Surely Premils must invent 2 future glorifications days and 2 future raptures separated by 1000 years+?

[Spiritual Israelite]

This exposes the main difference between Amillennialism and Premillennialism. You're constantly explaining away the New Testament by the Old. You should be doing the opposite. You can understand Isaiah 65 by reading Revelation 21 and 22. Simple!

The question you will not answer because it exposes your position is: when does Revelation say that the new heavens and new earth appear, before or after the millennium?

Agree.

Another question to ask him is whether he thinks that the new heavens and new earth that Peter said we look for in direct fulfillment of the promise of His second coming has wickedness occurring there despite Peter saying it will be "the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13)? Surely, Peter would not have said that righteousness will dwell there if wickedness will also dwell there. That would make his statement that righteousness will dwell there meaningless. But, if only righteousness will dwell there and no wickedness, then that gives meaning to what he said.

 

[WPM]

Agree.

Another question to ask him is whether he thinks that the new heavens and new earth that Peter said we look for in direct fulfillment of the promise of His second coming has wickedness occurring there despite Peter saying it will be "the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13)? Surely, Peter would not have said that righteousness will dwell there if wickedness will also dwell there. That would make his statement that righteousness will dwell there meaningless. But, if only righteousness will dwell there and no wickedness, then that gives meaning to what he said.

Exactly bro. He makes it up as he goes.

 

[claninja]

No. I interpreted it in order and in agreement with Rev 21-22. That is what corroboration is. That is where the NT shed light on the Old.
Revelation expressly locates the new earth after the millennial period and not at the beginning. It correlates with the detail of Isaiah 65. Revelation 21:1-5 tells us: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.”

It is so important to let Scripture speak for itself. In doing that we are able to accurately comprehend the inspired detail pertaining to any truth or event. This is never more needed than when it comes to the return of Christ and what follows this occurrence. There is no other subject where men force their own bias beliefs upon the sacred text more than eschatology. It is breathtaking how most of the normal necessary accepted hermeneutical rules are ignored or discarded to fit man’s theology on end-times. There is therefore no other topic where such great diligent needs to be employed and strong corroboration must be brought to the table.

When we look at this event before us, as we take the text literally, and as we interpret Scripture in its most plain and obvious sense, we immediately recognize, nothing precedes the first of anything. In this text, we see that the first heaven and the first earth that we currently populate (and which is blighted with the awful consequences of the curse), are not changed until the new heaven and new earth arrive. This expressly occurs after the millennium in Revelation 21.

Various other Scriptures show that to be at the second coming of Christ. Many others inspired texts demonstrate that what awaits us when Jesus comes is not a continuation of rebellion, corruption and the wicked but an elimination of the same and an eternal deliverance from their devastating influence. This is continually presented in the sacred text as a climactic event.

While this teaching is found prominently and clearly throughout the Word, this doesn’t stop some Bible students creating an additional age in between this current age and the new heavens and a new earth in the age to come to accommodate their understanding of Revelation 20.

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 not dying at birth, men living long happy lives. Revelation reveals it’s even greater than what Isaiah saw. Isaiah could only see a glimpse, but we get to see the reality unveiled.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly bro. He makes it up as he goes.

He doesn't like when I say he interprets scripture with doctrinal bias, but he so clearly does. He is obviously not looking at Isaiah 65:17-25 objectively. He's only looking at it from a Premill perspective while trying to find a way to make it fit Premill.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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 not dying at birth, men living long happy lives. Revelation reveals it’s even greater than what Isaiah saw. Isaiah could only see a glimpse, but we get to see the reality unveiled.

Do you agree that there is only one new heavens and one new earth (some try to say there are two) and that there will be no more death when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in?

 

[WPM]

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 not dying at birth, men living long happy lives. Revelation reveals it’s even greater than what Isaiah saw. Isaiah could only see a glimpse, but we get to see the reality unveiled.

LOL. I am! Hello!

 

[WPM]

He doesn't like when I say he interprets scripture with doctrinal bias, but he so clearly does. He is obviously not looking at Isaiah 65:17-25 objectively. He's only looking at it from a Premill perspective while trying to find a way to make it fit Premill.

Bro, that is because they have zero corroboration. That is why they have to steal new heavens and new earth passages and last days passages and apply them to their imaginary future millennial kingdom.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I admit I don't fully understand the meaning of Isaiah 65:20.

Well, God bless you for admitting that. Would you agree with me that passages like Isaiah 65:17-25 should not be one of the main passages that we use to support our doctrine and that we should use more clear passages as the foundation of our doctrine?

But I do understand the meaning of verses 17-19. And in verse 18 it clearly and plainly says this---But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create. The key words being this---for ever. There is no way that's not meaning for all of eternity.

Agree.

But how can one be expected to be glad and to rejoice for all eternity in that which He creates, meaning this---I create new heavens and a new earth---I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy---if most Premils don't even have the new heavens and new earth and Jerusalem being the same new heavens and new earth and Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22?

Good question.

It is undeniably absurd that the NHNE and Jerusalem meant in Isaiah 65:17-19 are not the same NHNE and Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22.

Agree 100%. I don't know if you saw the thread where a Premill claimed that there are two new heavens and two new earths. I pointed out to him what it says here:

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

He sees Isaiah 65:17-25 as describing a first new heavens and first new earth and Revelation 21 as describing a second new heavens and second new earth. But, Revelation 21 makes it clear that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in when the first heaven and first earth pass away. The current heavens and earth are the first heaven and first earth, so the new heavens and new earth are ushered in when the current heavens and earth pass away. If his view was true it should say "I saw a second new heaven and a second new earth: for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away", but it doesn't.

And this in verse 18 undeniably proves why---be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create. One can't do that for ever unless what He is creating in these verses last for ever. That's just plain common sense.

Right. Forever means for eternity. A thousand years is not forever in any way, shape or form.

I don't know what it is about plain common sense where some interpreters just like to throw it out the window all together and would rather put their interpretations above it? But this is not a Premil only thing, as if only Premils place their interpretations above plain common sense at times, but Amils never do that at times nor do Preterists. Ok, if you say so.

What seems like plain common sense to you is not always plain common sense to someone else. I know that there have been times when you have claimed something is common sense, but it did not make sense to me. So, your common sense doesn't always agree with my common sense. You seem to have designated yourself as the ultimate authority on determining what constitutes plain common sense, but you're not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Isaiah 65:19 says,

• the voice of weeping shall be (Lo') no more heard in her,
• nor the voice of crying.”

Once again, we come across the word Lo' in this text. This time we learn that there will be no more “weeping”/“crying.” This is further grounds for believing this phrase in Isaiah 65:20 relates to the eternal state (after the millennium) and that we are looking at the fact there will be no more death or ageing in the new heavens and new earth. This confirms that there will never again be sadness or sorrow in the kingdom that follows Christ’s coming. Christ will render the undertaker eternally redundant. Commenting on this passage Robert B. Strimple, says, “were it literally true that a man who died at a hundred would be considered a mere youth (65:20), then tears would be shed at his passing.”

This raises another difficulty for the Premillennialist; there can be no more tears during the whole duration of their supposed future millennial kingdom. Not another tear from a mother in childbirth, nor another cry from a child receiving correction, no more weeping from the penitent sinner under conviction, no more tears from those suffering illnesses, no more wailing during bereavement. Evidently, crying and tears either terminate on the new earth or they don’t. In the Premillennial new earth, tears not only continue but abound. In fact, as long as sin persists tears accompany its continued existence.

If there is death there will be “weeping” and “crying.” Right? Or are these myriads of millennial phonies so stiff-necked and hard hearted that they lose the ability to cry?

If there is no sorrow and crying, how then could there be death? Are people just going to be totally immune to the pain and gravity of death? Are people going to be completely insensitive during this supposed future millennial kingdom to the point where no one even cries when someone dies? Premillennialists interpret this passage in such a way that would suggest that there will be weeping on the new earth, thus contradicting Isaiah 65:19. But this cannot be so. We all know that there is no contradiction here. Such a proposal would be absurd.

• Is there no more child birth?
• Does no one have a heart attack?
• Does anyone have kidney stones?
• Does anyone have shingles?
• Does nobody stub their toe in Jerusalem?
• Does anyone accidentally stand on a nail?
• Are there any motor bike, car, train or airplane crashes?
• Does no one cry at the loss of a loved one?

Does death not provoke some type of emotion in these people? Are none of these millennial dwellers touched in their heart when they see Jesus? Are they so hard-hearted that they cannot express any emotion in this staid Premil millennium?

Premils say salvation continues but is there no more tears of repentance?

This statement refutes the Premil understanding of Isaiah 65 and shows the contradictory nature of that school of thought. Regardless of how diligently they try, the Premil cannot fit Isaiah 65:17-21 into a supposed future millennium. It would be easier to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Crying is terminated in Isaiah 65:17-21, the bondage of corruption is eliminated.

In one breath you argue there is death in your sin-cursed millennium and the next not?

This is something that I have pointed out many times and the Premills who believe that Isaiah 65:17-25 relates to the thousand years (not all of them do) just ignore it! So, they expect us to believe that when someone gets hurt in any way during the supposed future thousand years they will never cry over it? That's absurd. And, do they expect us to believe that when a loved one dies during that supposed future time that no one mourns and cries about it? Again, that's absurd. Why are the Premills who believe Isaiah 65:17-25 is about the thousand years comfortable with believing things that are completely absurd?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When someone believes what they want to believe, as most Amills do, there isn't much you can do to convince them to change their minds. You'd have to change their minds from believing what they want to being willing to believe what scripture teaches no matter whether it agrees with what they want to happen or not.

My post was not in response to you directly, so I would appreciate if you don't respond to me directly with things like this.

You wouldn't want me to respond to every post you make that you say things about Amills and just repeat back what you said in relation to Premills, right? I highly doubt you would appreciate that very much. So, can we agree to not say things like this directly to each other? We both know what it will lead to if we do that and I'm not interested in wasting time like that again.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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 believe the authors intent was to use prediluvian/patriarchal/covenantal imagery in his mentioning of a future state.

“No more will an infant live only but a few days nor an old man not live out a full life”. “A child shall die at 100 years, a sinner a hundred years accursed”

• None will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span. - exodus 23:26
• Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. - genesis 25:8
• You will come to the grave in full vigor, like sheaves gathered in season. Job 5:26
• So Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died Genesis 9:29

So, if I'm understanding you right here, you are trying to say that the meaning of the passage (Isaiah 65:17-25), which undeniably refers to the new heavens and new earth, is to indicate that things will return again to how they were long ago when people lived for hundreds of years? If so, how do you reconcile that with what is written in Revelation 21:1-5 about the new heavens and new earth where there will be "no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."?

 

[WPM]

This is something that I have pointed out many times and the Premills who believe that Isaiah 65:17-25 relates to the thousand years (not all of them do) just ignore it! So, they expect us to believe that when someone gets hurt in any way during the supposed future thousand years they will never cry over it? That's absurd. And, do they expect us to believe that when a loved one dies during that supposed future time that no one mourns and cries about it? Again, that's absurd. Why are the Premills who believe Isaiah 65:17-25 is about the thousand years comfortable with believing things that are completely absurd?

Their silence is deafening. That is because this forbids Premil.

 

[Zao is life]

My post was not in response to you directly, so I would appreciate if you don't respond to me directly with things like this.

You wouldn't want me to respond to every post you make that you say things about Amills and just repeat back what you said in relation to Premills, right? I highly doubt you would appreciate that very much. So, can we agree to not say things like this directly to each other? We both know what it will lead to if we do that and I'm not interested in wasting time like that again.

You were referring to all Premills, which includes me.

If you don't wish for any Premill to respond, don't make blanket statements about Premills.

You can't make blanket statements about people believing what they want to believe in a thread that you know perfectly well is talking about
what (apparently all Premills, according to the OP) believe, and then still make rules about which Premills may respond to your post and which may not.

You're ridiculous sometimes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You were referring to all Premills, which includes me.

Like most Premills, you have poor reading comprehension skills. I said "most Premills", not "all Premills". I just referred to "most Premills" again here. So, are you going to say I'm referring to "all Premills"?

Go back and read what I said again. I said this:

When someone believes what they want to believe, as most Premills do, there isn't much you can do to convince them to change their minds.

Are "most Premills" all Premills in your mind? Is the word "most" a synonym for the word "all" in your world?

Since you think I was referring to all Premills including you, then I guess you are acknowledging that you just believe what you want to believe because what I said is true about the Premills that I was talking about?

But, seriously, I was not including you in that statement. You, at least, try to dig deeper and look at the Greek and look at how words are used in other scripture and so on, unlike most other Premills. So, I would not say that you just believe what you want to believe. You're wrong in what you believe, but not because you just believe what you want to believe like those who just skim the surface of scripture and cherry pick scripture and draw conclusions from their shallow view of scripture.

If you don't wish for any Premill to respond, don't make blanket statements about Premills.

I didn't. You make blanket statements about Amills frequently. Should I reply to all of those posts and repeat what you say and apply the same words to Premills? I could be childish and do that if I wanted, but I don't want to be like you.

You can't make blanket statements about people believing what they want to believe in a thread that you know perfectly well is talking about
what (apparently all Premills, according to the OP) believe, and then still make rules about which Premills may respond to your post and which may not.

You're ridiculous sometimes.

You're ridiculous most of the time (you will think I'm saying all of the time since you apparently think most means all).

 

[Zao is life]

Like most Premills, you have poor reading comprehension skills. I said "most Premills", not "all Premills". I just referred to "most Premills" again here. So, are you going to say I'm referring to "all Premills"?

Go back and read what I said again. I said this:

Are "most Premills" all Premills in your mind? Is the word "most" a synonym for the word "all" in your world?


I didn't. You make blanket statements about Amills frequently. Should I reply to all of those posts and repeat what you say and apply the same words to Premills? I could be childish and do that if I wanted, but I don't want to be like you.


You're ridiculous most of the time (you will think I'm saying all of the time since you apparently think most means all).

Back to pride-filled "I @Spiritual Israelite 's "know it all" blanket false assertions like what you said about "most Pre-mills" and your apparent belief in the right to insist that no one who is a Premil may respond because he may not be included in the "most" even though you do not identify the apparent "exceptions to the most".

You are ridiculous, as I said.

Anyway since your pride has got in your way again, there's no point in us continuing this discussion.

If you do not believe it's possible, you won't ask God why it's possible for created human beings who are immortal to die a second death following the resurrection of all who died in Christ. You will continue to tell God what He means by "He (Christ alone) possesses immortality" by inserting the product of your own lack of understanding into the biblical texts that you read.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Back to pride-filled "I @Spiritual Israelite 's "know it all" blanket false assertions like what you said about "most Pre-mills" and your apparent belief in the right to insist that no one who is a Premil may respond because he may not be included in the "most" even though you do not identify the apparent "exceptions to the most".

LOL. More nonsense from the puffed up with pride Zao is life. Are you unable to respond to what I actually said? Does "most" mean "all" to you? Are you paranoid? You must be a narcissist to think that I was talking about you when I actually was talking about Premills who do not take the time to look at the Greek and look at how words are used in other verses and so on the way that you do. So, I was not talking about Premills like you. But, since you are so paranoid and such a narcissist, you just assumed that I was.

Anyway since your pride has got in your way again, there's no point in us continuing this discussion.

LOL! We always say this and then we end up continuing the discussion, anyway. So, I'll believe that you're done with the discussion when I see it.

If you do not believe it's possible, you won't ask God why it's possible for immortals to die a second death following the resurrection of all who died in Christ. You will continue to tell God what He means by "He (Christ alone) possesses immortality" by inserting the product of your own lack of understanding into the biblical texts that you read.

Blah blah blah. I told you what it means, but you're unteachable so you don't get it. Jesus/God alone possesses immortality in the sense that He is the only One to have always existed and was not created. That's what that means, but you are too puffed up with pride to learn anything.

You said you don't believe in soul sleep. So, why exactly do you not believe that people's souls are immortal in the sense that they never die? When exactly do you think people's souls ever die, keeping in mind that you don't believe in soul sleep? When Paul wrote about putting on immortality at the last trumpet when Jesus returns, he clearly said that in relation to the body (1 Corinthians 15). Where did he teach that our souls and spirits also put on immortality at that time?

 

[Zao is life]

You must be a narcissist to think that I was talking about you when I actually was talking about Premills who do not take the time to look at the Greek and look at how words are used in other verses and so on the way that you do.​

LOL. If you were talking about Premils then I have the right to respond for all Premils because I'm a Premil. Your argument is getting more ridiculous and your personal accusations are piling up. But coming from you it's like water off a ducks back when aimed at me,

And of all people you cannot talk about not looking at Greek words when you look at Greek words and change their meaning whenever the meaning does not comply with your faith in your Amil theology.
​

You said you don't believe in soul sleep. So, why exactly do you not believe that people's souls are immortal in the sense that they never die? When exactly do you think people's souls ever die, keeping in mind that you don't believe in soul sleep?​

You believe Christ was speaking hypothetically I suppose:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Mat.10:28.

According to you God cannot destroy the soul in hell because the soul is immortal, so Jesus was speaking hypothetically.

I don't know what you believe about the soul and body and the lake of fire, but I really don't care, because the word zoe (not zao) in the New Testament refers to life and eternal life.

The word zao does not mean the same thing as the word zoe, though they are related words. When used in respect of created human beings, zao is never used referring to their eternal life [zoe]

- which (eternal life, zoe) is the life that exists in the Word of God (John 1:4), and which among human beings, the Son of God alone possesses in Himself (created human beings do not possess zoe in ourselves - our eternal life that is given to us, is in Christ).

Zao (alive / living) is used both In reference to the living God (who has zoe - life - in Himself),

and in reference to human beings who are alive. Of the very long list of New Testament verses using the word zao in reference to human beings, all of them are unambiguously and undeniably referring to human beings who are alive in their bodies.

One of the three passages where Amils and others who have been confused by Amil theology (including many Premils) believe that the word zao refers to their eternal life (zoe) is the one we are talking about now.

The other one is Revelation 20:4 (but Premils have not become confused about that passage by Amil theology).

I won't even talk now about the third one.​

 

[WPM]

You were referring to all Premills, which includes me.

If you don't wish for any Premill to respond, don't make blanket statements about Premills.

You can't make blanket statements about people believing what they want to believe in a thread that you know perfectly well is talking about
what (apparently all Premills, according to the OP) believe, and then still make rules about which Premills may respond to your post and which may not.

You're ridiculous sometimes.

What? And that is not what you continually do with Amils?

 

[claninja]

You are missing the point here. Are you even trying to see it? Why would they not believe that another rapture would occur when what is described in Revelation 20:9 occurs? Do they expect that the camp of the saints will be left on the earth while fire is coming down on it? The point of this thread is to make Premills think about what they believe. Where is the scripture which says anything about the resurrection of any believers who die during the thousand years and Satan's little season or about their bodies being changed to be immortal? Surely, that would need to happen for them to spend eternity in the new heavens and new earth, so where is the scripture which speaks about that?


It's not just the dead who are resurrected who would have their bodies glorified but those who are alive at the time when what is described in Revelation 20:9 occurs, also. Where is the scripture which speaks about any believers who are resurrected at that time (when Satan's little season is over) and those who are alive at that time having their bodies changed to be immortal? We know Paul talked about that bodily change in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54, but that happens at the last trumpet when Jesus returns. Where is the scripture that speaks of anyone else being changed to put on bodily immortality?


Where do Premills claim that Revelation 20 refers to 2 different events where people's bodies are glorified (changed and made immortal)?


You are not making any effort at all to understand the point. Premills do not believe the resurrection of the rest of the dead is a resurrection of believers whose bodies are then glorified. I've never seen them claim that the resurrection of the rest of the dead includes believers who die during the thousand years and Satan's little season.


Yeah, no kidding. But, not only is there nothing in other scripture about those who believe during the thousand years having their bodies changed to be made immortal, there is nothing in Revelation about that, either. Why would that be the case if that is what was going to happen? And it would have to happen in order for those who believe during the thousand years to inherit the new heavens and new earth for eternity because only those with immortal bodies will inherit the eternal new heavens and new earth.


You don't need to educate me about how Premills think. I'm well aware of that already.


But, again, there isn't even anything in Revelation about those who believe during the thousand years being bodily glorified, so if that's what they believe will happen, what is that based on? Just an assumption? Why would scripture never refer to that?


Yes, I'm well aware of that. But, they are wrong about that, of course. It's not called the book of Revelation because it reveals new doctrine, it's called that because it reveals things that would take place in the future (along with a few things that happened in the past and a few things that were happening at the time).


The point is that it seems that they must believe in that or else what do they think happens to "the camp of the saints" when the fire is coming down on the earth? Wouldn't they need to be removed from the earth first before the fire comes down? This is not something that is ever talked about, but I would assume if asked about this, at least some Premils would say "Yeah, I suppose there would need to be another rapture taking place when that happens and another event where believers' bodies are changed to be immortal".


Good grief. I made it clear that glorification refers to the change of the body to be made immortal. How are you equating having one's body changed to be immortal with the resurrection of the body? At the last trumpet, the dead in Christ will be resurrected and then their bodies will be immediately change to put on immortality and those who are alive at the time will also have their bodies changed to put on immortality. Why you think the words "glorification" and "resurrection" are synonyms is beyond me.


LOL! That isn't the point being made!

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 what is sown. What is sown is natural what is raised is spiritual. So glorification is intrinsically linked to the final resurrection imho.

So, from my perspective there’s no need to invent 2 glorifications if revelation mentions 2 resurrections. The first being the saints, the second being a general resurrection of ALL the dead.

In regards to the rapture. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the rapture for the church, and not for those who take place in the first, to remain on earth, or the second resurrection? If that’s the case why would there be a second rapture? As to the fire, it just says it comes down and consumes the enemies. Why would there need to be a rapture?

finally, if you already know that premils believe revelation reveals new information about the chronology of the eschaton beyond what the NT epistles and gospels demonstrate, why do you keep attempting to debate premils’ eschatological chronology by using the epistles and gospels?

 

[claninja]

LOL. You're not just questioning it, you're just completely dismissing his points and acting like you're sharing facts. That's the real joke here.

I don't need to take any nonsense like this from someone who can't even discern that glorification of the body is not the same as the resurrection of the body.

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 rearrange words and change the meanings of OT passages.

I’m curious if WPM or you would let it slide if a premil changed the order and meaning of an OT passage to align with their interpretation of revelation?

LOL. You are unbelievably annoying with your nonsense. I used scripture to show how that word translated as "many" in Daniel 12:2 can be used to refer to all of something and that it's not a case where it can only be used to refer to some, but not all of something. Is that what you're doing? Are you using other scripture to support your understanding of Isaiah 65:20? Not that I can see.

Pot meet kettle.

I’m not arguing the meaning/usage of a word, so why in the world would I provide other scriptures outside of Isaiah 65:20 to demonstrate that WPM is removing key words and moving around other words to change the meaning of Isaiah 65:20? That makes absolutely zero sense, but is unfortunately not surprising.

Why wouldn’t i just provide a link to the Hebrew, then provide 20 plus English translations that don’t translate nor provide the same meaning in the way he does?

That source has a different order, but what source is WPM using? I have seen where sometimes one Hebrew source will show a different order than another. Why don't you allow him to show where he found the word order that he showed instead of making an accusation that he moved the words around?

There’s no differences in order in the actual text. There’s no textual variance in discussion here. The difference is found in wpm’s rearrangement of the text when he interprets it. There are 2 “lo” in stanza 1 and no “lo” in stanza 2. Wpm interprets the Hebrew so that he removes “live out his days” and moves a “lo” to the second stanza.

Stanza 1
Hebrew: “no (lo) longer will an infant live but a few days, nor will an old man not (lo) live out his days
Wpm interpretation from post 43: no (lo) longer will and infant become and old man


Stanza 2
Hebrew:“for a child will die at 100 years old, a sinner will be accursed at 100 years old”
Wpm interpretation from post 43 : no (lo) longer will a child die at 100 years old”

LOL. You are hilarious. Do you expect me to take you seriously with this line of argument when your interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14 disagrees with all those same translations that have the Son of Man coming TO the Ancient of Days instead of AS the Ancient of Days? I made a similar point to you about Daniel 7:13-14 and you just completely dismissed it. But, now, you suddenly trust those translations to be accurate? LOL! Hilarious.

Apples and oranges. This response is kind of shocking. It seems you are still unaware of the difference between a manuscript variant and translation/interpretation.

The variant in Daniel 7 from the original Greek text is not an “interpretation”. It’s a textual variant. It contains literally different words than the theodotion text. It’s not a case of me personally going I think Daniel 7:13-14 means this. It’s a case of there being variant in the original Greek manuscript containing a literal different Greek word than the text and thus having a different English translation than the theodotion text.

This is completely different than WPM and I are discussing.

We are not discussing a textual variant in Isaiah 65:20. We are discussing why wpm is interpreting the same exact words and order differently than 20 plus English translations.