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

[Zao is life]

To further prove your point, imagine before God ever breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, He said Adam was already a living soul. Except He did not say Adam was already a living soul before the breath of life entered him. He said that after the breath of life entered him. Therefore, just like you said, the Biblical definition of a living soul is body, soul and spirit, and not soul and spirit, nor soul and body, nor soul alone. Amils then use God as an argument, that He is alive(zao) but does not possess a body. So what? We are talking about humans here not God.

None of this means souls die upon death with the body, therefore, neither you or me are advocating soul sleep. It simply means that the Biblical definition of a living soul is according to Genesis 2:7, for one.

Every time the N.T talks about the life [zoe] that's in the Word of God, in God the Father, and that Christ alone has in Himself, and that we have been given in Christ, etc etc, the word zoe is used. Every time the N.T mentions eternal life, the word zoe is used - aionos zoe.

LOL. Their arguments become so ridiculous at times. The God who has life [zoe] in Himself is obviously alive [zao]. He is the living [zao] God, the God who is alive [zao] (I'm using the words the Greek N.T uses).

For some "strange" reason, search as I have done, whenever the N.T talks about a human being whose body has died or is dead, the N.T no longer uses the word [zao] in reference to the person. He's spoken of as being dead, or as having fallen asleep, etc - but never as zao (alive).

There are only three verses in the N.T where Amills can claim or assert that zao (to be alive] in the case of created humans, means zoe (to have eternal life in Christ) - which they then call "spiritually alive" - which for some "strange" reason is an expression the N.T never uses when talking about someone who has been given eternal life [zoe], which we are told is in Christ, who we are told alone has eternal zoe in Himself.

One of the three verses is where Jesus told the Sadducees that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and He is not the God of the dead but of the living [zao], and used that example to prove to the Sadducees that their arguments against the resurrection of the body from the dead are mute.

Another one is Revelation 20:4 - they were zao - where Revelation 20:5 uses the word anazao (to live | to be alive AGAIN).

I don't even want to bring up the third passage - hysterical Amils and Amil hysteria is something I'm trying to avoid today and tonight :)

Souls who have been separated from the body through the death of the body:

I think the constant never-ending repetitive false accusation claiming that I have said souls who are no longer in their bodies "are not conscious", or trying to imply that what I say is "soul-sleep" - always done on the part of one particular person - and usually mixed with a very arrogant and verbally aggressive and insulting tone, is an obvious deliberate and very conscious misrepresentation of what I believe

- in order to try and provoke me to become angry. So it's becoming more and more like water off a ducks back for me - but also a nice opportunity to once again have him show his error and ignorance.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Spiritual Israelite,

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?

Much water has flown under the bridge since I last participated, but no real progress. Yes there are two, I reaffirm that the New Heaven and Earth of Isaiah 65:17-25 speaks of the 1000 years where there will be death, while the New Heavens and Earth of Revelation 21 is the period after the 1000 years and there will be no more death.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Zao is life]

I actually agree with what you're saying, but it says there will be no more death at that point (Rev 21:4). Why do you guys have death occurring after that?

I don't. I've said so in a post here in a thread I started.

But no more (of Adam's) death is no more of the first death.

In-between the first death and the second death came the resurrection of the dead.

The second death is not Adam's death that came upon all the human race, and there will be no second sacrifice for sins made and no second resurrection from the second death. It's final. And it takes place a thousand years later, so there is no more death for those who rise from the dead when Christ returns.

But I'm not going to talk to you about it any more than this, so don't bother replying or asking me any questions about it, because for today I'm not interested in your childishness, your insults, your delusions about your knowledge and understanding of the scriptures, nor your hysterical, arrogant and argumentative talk.

Have a good day.

 

[claninja]

Talking to preterists is just painful. Let me word the question a different way. Do you agree that Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-5 speak of the same new heavens and new earth?

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't. I've said so in a post here in a thread I started.

But no more (of Adam's) death is no more of the first death.

In-between the first death and the second death came the resurrection of the dead.

The second death is not Adam's death that came upon all the human race, and there will be no second sacrifice for sins made and no second resurrection from the second death. It's final. And it takes place a thousand years later, so there is no more death for those who rise from the dead when Christ returns.

Clearly, a number of people as the sand of the sea will die at the end of Satan's little season when fire comes down upon them as shown in Revelation 20:9. What do you do with that?

But I'm not going to talk to you about it any more than this, so don't bother replying or asking me any questions about it, because for today I'm not interested in your childishness, your insults, your delusions about your knowledge and understanding of the scriptures, nor your hysterical, arrogant and argumentative talk.

Have a good day.

You are every bit as "hysterical, arrogant and argumentative" as you think I am, so you are being hypocritical here. And I can reply if I want and don't need your permission. Everyone here can see how you dodge my points and how your comments make no sense whatsoever, such as saying the souls of the bodily dead are conscious, but not alive. And, now you're saying no one dies after Christ returns, yet you still have the thousand years occurring on the earth after His return which makes no sense whatsoever. Making the thousand years part of the new heavens and new earth and not having anyone die during the thousand years is completely ridiculous. You have a doctrine all to yourself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I think revelation’s new heavens and earth alludes to Isaiah 65’s NHNE

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

, 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.

Ugh.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To further prove your point, imagine before God ever breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, He said Adam was already a living soul. Except He did not say Adam was already a living soul before the breath of life entered him. He said that after the breath of life entered him. Therefore, just like you said, the Biblical definition of a living soul is body, soul and spirit, and not soul and spirit, nor soul and body, nor soul alone. Amils then use God as an argument, that He is alive(zao) but does not possess a body. So what? We are talking about humans here not God.

This is such a weak argument. Explain why God, who is a Spirit, can be alive without a body, but not a human being?

But, what are you even saying here? Are you making the argument that the soul and spirit can't be alive without the body? How is that not a description of soul sleep when that is exactly what soul sleep is?

So, clear this up for us once and for all. Do you or do you not believe that people who are in heaven without bodies right now are alive?

None of this means souls die upon death with the body, therefore, neither you or me are advocating soul sleep. It simply means that the Biblical definition of a living soul is according to Genesis 2:7, for one.

What is your point here? You talk just like those who believe in soul sleep. Do you see no distinction between the part of a person called the soul and a soul/person made up of spirit, soul and body? You're acting like there is only one definition for the word "soul", but there is not. A human being made up of spirit, soul and body can be called a soul and the part of a human besides the spirit and body is called the soul. The word soul has multiple meanings. You can even say that a soul (human being) has a soul (along with a spirit and body).

God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. So, do you believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive right now and that God is their God right now?

 

[Davidpt]

and how your comments make no sense whatsoever, such as saying the souls of the bodily dead are conscious, but not alive.

I don't agree with you. I see what he is saying as making perfect sense. The reason why you don't is because of doctrinal bias on your part. Here's what I decided to do. I submitted post #172 to chatgpt to summarize in order to see if it could make any sense out of since you insist @Zao is life is making no sense here. But why is he making no sense here according to you? Is it because he actually is making no sense here? Or is the problem on your end, you are not paying attention to what he is actually saying and meaning?

But anyway, here's the exchange with chatgpt in regards to what he quoted you asking him in post #172, then @Zao is life reply to what you asked. And BTW, the way chatgpt understood it is the same way I have been understanding it all along.
----------------------------
Me:
Can you summarize what this person is trying to convey here?
-----------------------

ChatGPT said:
Sure! Here's a summary of what that person is trying to say:

They believe that when a person dies, their soul is not "alive" in the biblical sense of the word "alive" (Greek: zao), because being truly alive means having a body, soul, and spirit together—as that's how God originally created human beings.

They explain that:

A soul without a body is not considered "alive" even if it continues to exist.

People who die "in Christ" (believers) will be with Christ in spirit after death, but they are still technically "dead" and will only be truly alive again after the resurrection, when they get their bodies back.

Paul (in the Bible) talks about the dead rising, not the living, which supports the idea that even souls with Christ are still considered "dead" until resurrection.

Non-believers' souls are in Hades, also considered among "the dead."

The commenter emphasizes that true life (zao) requires a full, embodied existence.


Let’s break it down piece by piece so it’s easier to grasp the theological ideas they’re pulling from:

1. What does it mean to be “alive” (zao) in the Bible?
The person is referencing the Greek word "zao" (ζάω), which is used in the New Testament to mean “to live” or “to be alive.” Their argument is that this word implies bodily life, not just spiritual or soulish existence.

Their point: You’re not considered “alive” in the biblical sense unless your body and soul are united—as in, you are physically alive.

2. Human composition: Body, Soul, and Spirit
They’re leaning on the tripartite view of humanity, which is a theological framework that sees human beings as made up of:

Body – the physical aspect

Soul – the mind, will, emotions (the self)

Spirit – the part that connects to God

This view is derived from verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. Some Christians believe this distinction is critical for understanding life, death, and resurrection.

3. Souls of the dead (believers vs. unbelievers)
They distinguish between:

Believers (“those who died in Christ”): Their souls go to be with Christ (this is often tied to verses like Philippians 1:23 — "to depart and be with Christ, which is far better"). But even then, they are still considered "dead" because they are not yet resurrected (no body).

Unbelievers: Their souls go to Hades (a temporary place of the dead), awaiting final judgment.

This person insists that both groups are still “dead” because they don’t have their bodies back yet.

4. Resurrection and eternal life
They reference 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16, where Paul talks about the return of Christ and says:

“God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him... and the dead in Christ will rise first.”

The person is emphasizing that Paul refers to them as “dead”, not “living,” even though their souls are with Christ. The resurrection (when body and soul reunite) is when they’ll be truly alive again.

5. Hades and the “state of the dead”
They mention Hades as the place where unbelieving souls go after death. This view aligns with a traditional understanding of Hades as a temporary holding place, not the final Hell (which is the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20).

 

[WPM]

One thing is for certain, if death is still taking place in Isaiah 65:17-20, the era of time it is involving cannot be post the fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:28, but must be meaning prior to the fulfilling of that. The reason I bring 1 Corinthians 15:28 up is because it is obvious, thus no one would be disputing that 1 Corinthians 15:28 is meaning after the GWTJ is fulfilled and in the past. IOW, there is no longer any such thing as death once the GWTJ has been fulfilled. And certainly not once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled. The question is, where does the NHNE and NJ fit in here? Can it only fit after the GWTJ has been fulfilled first? I tend to have my doubts since I tend to think the NHNE is a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus something not instantaneous , the same way, for example, creation in the beginning was not instantaneous. It was a process involving 6 days.

There is no death in the NHNE. It is time for you to stop explaining away the New by your flawed and blinkered opinion of the Old. Your hermeneutics are back to front, and confused.

 

[WPM]

I don't agree with you. I see what he is saying as making perfect sense. The reason why you don't is because of doctrinal bias on your part. Here's what I decided to do. I submitted post #172 to chatgpt to summarize in order to see if it could make any sense out of since you insist @Zao is life is making no sense here. But why is he making no sense here according to you? Is it because he actually is making no sense here? Or is the problem on your end, you are not paying attention to what he is actually saying and meaning?

But anyway, here's the exchange with chatgpt in regards to what he quoted you asking him in post #172, then @Zao is life reply to what you asked. And BTW, the way chatgpt understood it is the same way I have been understanding it all along.
----------------------------
Me:
Can you summarize what this person is trying to convey here?
-----------------------

ChatGPT said:
Sure! Here's a summary of what that person is trying to say:

They believe that when a person dies, their soul is not "alive" in the biblical sense of the word "alive" (Greek: zao), because being truly alive means having a body, soul, and spirit together—as that's how God originally created human beings.

They explain that:

A soul without a body is not considered "alive" even if it continues to exist.

People who die "in Christ" (believers) will be with Christ in spirit after death, but they are still technically "dead" and will only be truly alive again after the resurrection, when they get their bodies back.

Paul (in the Bible) talks about the dead rising, not the living, which supports the idea that even souls with Christ are still considered "dead" until resurrection.

Non-believers' souls are in Hades, also considered among "the dead."

The commenter emphasizes that true life (zao) requires a full, embodied existence.


Let’s break it down piece by piece so it’s easier to grasp the theological ideas they’re pulling from:

1. What does it mean to be “alive” (zao) in the Bible?
The person is referencing the Greek word "zao" (ζάω), which is used in the New Testament to mean “to live” or “to be alive.” Their argument is that this word implies bodily life, not just spiritual or soulish existence.

Their point: You’re not considered “alive” in the biblical sense unless your body and soul are united—as in, you are physically alive.

2. Human composition: Body, Soul, and Spirit
They’re leaning on the tripartite view of humanity, which is a theological framework that sees human beings as made up of:

Body – the physical aspect

Soul – the mind, will, emotions (the self)

Spirit – the part that connects to God

This view is derived from verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. Some Christians believe this distinction is critical for understanding life, death, and resurrection.

3. Souls of the dead (believers vs. unbelievers)
They distinguish between:

Believers (“those who died in Christ”): Their souls go to be with Christ (this is often tied to verses like Philippians 1:23 — "to depart and be with Christ, which is far better"). But even then, they are still considered "dead" because they are not yet resurrected (no body).

Unbelievers: Their souls go to Hades (a temporary place of the dead), awaiting final judgment.

This person insists that both groups are still “dead” because they don’t have their bodies back yet.

4. Resurrection and eternal life
They reference 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16, where Paul talks about the return of Christ and says:

“God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him... and the dead in Christ will rise first.”

The person is emphasizing that Paul refers to them as “dead”, not “living,” even though their souls are with Christ. The resurrection (when body and soul reunite) is when they’ll be truly alive again.

5. Hades and the “state of the dead”
They mention Hades as the place where unbelieving souls go after death. This view aligns with a traditional understanding of Hades as a temporary holding place, not the final Hell (which is the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20).

I knew this day was coming when some naive professing Christians would turn to AI, in place of the Holy Spirit. That explains your confusion. Try the Holy Spirit and your will quickly embrace Amil.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't agree with you. I see what he is saying as making perfect sense. The reason why you don't is because of doctrinal bias on your part.

LOL. Total nonsense. You like to talk about common sense a lot. Where is the common sense in believing that someone can be conscious, but not alive?

Here's what I decided to do. I submitted post #172 to chatgpt to summarize in order to see if it could make any sense out of since you insist @Zao is life is making no sense here. But why is he making no sense here according to you? Is it because he actually is making no sense here? Or is the problem on your end, you are not paying attention to what he is actually saying and meaning?

LOL. How about you stop this chatgpt nonsense and think for yourself and address what I said using your own brain? Have you come to rely completely on chatgpt to think for you? And, here I thought we were supposed to rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding, but we're supposed to rely on chatgpt instead?

But anyway, here's the exchange with chatgpt in regards to what he quoted you asking him in post #172, then @Zao is life reply to what you asked. And BTW, the way chatgpt understood it is the same way I have been understanding it all along.
----------------------------
Me:
Can you summarize what this person is trying to convey here?
-----------------------

ChatGPT said:
Sure! Here's a summary of what that person is trying to say:

They believe that when a person dies, their soul is not "alive" in the biblical sense of the word "alive" (Greek: zao), because being truly alive means having a body, soul, and spirit together—as that's how God originally created human beings.

Stop right here. This is insanity. There is not only one sense in which someone can be alive. You say you don't believe in soul sleep, so, do you believe that the soul of someone who body is dead is alive or not? Please answer the question. If you don't believe in soul sleep, then you can't believe that a person's soul is not alive when their body is dead.

A soul without a body is not considered "alive" even if it continues to exist.

Nonsense! This is why ChatGPT is not always a reliable source. It regurgitates anything it finds on the Internet about a topic that people have claimed, including total nonsense like this.

You say you don't believe in soul sleep. That means you don't believe that one's soul separated from their body is dead or asleep. If a a person's soul that is separated from their body is not dead, then how can it also not be alive? That is total insanity to think something like that. It's neither dead nor alive? Please get serious here.

People who die "in Christ" (believers) will be with Christ in spirit after death, but they are still technically "dead" and will only be truly alive again after the resurrection, when they get their bodies back.

Wrong! I've had it with this nonsense. You guys believe in soul sleep, but just won't admit it. Comments like this prove that. You do not say that the souls of physically dead believers are alive, you say they are technically dead instead. That's soul sleep. I don't know why you think you have to lie about believing in soul sleep when much of what you say supports the doctrine of soul sleep.

Paul (in the Bible) talks about the dead rising, not the living, which supports the idea that even souls with Christ are still considered "dead" until resurrection.

They are only bodily dead, not spiritually dead. They have consciousness in heaven. How can someone have consciousness but not be alive? That's complete nonsense.

Non-believers' souls are in Hades, also considered among "the dead."

They too are only bodily dead and have consciousness, as Luke 16:19-31 indicates.

The commenter emphasizes that true life (zao) requires a full, embodied existence.

The commenter has no clue about what the word "zao" means. It simply refer to being alive, whether being bodily alive or spiritually alive. To be conscious, as the souls of the bodily dead in Christ are, means they are alive (zao). You cannot find any Greek source anywhere that defines the word "zao" as meaning "to bodily live, to be bodily alive".

Let’s break it down piece by piece so it’s easier to grasp the theological ideas they’re pulling from:

1. What does it mean to be “alive” (zao) in the Bible?
The person is referencing the Greek word "zao" (ζάω), which is used in the New Testament to mean “to live” or “to be alive.” Their argument is that this word implies bodily life, not just spiritual or soulish existence.

Their point: You’re not considered “alive” in the biblical sense unless your body and soul are united—as in, you are physically alive.

This is just ChatGPT regurgitating someone's argument that it found, which means nothing. Nowhere does the bible itself say that one cannot be considered alive unless the body and soul are united.

Tell me, do you think Paul was saying here that it's better to be apart from the body and dead in the Lord's presence than to still be bodily alive in the body?

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

2. Human composition: Body, Soul, and Spirit
They’re leaning on the tripartite view of humanity, which is a theological framework that sees human beings as made up of:

Body – the physical aspect

Soul – the mind, will, emotions (the self)

Spirit – the part that connects to God

This view is derived from verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. Some Christians believe this distinction is critical for understanding life, death, and resurrection.

Nowhere does scripture say that being absent from the body (being bodily dead) means your soul and spirit are also dead.

3. Souls of the dead (believers vs. unbelievers)
They distinguish between:

Believers (“those who died in Christ”): Their souls go to be with Christ (this is often tied to verses like Philippians 1:23 — "to depart and be with Christ, which is far better"). But even then, they are still considered "dead" because they are not yet resurrected (no body).

LOL. Better to be dead than alive? This is pure lunacy. Again, they are only bodily dead. They depart their dead body and then go to be with Christ. The part of them that goes to be with Christ is not dead! Holy goodness! How can you believe such a thing?! And that is soul sleep since you think their souls are "still considered dead". No matter what you say, you do believe in soul sleep because these comments prove that. You believe the souls of those who have physically died are dead. If that's not soul sleep, I don't know what is.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is no death in the NHNE. It is time for you to stop explaining away the New by your flawed and blinkered opinion of the Old. Your hermeneutics are back to front, and confused.

Agree. The belief that the NHNE has anything to do with the thousand years is just insanely nonsensical and blatantly contradicts what John taught about the new heavens and new earth. He taught the that NHNE is ushered in when this heaven and eatrth pass away. But, those who believe the NHNE is first ushered in at the beginning of the thousand years have it being ushered in before this heaven and earth pass away.

Also, John made it very clear that there will be no more death in the NHNE, yet the belief that the NHNE includes the thousand years has death occurring in the NHNE. Do these people who believe this think that John didn't know what he was talking about in relation to the NHNE? It sure seems like it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I knew this day was coming when some naive professing Christians who would claim Christ would turn to AI, in place of the Holy Spirit. That explains your confusion. Try the Holy Spirit and your will quickly embrace Amil.

Exactly. When I read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 where Paul talks about who we should rely on in order to spiritually discern scripture, I see no mention of AI there.

 

[claninja]

I'm not seeing that he changed the order. He said he understands the placement of the punctuation differently than you do. There's no punctuation in the original Hebrew text.

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) thence any more a suckling of days, And an aged man who doth not (lo) complete his days, For the youth a hundred years old dieth, And the sinner, a hundred years old, is lightly esteemed.

In WPMs interpretation copied above as compared to the word for word translation copied above, where are the words for “complete his days” in his interpretation? He seems to have removed the words for “complete his days” and moved the “no (lo)” to apply to the child dying at 100.

Is WPM using a textual variant Hebrew manuscript that doesn’t contain the Hebrew words יָמָ֑יו אֶת־ יְמַלֵּ֖א (fulfilled his days) after the word “no (lo)”?

LOL! This response is not shocking at all. You just dismiss every valid argument that I make. It's a joke. You try to say that showing how a verse is translated in English translations supports your point, but when I do that same thing, somehow it's apples and oranges. LOL! You can't be taken seriously.

Apples and oranges. It’s seems by your response you still don’t know what a textual variance is. This is unbelievable. I can’t tell if you’re trolling or maybe gaslighting me?

Is WPM providing a textual variant on Isaiah 65:20, in order for you to try and compare arguments?

You disagree with how that passage reads in the English translations. He disagrees with how Isaiah 65:20 reads in the English translations. But, somehow, your argument is valid and his is not. Ridiculous.

Apples and oranges. I don’t disagree with how the English translators translated the masoretic text into English for Daniel 7. I don’t disagree with how the English translators translated the theodotion into English for Daniel 7. I don’t disagree with how the English translators translated the original Greek text into English for Daniel 7.

If I had previously said that I think the masoretic text of Daniel 7:13, should be translated as the son of man coming on the clouds LIKE the ancient of days instead of TO the ancient of days, despite the Hebrew text not saying that all, and despite no other English translations of the masoretic text agreeing with that, solely because of how I interpret Matthew 24, then I would be doing what WPM is doing and you would have a very valid point.

But that’s not what I’m doing.

You do understand that the Original Greek text literally contains the phrase “son of man came on the clouds as/like the ancient of days” - this is a textual variance that has been studied by scholars. It is literally a different rendering than the theodotion Greek text.

Does WPM have a textual variance of Isaiah 65:20 that he would like to provide?

You are trying to support your point with how Isaiah 65:20 is translated in English translations. But, if I do the same for Daniel 7:13-14, somehow it's not valid to do so. That's ludicrous. None of your babbling here can convince me that your argument is somehow valid in relation to Issaiah 65:20 while mine somehow is not in relation to Daniel 7:13-14.

Apples and oranges. You apparently don’t know what a textual variance is.

But, you don't want to discuss why you interpret Daniel 7:13-14 differently than those same translations do. It's okay for you to have an interpretation of a verse that's different than the English translations do, but it's not okay for him. I see how it is.

Apples and oranges.

 

[claninja]

Where did I remove it? Where did I move it? More false accusations!

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?

 

[WPM]

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?

Stop twisting what I wrote. I did translate it in my word for word. This is what I quoted:

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

What you were quoting was my paraphrase of it.

Look at the link you sent through, the same original script that I employed, and tell me where I missed out a word?

Here is your link:

Isaiah 65:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

 

[Davidpt]

What is your point here? You talk just like those who believe in soul sleep. Do you see no distinction between the part of a person called the soul and a soul/person made up of spirit, soul and body? You're acting like there is only one definition for the word "soul", but there is not. A human being made up of spirit, soul and body can be called a soul and the part of a human besides the spirit and body is called the soul. The word soul has multiple meanings. You can even say that a soul (human being) has a soul (along with a spirit and body).

God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. So, do you believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive right now and that God is their God right now?

As to your argument in regards to God being the God of the living, this has already been addressed. The context involves a bodily resurrection, not what does or does not happen to a soul upon death. For all we know, the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23 may have believed that souls were created immortal? What then? They certainly wouldn't be promoting soul sleep in that case.

Why are you unable to or maybe unwilling to, differentiate between being alive in a bodily state vs. being alive in a disembodied state? Let's call the former, A), and the latter, B).

Let's use 2 examples here.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

What state is Adam in once he became a living soul? A) or B)?

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

What state are the souls of them in that John sees here, meaning when he sees them here? A) or B)?

If we factor in this---And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?---does it look like any of them are soul sleeping? Of course not. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to conclude these are soul sleeping. Or if they are soul sleeping, maybe they talk in their sleep? Is that what some of us should believe?

BTW, that's a good one I came up with there if I do say so myself, soul sleepers talking in their sleep, lol. After all, it's not like someone has never talked in their sleep before, right? Therefore, if they are soul sleeping, and that they are talking at the time, that equals soul sleepers talking in their sleep, does it not? Of course though, I'm not being serious here. Yet at the same time, I think I came up with a good one here, soul sleepers talking in their sleep. Except in my case, when I'm trying to be somewhat funny I'm not funny at all. But when I'm not trying to be funny, now all of a sudden I'm funny big time. The story of my life, I guess.

When some of us are saying that your interpretation of---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years--does not fit the Biblical definition of a living soul, we are meaning as in Genesis 2:7, for instance. We are not saying any souls are dead or are sleeping, as in soul sleeping.

How do you explain what has already been brought up, this below?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


Why is Paul still calling these the dead in Christ since he is obviously meaning their soul will rise and be reunited with a physical body? Per the way you are interpreting the souls of them that John sees in Revelation 20:4, why doesn't Paul then say this instead---For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the alive in Christ shall rise first? Why is Paul still seeing these as dead until they rise, but that you are seeing these as already alive before they even rise? Maybe Paul doesn't believe in soul sleep, either? Yet he viewed these as still dead until they rise, not already alive before they rise.

 

[claninja]

Look at the link you sent through, the same original script that I employed, and tell me where I missed out a word?

Here is your link:

Isaiah 65:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

This is what I quoted:

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

Where are you applying יָמָ֑יו אֶת־ יְמַלֵּ֖א (fulfilled his days) in your interpretation of the text 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.

 

[WPM]

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

Read my translation instead of my paraphrase.

 

[claninja]

Read my translation instead of my paraphrase.

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:

He disagrees with how Isaiah 65:20 reads in the English translations