Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Zechariah 14 Is The Eternal Kingdom!
Hope you forgive me for saying so but I see teapot and kettle written all over that statement. Revelation 20 just happens to be the only text that talks about a millennium period, period (pun intended) . Amil uses tons of scripture in support of the belief that it's symbolic, and Premil the same, in support of the belief that it's literal.(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20.
Hope you forgive me for saying so but I see teapot and kettle written all over that statement. Revelation 20 just happens to be the only text that talks about a millennium period, period (pun intended) . Amil uses tons of scripture in support of the belief that it's symbolic, and Premil the same, in support of the belief that it's literal.
For someone who claims Premil is totally preoccupied with one portion of scripture, have you considered the length of your own first post?
So is Premil. Making statements like that doesn't help support your case at all. All you did in your reply to me was make a list of statements that are actually opinions about scriptures you quote, rather than fact.Amil is built on safer ground. Amil is built upon corroboration.
No, just standing back and watching the relentless assault on the Bible by satan.You seem to think you are smarter than these experts. Not so!
I don't speak Greek.What is the Greek word for shepherd or shepherding in the original Greek?
The KJV.Who then, other than yourself, has the truth? :)
Randy you continue to talk about a "Curse" post God's words and not yours
So is Premil. Making statements like that doesn't help support your case at all. All you did in your reply to me was make a list of statements that are actually opinions about scriptures you quote, rather than fact.
Some of those statements you make in that long list are false, based on your own opinions. @WPM Some are true, some are false.
@WPM That's a nasty, muddy mixture that Amillennialism is plagued with.
Zech 14 clearly calls the saving of Jerusalem and settling down the kingdom on earth "a day" or "the day" of the Lord.Where does it mention a millennium or a thousand years here as you claim? Nowhere. You add it unto Scripture.
Zechariah 14 occurred 2000 years ago. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”
Hinneh Behold
yowm- day
baa' cometh
la-Yahweh the Lord
wªchulaq divides
shªlaaleek the spoils
bªqirbeek in the midst
This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the text. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’.
There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the second coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. We cannot therefore, with any certainty, insist upon the fact that this verse is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.
The NASB says: "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."
The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."
A perusal of the Greek LXX Septuagint rendering of this passage supports this interpretation:
idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai comes
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you
When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original.
In the New Testament:
Of the five “day of the Lord” passages in the New Testament, they read in the original:
Three are: “hemera kurios” (Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3).
Two are: “hemera ho kurios” (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14).
In the Greek LXX Septuagint
Of the twenty “day of the Lord” passages in the Old Testament:
Eleven are: “hemera kurios” (Isaiah 13:6, 9, Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:31, 3:14, Obadiah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:14, Malachi 4:5)
Four are: “hemera ho kurios” (Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, Zephaniah 1:7)
We can see, fifteen align precisely with the Greek New Testament wording and confirm that this would be the normal rendering of the coming of Christ in the Greek. That is 75%.
One reads: “hemera ekeinos kurios” (Jeremiah 46:10), also meaning day of the Lord.
One is: “hemera gar kurios” (Isaiah 2:12), literally meaning day for the Lord.
Finally, there are two references (one after the other in Zephaniah) that refer to the same climactic day. One says, “hemera thumos kurios” (Zephaniah 2:2), meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. The other reads, “hemera orge kurios” (Zephaniah 2:3), similarly meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. Plainly, they are both speaking of the same day in the same reading and in the same context.
That brings us to Zechariah 14:1, which is worded completely different from the rest, saying, “hmerai erxontai tou kuriou,” literally meaning “a day is coming for the LORD.” None of the other passages say this. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between Zechariah’s description and that of the other nineteen references. The only similarity is the King James Version’s translation of the same in the English. Notwithstanding, regardless of how high one values the A.V. one cannot use this as conclusive proof for equating the day Zechariah is speaking of to the other nineteen. The original rendering supersedes any other translations.
Because this does not literally read “the day of the Lord” then we don’t have to understand it as “the day of the Lord.” If it were, it would have most likely read hemera kurios or hemera ho kurios in the Greek LXX Septuagint. Or failing that: hemera ekeinos kurios.
Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question Premils identification of it with the second coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.
Oh that's it, Jesus returns and National Israel receives his Kingdom and favor, "Sure"
Hey National Israel Here Comes Jesus, all you Murderers, Adulterers, Fornicators, Liars, And Cheats go change your clothes, we have priestly garments ready for you, it's National Repentance Day, Real Big Smiles!
Episode 2 next week, Life in God's selective Kingdom, written by Randy Kluth
Identify which verse or passage of scripture in your long list you would like me to identify.Not so. You cannot even identify one error. You just voice your opinions. Identify what is supposedly in error.
Where did Strong(an HONORARY linguist PHD) get all of these redefinitions that debunk the 50 translators of the KJV?Identify which verse or passage of scripture in your long list you would like me to identify.
Bite by bite. I don't do olam dissertation by olam dissertation.
[*StrongsHebrew*]
5769
עלם עולם
‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm {o-lawm'} o-lawm'
From H5956; properly {concealed} that {is} the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or {future}) that {is} (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always ({-s}) ancient ({time}) any {more} {continuance} {eternal} ({for} [n-]) ever ({-lasting} {-more} of {old}) {lasting} long ({time}) (of) old ({time}) {perpetual} at any {time} (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare {H5331} H5703.
.. and smart enough to get you all worked up over nothing.Where did Strong(an HONORARY linguist PHD) get all of these redefinitions that debunk the 50 translators of the KJV?
He must be the smartest guy that ever lived, as he lived 300 years after the 50.
Wow, smart enough to get you to debunk your own Bible and to become a micro translator.
@WPM By the way it's nice to see you here, new name and all.
@WPM Anyway I'll stay off your case now. We both know that it's pointless me even doing one long, long post in answer to each point in your long, long posts, because we both know that you won't read it anyway (like has always happened in the past), and you won't address anything that you needed to respond to, but will just make another long, long post full of monologue statements.
But even so, I'm glad to see you here.
That's not what the KJV translators themselves asserted. From the preface to the 1611 KJV, emphases mine:The KJV.
I see nothing "unscriptural" about this. Maybe you're doing the "assuming," assuming it to not be true when that is exactly what the Scripture says?
Though there is very little, if anything on it, I have to assume it is by the same process by which we obtain the Kingdom today.