.5), but they’re described differently in the earlier verse (v. 4) in order to furnish the reader with further details about this particular time-period. It’s similar to the different descriptions in Revelation chs. 19 & 20 about the beast who is thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19 but who nevertheless continues to be active in Rev. 20! There are not two Beasts or Antichrists; only one. The same satanic beast who is captured in Rev. 20.2-3 is the exact same figure who was captured and thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19.20, but in the following chapter (ch. 20) he is described in more detail as the text provides further descriptions of his release and whereabouts prior to being cast into the lake of fire (see Rev. 20.7-10).
Conclusion
There is also a judgment (κρίμα) mentioned in Rev. 20.4. But are there really 2 judgments? No. Only one! Thus, the millennium implies 2 additional comings of Christ, 2 appearances by Satan, 2 Great Wars, 2 Great tribulations, 2 resurrections, 2 apocalypses, 2 Armageddons, 2 judgments, 2 Great Ends, and so on and so forth. This binary eschatology is biblically unfounded because there is only one of each!
It demonstrates that this brief passage must be taken symbolically, not literally. So, the passage really indicates that when the thousand years are completed the believers will be raised from the dead and begin to reign with Christ. This is also the chronological time period when the Antichrist is released for a short time. This is probably a reference to the Great Tribulation which only lasts for 3 and a half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days, or a time, and times, and half a time (cf. Rev. 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5). This is also the time when the apocalyptic events will commence!
It took 21 symbolic days for God’s word to arrive on earth (Dan. 10.13–14). There are also 21 Judgments in the Book of Revelation. And since “one day is like a thousand years” (2 Pet. 3.8), the implication seems to be that the apocalyptic events are set to take place in the 21st century. It is a symbol of our century! Thus, the millennium seems to be referring to the end of the 20th century (i.e. 2,000 CE) and the beginning of the 21st!
By the way, the Bible never mentions the alleged “thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.” Only 2 verses mention those who “reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These are not to be taken literally but rather as *signs* that reveal the timing of Christ’s coming and of the apocalyptic events! In other words, when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be loosed for a little while (a reference to the 3 and a half year Great Tribulation). Then, the first resurrection will occur and the believers will henceforth reign with Christ!
What is the ultimate signpost that indicates when these events will commence? These apocalyptic events will begin when the thousand years are completed!
So, the thousand years act as the defining moment, the temporal mark, the chronological signal, the millennial warning that the end is near. It is not a coincidence that the 70 weeks of Daniel, the Mayan Calendar, Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes, the recent Blood moon prophecy, and all the other biblical & extra-biblical doomsday prophecies began to hold sway after the thousand years were completed in 2,000 CE. Moreover, the Bible clearly prophesies the arrival of the Antichrist (Dan. 9.26-27). And I believe that he has already made his appearance on the world stage, namely, on the eve of the 2,000 year mark, that is to say, on December 31, 1999, precisely at the end of the thousand years, as prophesied in Rev. 20.7. For further details, see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/623534877070016512/nostradamus-and-the-bible-seemingly-predict-the
The reference to the chiliasm, then, serves as a caveat that Satan will be loosed when the thousand years are over. In my view, that’s what the millennium actually means! Thus, I don’t believe in a literal millennial kingdom because it contradicts the Bible. It implies, 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, and so on. That’s probably why the doctrine of millennialism was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 CE. In addition, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Also, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. And the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Saved and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2).
Therefore, the millennium represents the sign of the times when the thousand years are completed. It signifies the beginning of the apocalypse, that is to say, the period of the Antichrist, who will gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon. It also represents the time of the Great Tribulation, the rapture, and the resurrection of the dead, when the faithful will be glorified and reign with Christ not simply for a thousand years, but forever (cf. Dan. 7.18; 12.2; 1 Thess. 4.17)!
Although there are some similarities between my view and that of Amillennialism, I don’t consider myself an Amillennialist because I don’t share their core views on realized millennialism, perfect/imperfect amillenarism, or that “Christ’s reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature.” We have completely different views on a number of topics! Similarly, my view is in agreement with that of postmillennialism in regard to a literal thousand years, after which Christ will come. However, I disagree both with the quality as well as with the timing of the millennium as explained by postmillennialism. I don’t view the millennium as a literal thousand-year-Kingdom of peace nor as an interim period (or parenthesis) that will transpire in the far distant future. Rather, I see it as a period that already started in the year 1,000 CE (with the crusades) and culminated in the year 2,000. That’s when the Antichrist came to power (in the year 1999 = 666) in Russia (see my articles on that subject), at the end of the thousand years, and Satan was released from prison (Rev 20.7), so to speak, and was allowed to gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon! And since I have a number of disagreements with postmillennialism, I don’t consider myself a postmillennialist either.
How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Apparent Contradiction
There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.
—-
Genesis 12.4 (ESV):
So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,
and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-
five years old when he departed from
Haran.
Acts 7.2:
And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,
hear me. The God of glory appeared to our
father Abraham when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’
Acts 7.4:
Then he went out from the land of the
Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his
father died, God removed him from there
into this land in which you are now living.
Genesis 11.26:
When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered
Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Genesis 11.32:
The days of Terah were 205 years, and
Terah died in Haran.
—————
Apologetic Exegesis
The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat
Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.
It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.
The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:
there is yet a question whether Abram was
born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed
first because he was the wisest similar to
Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was
not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the
Talmud leaves the above question open.
(Wikipedia)
—————
Conclusion
Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.
—
Can People Be Saved After the Resurrection & the Rapture?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The pretribulational view teaches that there will be many who will be saved during the great tribulation, AFTER the Resurrection & the Rapture take place (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17). Is this possible, or does it contradict scripture? Just like the parable of the 10 virgins suggests, when the doors of salvation are finally slammed shut, no one else could be saved. It’s all over. No one can go in or out. The rapture is that end point. Once the church leaves, it’s game over! And even if the tribulation saints could be saved, where would they go? How would they be *rescued* by God, given that the rapture was that final ticket out of here?
Let’s not forget that there are certain contemporaneous events that have to occur during the resurrection and the rapture, just prior to the departure of the church. For instance, scripture affirms that Christ will radically transform God’s elect so that they will resemble his glorious appearance (Phil. 3.21). What is more, 1 Cor. 15.52-53 reveals that the elect will attain a glorious immortality, during the resurrection/rapture process, so that they will never ever die again! That’s when Christ will finally grant God’s elect his “exceeding great and precious promises” so that they can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1.4). But these divinely transformative events can only occur *once for all* during the resurrection & the rapture. So the question arises, if these momentous events take place once for all, and the elect eventually partake of the divine nature and are raptured out of here, how then can these glorious transformations reoccur over and over again in the absence of Christ, the Spirit, and the Church?
This demonstrates the fallacy of pretribulationism because it falsely maintains that people will continue to be saved even after the resurrection and the rapture. Really? And even if they could be saved, where would they go? The church has already left. How would they be rescued after the church has permanently left? Once again, it shows that pretribulationism is based on fallacious reasoning!
And how could the tribulation saints escape God’s wrath? If they die, how would they be resurrected again, given that the one and only resurrection of the dead already happened? Remember that there’s only one general resurrection of the dead in which both the saved and the damned will be raised together (Daniel 12.2). So, if the rapture already took place and the tribulation saints can no longer be resurrected, how could they escape God’s judgments? How would God rescue them? They would simply be forced to stay here on earth in the midst of unbridled terror? Would God allow his precious elect to remain here on earth during the zombie apocalypse, while his wrath was being poured out in judgment, and while all the rest of the elect were enjoying heavenly bliss?
So, if the tribulation saints could neither be resurrected nor raptured, what would be God’s rescue plan for them? In other words, *after* the resurrection & the rapture had taken place, what could the tribulation saints do here on earth? Would their task be to ride out the storm of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord? It’s reminiscent of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, “No Exit.” It demonstrates the faulty reasoning and unscriptural position of the pretrib rapture view!
Conclusion
Mt. 24.29-31 says that the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. ‘the rapture’) occurs AFTER the Great Tribulation (Gk. *μετὰ* τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). The clincher, the passage that settles the matter conclusively is Rev. 20.4-6. This passage tells us that those who were killed during the Great Tribulation took part in the first resurrection. However, given that the rapture is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the Great Tribulation, it means that the rapture must also take place *AFTER* the great tribulation. Hence, if this is the first resurrection that takes place AFTER the great tribulation, then there can’t possibly be an earlier one, as the pretrib doctrine assumes. Any way you look at it, the pretrib position doesn’t make any scriptural sense at all.
The reason people will continue to be saved during the great ordeal is because the *rapture* will take place at the *end* of the tribulation period, so that all God's elect will leave together as one church. Once the resurrection & the rapture take place (posttrib), it’s game over. No one else can be saved, or be resurrected, or go to heaven! Once again, these robust and cogent arguments prove that the pretrib position is completely bogus and misinformed.
——-
For further details, see my short essay:
Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/628794727776632832/three-questions-on-the-rapture-is-it-pre-trib-or
——-