Search results

Happens “right after”, as you said. The eschatological resurrection of the dead is intrinsically linked to glorification. If the glorification of the body is intrinsically linked to the eschatological resurrection, and there are 2 resurrections in revelation 20, why would premils need to...

My entire point has been that your paraphrase of Isaiah 65:20 changes the meaning of the text/translation. Even Spiritual Israelite knows I’m talking about your paraphrase, as he said you disagree with how the English translation of Isaiah 65:20 reads:

Where are you applying יָמָ֑יו אֶת־ יְמַלֵּ֖א (fulfilled his days) in your interpretation of the text from post 43?

In post 43 you stated it should be understood as this: No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man, No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die. So where are you placing the phrase יָמָ֑יו אֶת־ יְמַלֵּ֖א (fulfilled his days), which is absent in your interpretation?

This is not about punctuation. Here, I copied WPMs interpretation of the passage from post 43: No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man, No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die. Now here is a literal word for word translation of the Hebrew: There is not (lo)...

Yes, I think revelation’s new heavens and earth alludes to Isaiah 65’s NHNE, in the same way revelation’s harlot being responsible for all the righteous blood alludes to Christ claiming the Pharisees generation is responsible for the all the righteous blood shed.

In a literal sense yes. In an ancient near eastern sense, where earth and heaven shattering language was often employed in a hyperbolic/metaphorical sense to describe the ruin of kingdoms and nations, no.

No, I’m saying I think Isaiah is prophesying about a future new heavens and earth, veiled by imagery his audience would have familiar (long lives of prediluvian patriarchs, etc…) under the context of the old covenant. Ellicot “There shall be no more thence . . .—The prophet sees in the...

You are speaking for Isaiah through the lens of your interpretation on revelation, hence you had to remove words and move around the “lo” in Isaiah 65:20.

What points did he provide? When asked what English translations agreed with his rearrangement, he just responded “read the Hebrew”. After some back and forth with him not providing much of anything, he responded with revelation. His interpretation of revelation gives him the authority to...

Looks like we may have different takes on what the resurrection means, and this may be part of the problem. I think the resurrection involves glorification. For example Lazarus was raised from the dead, but not resurrected in the sense of glorification. Paul states the body that is raised is not...

But you are not letting Isaiah 65:20 speak. Your moving the word “lo” around to the give the passage a different meaning so it more aligns with your understanding of revelation. Why not just let Isaiah speak. Isaiah prophesied of something wonderful under the context of his worldview- infants...

And ok….seems like you are acknowledging you moved the “lo” to change the meaning of the passage.

I’m not trying to refute your overall position. I’m simply pointing out that you moved “lo”. The second “lo” belongs in the first stanza 1.) “no longer will an infant live but a few days, nor will an old man not live out his days 2.) “for a child will die at 100 years old, a sinner will be...

None of this changes the fact that you moved “lo” in order to change the meaning of the passage. This is where I disagree. I don’t necessarily disagree with you about revelation “revealing” beyond Isaiah 65. Additionally, I don’t think the meaning should change to fit your framework, as I...

You clearly moved “lo”, and it doesn’t read that way in the original, nor does any English version translate it that way.

You moved the second “lo” from the first stanza and applied to the 2nd stanza. The second “lo” belongs in the first stanza 1.) “no longer will an infant live but a few days, nor will an old man not live out his days 2.) “for a child will die at 100 years old, a sinner will be accursed at 100...

Since you don’t want to answer and seem to be dodging a simple question for some strange reason, then I’ll just make the assumption that yes, you you appear to be arguing - “not be hence more an infant of days and old man after” should be understood as “no longer will an infant become like an...

It’s a simple yes or no, so as to make sure I didnt misunderstand you. Is that how you are framing your argument?

you appear to be arguing - “not be hence more an infant of days and old man after” should be understood as “no longer will an infant become like an old man” And you seem to be arguing that “not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old a hundred years die” should be understood as “no longer will...