- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,542
- 7,865
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The Bible is the perfect and preserved Word of God for our day.
...
...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Isaiah 65 is wrong.Well, if you were to read Isaiah 65:19-25, you cannot associate that with the time of Final New Heavens and New Earth because there is no more death, disease, suffering, and sorrow in this New Earth in Revelation 21:1. Read it for yourself. Compare the two. They are different.
I wish that were true, but there are errors in the Bible. Mostly insignificant contradictions, but errors nonetheless.The Bible is the perfect and preserved Word of God for our day.
...
Isaiah 65 is wrong.
I wish that were true, but there are errors in the Bible. Mostly insignificant contradictions, but errors nonetheless.
You cannot claim the Bible is in error when it does not make sense to you. There are no mistranslations in God's Word. You either accept God's Word or you reject it.
I never said there are in errors in the original text.
I said that most of the translations are not exactly correct.
I accept the original autographs as written.
There are problems with almost all translations.
This is just one example.
Isa 65:19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem, And joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying.
Isa 65:20 "No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
The emphasis in verse 20 should be on the first few words, which means none of the other things in the verse will occur.
.
If you think I would call "error" simply for the sake of convenience, then you don't know me at all. And if you think there are no errors at all, then you haven't really been paying attention.
It would be nice if we had a perfect book, but we have to be realistic. It is God's story, and it's a perfect story, but it was recorded by men who are far from perfect.
Take this for examle:
1 Kings 4:26 New International Version (NIV)
26 Solomon had four[a] thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses.
Notice the [a] footnote for the word "four". That's because "some manuscripts say 40,000". And we know there are many such discrepancies between the various manuscripts, which were rewritten by individuals who made mistakes. And so at this point, we're not sure whether it was really 4,000 or 40,000. At least some of those manuscripts are wrong. That's a fact. And that's just one example of many.
We also know that most early manuscripts did not include the Johanneum comma, which is commonly known as 1 John 5:7-8 and is the basis of our Trinitarian doctrine.
In the KJV it says:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
But in the NIV it says:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Notice that the NIV says nothing about the father, the word and the holy ghost. That's because those references did not exist in early manuscripts. So which is correct? Or maybe the better question is, where is the error? In the early manuscripts, or in the later manuscripts? In the KJV or in the NIV?
Or how about Matthew 17:21? Did you know it doesn't even exist in the NIV? Like I said, if you think there are no errors in the Bible then you just haven't been paying attention.
I have no idea how it happened. I doubt the prophet wrote those words the way we read them today. Either it's a compilation of passages that are supposed to be separate and referring to different things, or some early manuscript copier messed it up by accidentally omitting a key word which changed the meaning completely, or maybe his words were meant metaphorically or something else but the way it's written in our Bibles today makes no sense.I happen to believe the words in Isaiah 65 in the fact that they are true and correct. Or are you saying my interpretation is not correct? If so, then what do think Isaiah 65:19-25 is talking about?
Even the KJV has problems.The Modern Translations come from a wrong set of corrupted manuscripts. The KJV comes from a different set of manuscripts that are trust worthy and reliable. God's Word can be proven to be divine in origin (even in the English (KJV)).
...
I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God for our day.
The Millennium Movie:
For years I have been attempting to understand the picture painted by those promoting the 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ, which they say begins at Christ’s Second Coming.
I wish someone would make a movie version to help us understand the idea, in the same way the “Left Behind” movies have been used to help us with the pretrib rapture doctrine.
I am going to start the script with my understanding of what Premillennialists are telling us will happen.
In my version, the movie starts in year 999 of the 1000 year reign.
The planet is inhabited by us immortals and also mortals who live to a great age, but by this time some of them are dying.
The first scene in the movie begins with the funeral service of a mortal.
We are there in our immortal bodies and therefore are in some ways like supermen and superwomen, compared to the mortals, who are still in their normal bodies. We cannot be harmed and are helping Christ run the world and teach the mortals. Christ is the one who is officiating in this rare funeral service. All of the Apostles are seated on the front row. Christ assures all of those present that this person will be resurrected back to life very soon, right after the rebellion which is soon to come. Some of the family members have wondered where the person’s soul has gone, since Christ is now on earth. At the end of the funeral service one of the family members asks Christ why he does not raise the person back to life like He did with Lazarus, since Lazarus is there at the service. Christ asks them if they have read the Scofield Reference Bible, lately?
Everything on the planet is running smoothly except for some people dying occasionally and everyone asking the question of why Christ is going to release Satan from his prison, since things seem to be running very nicely without him. Since it is year 999, everyone knows what is about to occur. All calendars are circled with the big day that is to come.
Those of us who have been teachers have done everything in our power to prepare the young people for the release of Satan. They have been warned numerous times about how many of them will be deceived by Satan, and will then be destroyed in the Lake of Fire. Because we are like Supermen and Superwomen compared to them, many do not believe us, because we are not like them. Even though Christ is running the whole planet, they do not believe Him either. Occasionally one of these mortals runs their car into one of us, and confirms the fact that we are immortal when the car bounces off of us. It would be much like a scene out of one of the Superman movies.
Finally the big day arrives and we are prepared for the release of Satan, so that he may have another chance to deceive the whole world, just like he did 1,000 years earlier.
Then Christ commands that Satan be released out of the pit.
Because we are immortal and have given up our sin nature, Satan can never harm or deceive us again. Remember that there will be millions of us on the planet. However, we are given orders to never show up where Satan is speaking in order to give him a fair chance to deceive the whole world again. Because we are immortal, we watch and follow his every move, but we have been told that we must not intervene as he tries to deceive the mortals in the same way he deceived Eve, and the same way he deceived the world at Armageddon 1,000 years earlier. Otherwise, he would not have much of a chance.
The mortals must choose between Christ and Satan without our influence.
Otherwise, it would not be fair to Satan.
Somehow, Satan convinces many of the mortals they can take over the world.
Even though they know we are immortal and cannot be harmed or killed, many of these mortals decide to rebel against us and Christ, anyway. Apparently, intelligence has not improved any during the Millennium, even though we have been their teachers.
Fire then comes down from heaven, just like it did at Christ’s Second Coming, (based on 2 Thessalonians chapter 1) and destroys those who rebel at the end of the 1,000 years.
Like Yogi Berra used to say… “It is like Deja Vu all over again.”
Then we have the time of the judgment of the dead, which is also found in Revelation 11:18.
Then sin and death can finally be removed when this old earth is burned up on the Day of the Lord when He comes as a thief, based on 2 Peter 3:10.
At that point Christ finally brings in the eternal New Heavens and the New Earth.
THE END of the Millennium…
................................................................................................................
Others viewing this thread may add material to the script, in any place, until we get enough for our Hollywood movie.
.
When the KJV was first published it was found to contain errors which were corrected in the next printing.
The Greek word "diakathe" was translated as "covenant" in some places, and as "testament" in other places in the KJV.
In most modern translations "diakathe" is most often translated as "covenant".
If the KJV translators has used "covenant" more consistently the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13, would have been much more obvious. It could have eliminated much of the confusion between the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant of Christ, which continues to this day.
The battle between the two covenants began in Acts 15 and the Judaisers are still with us.
Most of the KJV translators were promoters of Reformed Covenant Theology and therefore had some bias in their translation of the word "diakathe".
..............................................
NKJV
Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—
Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
The New Testament is a collection of 27 books about the New Covenant of Christ.
.
#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?
It would seem that many who are promoting the Premill doctrine have not thought these things through to their logical conclusion.
It just came across as an opportunity to mock rather than discuss.
For our language today? But we don't speak that way today.I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today.
Hence, what I see you doing is setting up a format for an argument more favorable to Amillennialism, regardless of the merit of either side.
I have no idea how it happened. I doubt the prophet wrote those words the way we read them today. Either it's a compilation of passages that are supposed to be separate and referring to different things, or some early manuscript copier messed it up by accidentally omitting a key word which changed the meaning completely, or maybe his words were meant metaphorically or something else but the way it's written in our Bibles today makes no sense.
Isaiah 65
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
This passage is literally saying that children will die, but there will be no crying or weeping. Since when do people not cry when a loved one dies? Does that really make sense to you?
And the entire passage starts with "I will create a new heavens and a new earth" which we already know will last forever and there will be no more death and no more sorrow. Even the very next chapter, Isaiah 66, says "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me".
So if this new heaven and new earth that Isaiah speaks of are those that endure forever, then it must be the same new heaven and new earth we read about in Revelation, which means there will be no death and no crying. Therefore, there's something wrong with Isaiah 65.
For our language today? But we don't speak that way today.
And then you've got beauties like these
- Suffer the little children..
- Quickened by the spirit...
- Marvel not that I said unto thee...
- Hath he smitten him...
Er.. what?
- When he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder
- The Lord shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt
- Dig thou through the wall in their sight, and carry out thereby
I don't think that kind of language serves anybody who speaks modern English, but isn't it funny how some people think that if they speak like that, that it somehow makes them more righteous? Like they're speaking in God's original language or something.