The Millennium Movie Script...

[Bible Highlighter]

The Bible is the perfect and preserved Word of God for our day.


...

 

[LastSeven]

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.

Isaiah 65 is wrong.

 

[LastSeven]

The Bible is the perfect and preserved Word of God for our day.
...

I wish that were true, but there are errors in the Bible. Mostly insignificant contradictions, but errors nonetheless.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Isaiah 65 is wrong.

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?


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I wish that were true, but there are errors in the Bible. Mostly insignificant contradictions, but errors nonetheless.

Then we're done talking. If you do not believe God's Word is perfect and if you do not believe it is your final Word of authority then there is no common ground to debate the truth of His Word. You can just say that

"Oh, that is an error"​

when it is convenient for you.


...

 

[BABerean2]

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, since it is a negative statement.

There were no chapters or verses when the text was written. The beginning of verse 20 cannot be disconnected from the verse before it, which is made up of negative statements.




.

 

[LastSeven]

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.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.


.

But you don't speak and write Greek. How do you really know you got it, right? While I believe the Greek New Testament manuscripts from the Textus Receptus are without error, I also believe the Scriptures were preserved perfectly in the Latin and the English, too. I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God for our day.

Also, did you look at the Greek to find another meaning because you did not like what the English says in Isaiah 65? If so, then therein lies your error.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

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)).


...

 

[LastSeven]

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?

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.

 

[LastSeven]

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)).


...

Even the KJV has problems.

 

[BABerean2]

I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God for our day.

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.
.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

.

Well, if I were to offer some helpful advice: Stick as much as possible to what the Scriptures say in your script.

It says Gog and Magog come from the 4 corners of the Earth and not as you suggest. Also, I doubt Jesus would tell them to read the Scofield Reference Bible. The Word will more than likely be preserved in a more ancient and yet unique way (we do not know about). The Millennium will be unlike our world in appearance and the things that it has. It will more than likely look ancient and yet it will be advanced in some ways. Also, the whole idea that some are immortal and others mortal is also not shown in the texts that talk about the Millennium.

So far, I would not be interested in your story because it does not give honor to the text. It also seems unbelievable that are sinful world will be like the Millennium with calendars that we circle, etc. Everything will be different.

Good stories are ones that are believable and seem like they can actually happen (Even though it is in part fictional).

Please note, I am not trying to be on the attack against your script; but I am merely trying to help show you what I and many other folks would enjoy.

I hope it helps.
And may God bless you greatly.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.
.

Three Scriptural Reasons to Trust in A Perfect Word Today.

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

#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?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here.

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

#3. Biblical Numerics
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers in the Greek New Testament.

Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):

Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James.

I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today. In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.

From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.

Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.

In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).

This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.

Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.

For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.


...

 

[BABerean2]

#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?

Actually my first primary Bible was the KJV.

I agree with the Textus Receptus Greek texts being the best source.
I know exactly what you are talking about, related to the Sinai texts.

However, the Geneva Bible of 1599 is also a tremendous accomplishment.
It was what the Pilgrims brought to America.

For some the KJV has taken on a "cult-like" following that tends to ignore any problems.

As I said before, all translations have their problems.

Only the original Hebrew and Greek texts are perfect.

I like Mike Hoggard and have donated to his ministry before.

I also used to get Chuck Missler's newletter.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

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.

Putting one's expectations down to narrative form is the easiest way to make one's position look foolish to anyone who isn't already an adherent. Predictions about the future are especially ridiculous to people living in the future (in hindsight). Amillenialism has the advantage of offering the shortest story, yielding eyes that don't exactly roll right out the door (some might argue that the story is too short for eyes to have time to roll). In their case, Christ returns; The End.

The problem starts when you try telling people that they are currently living during the glorious Messianic Kingdom of God. This? Yes, this. Really? Yes, really. At least with that narrative there's a certain familiarity about it. No one can mock the ordinary as being absurdly unrealistic.

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.

 

[LastSeven]

I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today.

For our language today? But we don't speak that way today.

• Suffer the little children..
• Quickened by the spirit...
• Marvel not that I said unto thee...
  
• Hath he smitten him...

And then you've got beauties like these

• 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

Er.. what?

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.

 

[BABerean2]

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 not been silent about the problems with the Premill doctrine, especially since the Book of Revelation is clearly not in chronological order, based on "the time of the judgment of the dead" in Revelation 11:18, and Christ returning "as a thief" at Armageddon in Revelation 16:15-16.

It is my hope that you and others here have the opportunity to comment on this script, whether you agree with the Premill doctrine or not. That is only fair.
You will not receive condemnation from me, although it often comes in my direction for daring to doubt the viewpoints of others. It is OK to argue one's viewpoint, as long as we remember we are all part of the same Body.

During my lifetime the Premill doctrine of modern Dispensational Futurism has been the only version heard by most of those sitting in the pews of modern evangelical churches.

.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

Details is what is important.

Isaiah 65:19 is not saying that the whole entire Earth will not cry. Isaiah 65:19 is saying that within the city of Jerusalem there will be no more crying.

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."

So this is not the final New Heavens and New Earth described to us in Revelation 21. For a NEW Jerusalem will come down from heaven and there will be no more sorrow, death, etc. In the New Heavens and New Earth (the Millennium) in Isaiah 65:17-24, we read about how there is still death.

Pastor Warren W. Wiersbe says this in his commentary on the Isaiah 65:17-24.

"God saves the best for last: His description of the New Heavens and New Earth (the millennial kingdom) in 65:17 --- 65:24. This is not the same as John's "new heaven and new earth" (Rev. 21:1ff.), because the characteristics Isaiah gives do not fit the eternal state. As far as we know, in the eternal state people will not get old and die (Isaiah 65:20), nor will there be any danger of losing anything to invaders (vv. 21--23).

Jerusalem will be a source of joy, not only to the Lord but to the whole earth. It will be a city of holiness, harmony, and happiness. During the Millennial Kingdom, people will work, and God will bless their labors. People will pray, and God will answer (v. 24). Nature will be at peace (v. 25) because the curse will be lifted."

By: ~ Warren W. Wiersbe.​

Quoted Source:
Wiersbe Bible Commentary 2 Volume Set.
(Important Note: While I have enjoyed reading Wiersbe's works, I do not agree with his belief on Eternal Security; I find that doctrine to be highly unbiblical and immoral).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For our language today? But we don't speak that way today.

• Suffer the little children..
• Quickened by the spirit...
• Marvel not that I said unto thee...
  
• Hath he smitten him...

And then you've got beauties like these

• 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

Er.. what?

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.

Nowhere did I say that speaking from the KJV is speaking in God's original language. That is a false accusation if that is what you think about my opinion about the KJV. I said Modern Translations are helpful in updating the Eartly Modern English (the 1600's English).

I said, I quote:

"While I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered."

So it is a balance.
I look at Modern Translations as sifting through dirt to get to the gold that is within the KJV and the original languages. But seeing I do not speak and write the original languages, I have to choose one Bible that is my authority based on doing a fruits test. If not, then God's Word is at the whim of what I say or Bill says or Rick says or that guy with a funny looking hat down the street says.


...