The unfulfilled promise to Abraham.

[Biblewriter]

The Bible tells us of many promises made by God to Abraham. The best known of these is:
“Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said: ‘By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.’” Genesis 22:15-18

This promise is so well known because it is cited in the New Testament. We read in Hebrews 6:13-20, “For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14saying, ‘Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.’ And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.”

We begin with this promise because we have specific scriptural authority for pointing out that this was an unconditional promise. But this was not the only unconditional promise made to Abraham. We read again:

"And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: ‘Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you.’” Genesis 13:14-17

“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.’ Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: ‘As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” Genesis 17:1-8

In these places the land is promised to the descendants of Abraham “forever” and “for an everlasting possession.” This is not just an interpretation of the promises. Again, we have specific scriptural authority to say it means exactly this. We read in Psalm 105: 7-12:

“He is the Lord our God;
His judgments are in all the earth.
He remembers His covenant forever,
The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations,
The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac,
And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Saying, ‘To you I will give the land of Canaan
As the allotment of your inheritance,’
When they were few in number,
Indeed very few, and strangers in it.”

The Hebrew word rendered “forever” in Genesis 13:15 and “everlasting” in Genesis 17:7-8 is “olam.” This word properly means “concealed,” but generally means “time out of mind.” What, specifically, does that mean? In Psalm 105:8 the Holy Spirit interprets this Hebrew word to mean “unto a thousand generations,” or possibly “unto a thousand ages.” If we were to use the shorter possibility, and shorten an average generation to only twenty years, this would still mean twenty thousand years. Since Abraham lived approximately four thousand years ago, this would mean the promise will remain in force for at least another 16,000 years! Thus we see that in these places, the Holy Spirit’s intended meaning of the Hebrew word “olam” is the same as the meaning of our words “forever” and “everlasting.” Thus we see that The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham’s descendants for, at the very least, another 16,000 years.


But how large a tract of land was promised to Abraham?

“On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:
‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.’” Genesis 15:18-21

While in ancient times, Abraham’s descendants occupied the land north of the river of Egypt (this is a small stream at the southern end of ancient Judah, not the Nile), they never reached even nearly to the Euphrates. So there remains a very large tract of land promised to Abraham’s descendants which they have never yet occupied.

So we see that there is a promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit a very large tract of land, which they have never held, and that the shortest possible interpretation of the term of the promise is for another 16,000 years. Thus I conclude that it is beyond debate that there remains an unfulfilled promise to Abraham.

(All scripture quotations are from the NKJV)

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Bible tells us of many promises made by God to Abraham. The best known of these is:
“Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said: ‘By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.’” Genesis 22:15-18

This promise is so well known because it is cited in the New Testament. We read in Hebrews 6:13-20, “For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14saying, ‘Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.’ And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.”

We begin with this promise because we have specific scriptural authority for pointing out that this was an unconditional promise. But this was not the only unconditional promise made to Abraham.

Actually, there is nothing here that suggests it was unconditional. It makes it clear that it was conditional on what Abraham had done.

Also, the conditional nature of the promise is revealed when God told Moses that He was going to destroy all of Abraham's seed through Jacob, and start all over with Moses and make Moses the new father of the nation He would build.

Moses talked Him out of it.

If that promise you quoted above had been unconditional, God would never have been able to suggest different intentions to Moses to make Moses the new Abraham.

We read again:

"And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: ‘Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you.’” Genesis 13:14-17

“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.’ Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: ‘As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” Genesis 17:1-8

In these places the land is promised to the descendants of Abraham “forever” and “for an everlasting possession.” This is not just an interpretation of the promises.

However, this is what I meant by taking the promises within their proper context both in the original languages and within history.

The land was never promised literally "forever" as you are interpreting it Biblewriter . . . remember, I asked you to come to this with an open mind.

The Hebrew word translated "forever" is OLAM.

OLAM is a Hebrew word that stands for "an age" of time . . a period of time that has a beginning and an end, one of which is obscure and unknown.

It is used of a time frame that describees the lifetime of a man in scripture. It is used to describe long ages of time.

But it is used of time . . not an undending, eternity.

Here is a literal translation of the same passage to help demonstrate my point:

Genesis 17:1-8 (Young's Literal Translation)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Public Domain



Genesis 17
1And Abram is a son of ninety and nine years, and Jehovah appeareth unto Abram, and saith unto him, `I [am] God Almighty, walk habitually before Me, and be thou perfect;

2and I give My covenant between Me and thee, and multiply thee very exceedingly.'

3And Abram falleth upon his face, and God speaketh with him, saying,

4`I -- lo, My covenant [is] with thee, and thou hast become father of a multitude of nations;

5and thy name is no more called Abram, but thy name hath been Abraham, for father of a multitude of nations have I made thee;

6and I have made thee exceeding fruitful, and made thee become nations, and kings go out from thee.

7`And I have established My covenant between Me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to their generations, for a covenant age-during, to become God to thee, and to thy seed after thee;

8and I have given to thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, the whole land of Canaan, for a possession age-during, and I have become their God.'
​

Again, we have specific scriptural authority to say it means exactly this. We read in Psalm 105: 7-12:

“He is the Lord our God;
His judgments are in all the earth.
He remembers His covenant forever,
The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations,
The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac,
And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Saying, ‘To you I will give the land of Canaan
As the allotment of your inheritance,’
When they were few in number,
Indeed very few, and strangers in it.”

The Hebrew word rendered “forever” in Genesis 13:15 and “everlasting” in Genesis 17:7-8 is “olam.” This word properly means “concealed,” but generally means “time out of mind.” What, specifically, does that mean? In Psalm 105:8 the Holy Spirit interprets this Hebrew word to mean “unto a thousand generations,” or possibly “unto a thousand ages.” If we were to use the shorter possibility, and shorten an average generation to only twenty years, this would still mean twenty thousand years. Since Abraham lived approximately four thousand years ago, this would mean the promise will remain in force for at least another 16,000 years! Thus we see that in these places, the Holy Spirit’s intended meaning of the Hebrew word “olam” is the same as the meaning of our words “forever” and “everlasting.” Thus we see that The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham’s descendants for, at the very least, another 16,000 years.

I am gratified that at least you have some understanding of the word "olam". That is refreshing.

Here is the same passage in a literal translation:

Psalm 105:7-12 (Young's Literal Translation)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Public Domain



7He [is] Jehovah our God, In all the earth [are] His judgments.

8He hath remembered to the age His covenant, The word He commanded to a thousand generations,

9That He hath made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac,

10And doth establish it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel -- a covenant age-during,

11Saying, `To thee I give the land of Canaan, The portion of your inheritance,'

12In their being few in number, But a few, and sojourners in it.
​

The phrase "a thousand generations" is poetic hyperbole. The phrase "a thousand" is never used literally in the bible. It is not meant to be taken literally. Here it means "for a long time" and so stresses the use of "olam" here to be refering to a long period of time, but a period of time none-the-less, with a beginning and an end, not something that is undending, eternal.

That's all.

The word "a thousand" is never used literally in the bible . . it is used poetically, symbolically, to speak of a very large number:

Job 9:3, "If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Psalms 50:10, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills."

Ecclesiastes 7:28, "...one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found."

Song of Solomon 4:4, "…whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men."

Daniel 5:1, "Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand."

Daniel 7:10, "...thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him."

Deuteronomy 7:9, "…which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that…keep his commandments to a thousand generations;"

1 Chronicles 16:15, "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;"

Psalms 84:10, "For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand."

Psalms 90:4, "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past,"

Psa 91:7 A thousand shall fall at my side, and ten thousand at my right hand

Psalms 105:8, "He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations."

Ecclesiastes 6:6, "Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?"

2 Peter 3:8, "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."​

We use the phrase "a thousand" allegorically, poetically, figuratively in the same way:

they will be a thousand times better

Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing

discussed to death a thousand times

repeated on a thousand websites

​

It is not used in your scriptural evidence as a literal number, but as a poetic hyperbole, figuratively to express an idea, a concept of a long period of time.

And so your evidence is not valid for the purpose you are trying to use it for.

But how large a tract of land was promised to Abraham?

“On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:
‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.’” Genesis 15:18-21

While in ancient times, Abraham’s descendants occupied the land north of the river of Egypt (this is a small stream at the southern end of ancient Judah, not the Nile), they never reached even nearly to the Euphrates. So there remains a very large tract of land promised to Abraham’s descendants which they have never yet occupied.

This is not true.

David and Solomon ruled over all the land promised to Abraham, from the Euphrates River to the Sea to the River of Egypt (and once again I am gratified that you acknowledge that it is not the Nile being spoken of, but the river/stream that flows to the gulf of Aquaba.)

And then again, the Hasmonian Dynasty, before Christ, ruled over all the land once more.

We see in Joshua what is believed to be an interpolation into the text, added by someone during the Davidic Kingdom, that tells us that ALL of God's promises regarding the land had been fufilled, that not one of them was lacking fulfilment:

"And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which He swear to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.., there failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass" Joshua 21:43-45​

God's promises regarding the land of Israel have already been fulfilled, fully.

So we see that there is a promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit a very large tract of land, which they have never held,

David and Solomon held it and the Hasmonian Dynasty held it.

and that the shortest possible interpretation of the term of the promise is for another 16,000 years.

Nothing mandates such an understanding, for nothing mandates that we take what is poetic hyperbole, literally.

So there is no legitimate basis for such a claim as you have made here. It is an assumption only on your part.

God's promises are not based on assumptions.

Thus I conclude that it is beyond debate that there remains an unfulfilled promise to Abraham.

Yet that conclusion is based upon assumptions for which there is no solid proof, for nothing mandates we understand the "a thousand generations" to be literal rather than Hebrew poetic hyperbole (which they were quite fond of using, and still are). And so, forgive me, the assumption is invalid.

Invalid assumptions result in invalid conclusions.

There is nothing to substantiate your conclusion Biblewriter.

Everything actually points to the opposite understanding when looked at logically for what is actually there rather than what is being read into it.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

As I said before we began this exchange, I do not have time to answer you until I return from my trip out of state, which I will have to begin very shortly.

But please read an entire post before you begin to answer it. When your answers show that you have not even read all I said before you begin to answer me, it casts a doubt on your professed intention to approach this with an open mind.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Biblewriter, I read the post before I responded . . I chose to respond in sections. Doing so should not cast dispersions on my intentions in any way.

Please feel free to take your time in response.


I would also like to point out another issue which you did not bring up.

There is going to be a new heaven and new earth in which there is no more sea.

This means that the land which was given to Abraham ceases to exist as it is part of the old earth which will be no more. . . so the land given to Abraham cannot be promised for an unending period of time.

.

 

[MrSnow]

A little more scriptural commentary on this matter:

Heb 11:9 By faith he [Abraham] went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.
Heb 11:10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. [He went to the promised land BECAUSE he was seeking a diving city, not an earthly one]
Heb 11:11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.
Heb 11:12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, [look at verse 9 - it says that he lived in the land of promise. So how can this verse say that he didn't receive the promise?] but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland [But he's already in the promised land].
Heb 11:15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. [They're not even thinking about the physical land] Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. [Even though they were already dwelling in the land that was promised to them by God]

It seems from this passage in Hebrews that Abraham and his descendants, although living in the land of promise, didn't consider that physical land to be what was promised to them; that they were expecting something ELSE.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Actually, there is nothing here that suggests it was unconditional. It makes it clear that it was conditional on what Abraham had done.

Also, the conditional nature of the promise is revealed when God told Moses that He was going to destroy all of Abraham's seed through Jacob, and start all over with Moses and make Moses the new father of the nation He would build.

Moses talked Him out of it.

If that promise you quoted above had been unconditional, God would never have been able to suggest different intentions to Moses to make Moses the new Abraham.

If you say the Abrahamic covenant is conditional on what Abraham had done, then the conditionality has been fulfilled by Abraham and it stands as an unconditional convenant from Abraham forward.

If the Abrahamic covenant was supposed to be conditional on what Abraham had done, then whatever happened in Moses' time is irrelevant to the conditionality of the AC. Abraham had died long before Moses came on the scene.

Exodus 32:10 and Numbers 14:11ff are the places in Scripture. God conditioned His response on Moses' agreement. God is omniscient and He certainly knew Moses would act as a mediator. Moses' response is highly illuminating, for he appealed to the Abrahamic covenant:
Exodus 32:13-14 3 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself and told them, 'I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken about I will give to your descendants, and they will inherit it forever.'" 14 Then the LORD relented over the evil that he had said he would do to his people.

So Moses highlighted God's promises to Abraham and his descendants, including the land promises. Didn't God know about these promises? Of course He did. He knew how Moses would respond to Him.

However, this is what I meant by taking the promises within their proper context both in the original languages and within history.

The land was never promised literally "forever" as you are interpreting it Biblewriter . . . remember, I asked you to come to this with an open mind.

The Hebrew word translated "forever" is OLAM.

Your OLAM argument just doesn't do anything. You don't even suggest when the Abrahamic covenant supposedly has ended or when it will end. But then you also can't separate Abraham's descendant blessing the earth (Christ) from the land promise. They are part of the same Abrahamic covenant.

Dispensationalists believe the land promise holds as long as the land exists. After the millennium comes the eternal state, when there is no land. So again, your OLAM argument doesn't say anything.

This is not true.

David and Solomon ruled over all the land promised to Abraham, from the Euphrates River to the Sea to the River of Egypt (and once again I am gratified that you acknowledge that it is not the Nile being spoken of, but the river/stream that flows to the gulf of Aquaba.)

And then again, the Hasmonian Dynasty, before Christ, ruled over all the land once more.

We see in Joshua what is believed to be an interpolation into the text, added by someone during the Davidic Kingdom, that tells us that ALL of God's promises regarding the land had been fufilled, that not one of them was lacking fulfilment:

"And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which He swear to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.., there failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass" Joshua 21:43-45​

God's promises regarding the land of Israel have already been fulfilled, fully.

The land promises are for the descendants of Abraham. The land promises aren't applied to just one specific generation, regarded as "fulfilled" and then terminated. If so, then the Israelites had no covenant basis for being in the land anytime after such "fulfillment." They would not have had any covenantal basis to return to the land after the Babylonian exile.

The land promise is a continuous promise intimately connected with the major covenants. And if one examines the major convenants closely, one finds that the land promises are an integral part of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants.

Citing Joshua 21:43-45 as "fulfillment" of the land promises is a common fallacy, and it fails when one examines the larger context. Notice the future tense in Joshua's farewell speech in Joshua 23:4-5 -

4 Remember how I have allotted as an inheritance for your tribes all the land of the nations that remain-- the nations I conquered-- between the Jordan and the Great Sea in the west. 5 The LORD your God himself will drive them out of your way. He will push them out before you, and you will take possession of their land , as the LORD your God promised you.

So here was Joshua in his farewell speech, after all he had already accomplished, and Joshua himself did not believe everything was fulfilled. A future "will take possession of their land" clearly means the Israelites did not already have full possession of the land in Joshua 21. In fact, Judges 1:1-3:6 also shows that Israel was still trying to possess the land after Joshua died. So however one interprets Joshua 21, one cannot make it the absolute fulfillment of the land promises

Everything actually points to the opposite understanding when looked at logically for what is actually there rather than what is being read into it..

Not really, its just the same old arguments that have been recycled many times in this forum and refuted in the past. The Joshua 21:43-45 "fulfillment" for example is one of those claims.

LDG

 

[thereselittleflower]

A little more scriptural commentary on this matter:

Heb 11:9 By faith he [Abraham] went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.
Heb 11:10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. [He went to the promised land BECAUSE he was seeking a diving city, not an earthly one]
Heb 11:11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.
Heb 11:12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, [look at verse 9 - it says that he lived in the land of promise. So how can this verse say that he didn't receive the promise?] but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland [But he's already in the promised land].
Heb 11:15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. [They're not even thinking about the physical land] Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. [Even though they were already dwelling in the land that was promised to them by God]

It seems from this passage in Hebrews that Abraham and his descendants, although living in the land of promise, didn't consider that physical land to be what was promised to them; that they were expecting something ELSE.

Very true. Thank you for posting this. This is something dispensationalists often seem to ignore.

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

If you say the Abrahamic covenant is conditional on what Abraham had done, then the conditionality has been fulfilled by Abraham and it stands as an unconditional convenant from Abraham forward.

Simply a statement without any valid proof or evidence.

If the Abrahamic covenant was supposed to be conditional on what Abraham had done, then whatever happened in Moses' time is irrelevant to the conditionality of the AC. Abraham had died long before Moses came on the scene.

How is what God saidi to Moses irrelevant?

Exodus 32:10 and Numbers 14:11ff are the places in Scripture. God conditioned His response on Moses' agreement. God is omniscient and He certainly knew Moses would act as a mediator. Moses' response is highly illuminating, for he appealed to the Abrahamic covenant:
Exodus 32:13-14 3 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself and told them, 'I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken about I will give to your descendants, and they will inherit it forever.'" 14 Then the LORD relented over the evil that he had said he would do to his people.

So Moses highlighted God's promises to Abraham and his descendants, including the land promises. Didn't God know about these promises? Of course He did. He knew how Moses would respond to Him.

Of course, but God does not speak idly either. His words are not empty.

Your OLAM argument just doesn't do anything. You don't even suggest when the Abrahamic covenant supposedly has ended or when it will end. But then you also can't separate Abraham's descendant blessing the earth (Christ) from the land promise. They are part of the same Abrahamic covenant.

Alleding that my argument regarding OLAM doesn't have any meaning is itself meaningless given the evidence provided. OLAM refers to obscure time periods. At the time of the promise being given, its end was obscure. It ended with their rejection of Christ and God's devestating judgement upon them in 70 AD - with the generation Jesus predicted would not pass before all the things He predicted would happen to the Jewish people occured.

Dispensationalists believe the land promise holds as long as the land exists. After the millennium comes the eternal state, when there is no land. So again, your OLAM argument doesn't say anything.

The argument regarding OLAM has nothing to do with as long as the land exists. It has to do with how long the AGE of the promise lasted.

The promise was only for an AGE. It was fulfilled fully. There is no longer any promise left to fulfill regarding the land.

The land promises are for the descendants of Abraham.

For an OLAM . . . for an AGE. The AGE is over.

The land promises aren't applied to just one specific generation, regarded as "fulfilled" and then terminated.

STRAWMAN. No one claimed such a thing, so this argument is superfluous and meaningless.

If so, then the Israelites had no covenant basis for being in the land anytime after such "fulfillment." They would not have had any covenantal basis to return to the land after the Babylonian exile.

This argument simply ignores facts in evidence. This is also another Strawman.

No one argued that the AGE was over as soon as the promise was fulfilled.

That is your invention. You are simply arguing against your own inventions now.

The facts are, the promise was for an age and the promise was fulfilled.

Since the promise was fulfilled, the claim it was never fulfilled is foundationliess.

Since the promise was for an AGE, and the age is over, the promise is no longer in effect.

The land promise is a continuous promise intimately connected with the major covenants.

This is a claim utterly lacking in foundation.

The promise was for an AGE . . it continued ONLY during that AGE. It has not continued past that AGE.

It is now no longer in effect as the AGE it applied to is OVER.

And if one examines the major convenants closely, one finds that the land promises are an integral part of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants.

There are no land promises in the New Covenant. Our home is not based in some "land" somewhere.

Citing Joshua 21:43-45 as "fulfillment" of the land promises is a common fallacy, and it fails when one examines the larger context. Notice the future tense in Joshua's farewell speech in Joshua 23:4-5 -

4 Remember how I have allotted as an inheritance for your tribes all the land of the nations that remain-- the nations I conquered-- between the Jordan and the Great Sea in the west. 5 The LORD your God himself will drive them out of your way. He will push them out before you, and you will take possession of their land , as the LORD your God promised you.

So here was Joshua in his farewell speech, after all he had already accomplished, and Joshua himself did not believe everything was fulfilled. A future "will take possession of their land" clearly means the Israelites did not already have full possession of the land in Joshua 21. In fact, Judges 1:1-3:6 also shows that Israel was still trying to possess the land after Joshua died. So however one interprets Joshua 21, one cannot make it the absolute fulfillment of the land promises

This argument totally ignores the evidence that the text in Joshua 21:45 was ADDED MUCH LATER as has already been pointed out in this thread. If that is not so, then the bible is in error and so your entire basis is unreliable.

Not really, its just the same old arguments that have been recycled many times in this forum and refuted in the past. The Joshua 21:43-45 "fulfillment" for example is one of those claims.

LDG

And so we continue to see that the best response to such arguments and evidence that can be mounted by dispensationalist is to selective ignore what has been said and not even address those poritions that have already contradicted their aguments before they even made them.

The fact of the matter is:

Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.​

"THERE FAILED" not: is in the PERFECT form:

8816 Perfect

The Perfect expresses a completed action.​

"ALL CAME TO PASS" is in the Participle Active, which means at the time of the reality of THERE FAILED NOT any of the promises of God, a COMPLETED PAST ACTION, it was a condition that continued to exist at the time those words were penned, which is believed to have been during the time of the Davidic Kingdom.

The scripture clearly states here that God completed His promise to Abraham regarding the land .. . so, if you argue that God didn't, you make the scriptures here to lie. The only truly rational explanation for its appearance in the book of Joshua is that it was added later by a scribe at the time of the Davidic Kingdom, especially under Solomon's rule, when all the land promised was part of the Empire and ruled over by Solomon in peace testifying to the fact that all had been fulfilled.


Ignoring the evidence and arguments made only serves to beg the question, "Why?"

Why, if your position is right, do you ignore the arguments and evidences that show your position to be unsupportable by valid evidence?


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Also, it is very interesting that never once in the Old Testament do we see anyone saying that God did NOT fulfill His promise of the land made to Abraham.

In fact, we see that the EXACT OPPOSITE is true . . we see a UNIFIED message in the OT that God DID INDEED fulfill ALL He promised regarding the land to Abraham:

Joshua 21:43-45: Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land which He swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as He had sworn to their fathers; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

1 Kings 8:56: Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised; not one word has failed of all His good promise, which He uttered by Moses His servant.

Nehemiah 9:7-8: Thou art the LORD, the God who didst choose Abram and bring him forth out of Ur of the Chaldeans and give him the name Abraham; and Thou didst find his heart faithful before Thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaan- ite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite; and Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise, for Thou art righteous.​

The consistant testimony of the OT prophets is that God DID INDEED fulfill ALL He promised Abraham regarding the land, NOTHNG was left unfulfilled. . .

This testimony spans a millenia . . consistant . . unwavering . . unchanging.

And there is absolutely NOTHING to the contrary claimed within the pages of scripture.

The only ones who claim something to the contrary are those who have adpoted the innovative and fringe teachings of a man named Darby from less than 200 years ago.

His teaching of unfulfilled promise of the land is not in the bible.

In fact, the bible in multiple places states the exact opposite in clear, uniquivocable terms.


.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Simply a statement without any valid proof or evidence.

Its simple logic. You stated that the Abrahamic covenant was conditional on what Abraham did. If the conditions of a covenant have been fulfilled, then logically there are no more conditions to be fulfilled.

How is what God saidi to Moses irrelevant?

You are twisting my words. I said whatever happened in Moses' time is irrelevant if the AC was conditional on what Abraham had done.

I'm just showing that what you claim for the AC is inconsistent.

Of course, but God does not speak idly either. His words are not empty.

And Moses repeating back to God what God had promised to Abraham was very significant.

Alleding that my argument regarding OLAM doesn't have any meaning is itself meaningless given the evidence provided.

That is one confused sentence!

OLAM refers to obscure time periods. At the time of the promise being given, its end was obscure. It ended with their rejection of Christ and God's devestating judgement upon them in 70 AD - with the generation Jesus predicted would not pass before all the things He predicted would happen to the Jewish people occured.

You can't just take a word like OLAM and say it means "obscure time periods." Psalm 110:4 says "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." The Hebrew word "forever" is OLAM. The priest is obviously a reference to the Messiah, and the Messiah is Jesus. Jesus isn't going to be a priest for an "obscure time period."

Also saying the Abrahamic Covenant ended in 70 AD is extremely problematic for any Christian to say. Scripture certainly doesn't say that, and in fact Galatians 3:8-9 makes it untenable. Are the nations of the earth being blessed by one of Abraham's descendants? If yes, then that's a specific promise in the Abrahamic Covenant having on ongoing fulfillment today.

STRAWMAN. No one claimed such a thing, so this argument is superfluous and meaningless.

You did claim such a thing in your post to Biblewriter. Here I quote your statement to Biblewriter:
"God's promises regarding the land of Israel have already been fulfilled, fully. "

In your recent post you used the same phrase:
"The promise was only for an AGE. It was fulfilled fully. There is no longer any promise left to fulfill regarding the land."

So what does your use of "fulfilled, fully" mean? So what I said is not a strawman, its not superfluous, and its not meaningless. Those are your own words and your own claims.

This is a claim utterly lacking in foundation.

Its not "utterly" lacking because we discussed this before in this thread. The Davidic covenant land promises are mentioned in 2 Sam 7:10. The New Covenant promises are mentioned in Jer 31:31-40.

There are no land promises in the New Covenant. Our home is not based in some "land" somewhere.

The New Covenant promises are mentioned in Jer 31:31-40.

This argument totally ignores the evidence that the text in Joshua 21:45 was ADDED MUCH LATER as has already been pointed out in this thread. If that is not so, then the bible is in error and so your entire basis is unreliable.

There simply is no "evidence" that was presented for the addition of Joshua 21:45 in David's time. Its also irrelevant if there were times after David in which the land promises were given. Amos 9:14-15 refers to the land promises well after David's time.

And so we continue to see that the best response to such arguments and evidence that can be mounted by dispensationalist is to selective ignore what has been said and not even address those poritions that have already contradicted their aguments before they even made them.

Wow, another extremely confused sentence!

The fact of the matter is:

Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.​

"THERE FAILED" not: is in the PERFECT form:

8816 Perfect

The Perfect expresses a completed action.​

"ALL CAME TO PASS" is in the Participle Active, which means at the time of the reality of THERE FAILED NOT any of the promises of God, a COMPLETED PAST ACTION, it was a condition that continued to exist at the time those words were penned, which is believed to have been during the time of the Davidic Kingdom.

Sorry TLF, I know Hebrew and your "Hebrew argument" just doesn't mean anything. You are basing your entire argument on some supposed late interpolation of the text, without any evidence. Do you really think people are going to buy into Joshua 21:45 not being a part of the original text of Joshua? I don't think so.

The scripture clearly states here that God completed His promise to Abraham regarding the land .. . so, if you argue that God didn't, you make the scriptures here to lie. The only truly rational explanation for its appearance in the book of Joshua is that it was added later by a scribe at the time of the Davidic Kingdom, especially under Solomon's rule, when all the land promised was part of the Empire and ruled over by Solomon in peace testifying to the fact that all had been fulfilled.

No, your argument just doesn't wash. It wasn't too long ago that you were arguing for something completely different here.

Ignoring the evidence and arguments made only serves to beg the question, "Why?"

Why, if your position is right, do you ignore the arguments and evidences that show your position to be unsupportable by valid evidence?.

What I've done is shown that your counter-arguments against Biblewriter - and your arguments in your last post - are just not very good.

In a court of law, people are innocent until proven guilty. One doesn't presume someone is guilty and fling all kinds of accusations at them.


LDG

 

[thereselittleflower]

Its simple logic. You stated that the Abrahamic covenant was conditional on what Abraham did. If the conditions of a covenant have been fulfilled, then logically there are no more conditions to be fulfilled.



You are twisting my words. I said whatever happened in Moses' time is irrelevant if the AC was conditional on what Abraham had done.

I'm just showing that what you claim for the AC is inconsistent.



And Moses repeating back to God what God had promised to Abraham was very significant.



That is one confused sentence!



You can't just take a word like OLAM and say it means "obscure time periods." Psalm 110:4 says "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." The Hebrew word "forever" is OLAM. The priest is obviously a reference to the Messiah, and the Messiah is Jesus. Jesus isn't going to be a priest for an "obscure time period."

Also saying the Abrahamic Covenant ended in 70 AD is extremely problematic for any Christian to say. Scripture certainly doesn't say that, and in fact Galatians 3:8-9 makes it untenable. Are the nations of the earth being blessed by one of Abraham's descendants? If yes, then that's a specific promise in the Abrahamic Covenant having on ongoing fulfillment today.



You did claim such a thing in your post to Biblewriter. Here I quote your statement to Biblewriter:
"God's promises regarding the land of Israel have already been fulfilled, fully. "

In your recent post you used the same phrase:
"The promise was only for an AGE. It was fulfilled fully. There is no longer any promise left to fulfill regarding the land."

So what does your use of "fulfilled, fully" mean? So what I said is not a strawman, its not superfluous, and its not meaningless. Those are your own words and your own claims.




Its not "utterly" lacking because we discussed this before in this thread. The Davidic covenant land promises are mentioned in 2 Sam 7:10. The New Covenant promises are mentioned in Jer 31:31-40.



The New Covenant promises are mentioned in Jer 31:31-40.



There simply is no "evidence" that was presented for the addition of Joshua 21:45 in David's time. Its also irrelevant if there were times after David in which the land promises were given. Amos 9:14-15 refers to the land promises well after David's time.



Wow, another extremely confused sentence!



Sorry TLF, I know Hebrew and your "Hebrew argument" just doesn't mean anything. You are basing your entire argument on some supposed late interpolation of the text, without any evidence. Do you really think people are going to buy into Joshua 21:45 not being a part of the original text of Joshua? I don't think so.



No, your argument just doesn't wash. It wasn't too long ago that you were arguing for something completely different here.



What I've done is shown that your counter-arguments against Biblewriter - and your arguments in your last post - are just not very good.

In a court of law, people are innocent until proven guilty. One doesn't presume someone is guilty and fling all kinds of accusations at them.


LDG

LDG, you have shown absolutely nothing. All you are doing is making claims, ignoring what I have actually said, twisting my words, fabricating arguments, and when you do post anything remotely resembling evidence it blatantly contradicts you.

Thank you for referencing the thread with the Map that shows how the Davidic Kingdom covered all of the land promised to Abraham . . just an examople of how the evidence you present so blatantly contradicts your claims.

For those who are having difficulting following, LDG claimed that I have contradicted myself and linked to a thread he claims demonstrates this, but the thread demonstrates I said the same thing there that I said here and links to a map that shows what LDG claims didn't happen, actually did happen:

Todd, here you go!

I have a map which shows the River of Egypt coming off the top of the Gulf of Aqaba . . it is called the River (or Brook) of Egypt.

This was the border of the southernmost kingdom at the time of Israel and its kings. . In fact, at the time of David, his authority may have extended past the River of Egypt.

Here is a map that shows the extent of Davids Kingdom, where he exercised his authority, which extended from the River Euphrates to the River of Egypt which arises out of the Gulf of Aqaba . .

http://www.bible-history.com/map-davids-kingdom/map-davids-kingdom_near_east.html

The small arm of water pointing up towards Davids Kingdom is the Gulf of Aqaba where we find the River of Egypt

The Great river bordering the north end of David's kingdom is the Euphrates river.

God's Covenant fulfilled.



Hope that helps



.​

This kind of nonsense posting by LDG is a big time waster, and so I will not be responding to any more of LDG's posts unless there is some actually valid evidence to respond to. If I do not respond to him again, it will because his subsequent posts are just more of the same, immaterial, inconsequential baldderdash.



.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Its simple logic. You stated that the Abrahamic covenant was conditional on what Abraham did. If the conditions of a covenant have been fulfilled, then logically there are no more conditions to be fulfilled.



You are twisting my words. I said whatever happened in Moses' time is irrelevant if the AC was conditional on what Abraham had done.

I'm just showing that what you claim for the AC is inconsistent.



And Moses repeating back to God what God had promised to Abraham was very significant.



That is one confused sentence!



You can't just take a word like OLAM and say it means "obscure time periods." Psalm 110:4 says "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." The Hebrew word "forever" is OLAM. The priest is obviously a reference to the Messiah, and the Messiah is Jesus. Jesus isn't going to be a priest for an "obscure time period."

Also saying the Abrahamic Covenant ended in 70 AD is extremely problematic for any Christian to say. Scripture certainly doesn't say that, and in fact Galatians 3:8-9 makes it untenable. Are the nations of the earth being blessed by one of Abraham's descendants? If yes, then that's a specific promise in the Abrahamic Covenant having on ongoing fulfillment today.



You did claim such a thing in your post to Biblewriter. Here I quote your statement to Biblewriter:
"God's promises regarding the land of Israel have already been fulfilled, fully. "

In your recent post you used the same phrase:
"The promise was only for an AGE. It was fulfilled fully. There is no longer any promise left to fulfill regarding the land."

So what does your use of "fulfilled, fully" mean? So what I said is not a strawman, its not superfluous, and its not meaningless. Those are your own words and your own claims.




Its not "utterly" lacking because we discussed this before in this thread. The Davidic covenant land promises are mentioned in 2 Sam 7:10. The New Covenant promises are mentioned in Jer 31:31-40.



The New Covenant promises are mentioned in Jer 31:31-40.



There simply is no "evidence" that was presented for the addition of Joshua 21:45 in David's time. Its also irrelevant if there were times after David in which the land promises were given. Amos 9:14-15 refers to the land promises well after David's time.



Wow, another extremely confused sentence!



Sorry TLF, I know Hebrew and your "Hebrew argument" just doesn't mean anything. You are basing your entire argument on some supposed late interpolation of the text, without any evidence. Do you really think people are going to buy into Joshua 21:45 not being a part of the original text of Joshua? I don't think so.



No, your argument just doesn't wash. It wasn't too long ago that you were arguing for something completely different here.



What I've done is shown that your counter-arguments against Biblewriter - and your arguments in your last post - are just not very good.

In a court of law, people are innocent until proven guilty. One doesn't presume someone is guilty and fling all kinds of accusations at them.


LDG

I agree!

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

LDG, you have shown absolutely nothing. All you are doing is making claims, ignoring what I have actually said, twisting my words, fabricating arguments, and when you do post anything remotely resembling evidence it blatantly contradicts you.

Nah, any reader can read the posts. The above quote is just an arbitrary dismissal of my last post, and there is a complete lack of response to the substance of my last post. Posting something from a different thread a long time ago is just a rabbit trail. Both of these argument fallacies together speaks volumes.

LDG

 

[thereselittleflower]

If anyone has anything legitimate to say regarding the evidence and arguments presented, please feel free to share. I just won't be responding to the logically invalid, obfuscating and disruptive responses of the member above any more.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually, there is nothing here that suggests it was unconditional. It makes it clear that it was conditional on what Abraham had done.

Also, the conditional nature of the promise is revealed when God told Moses that He was going to destroy all of Abraham's seed through Jacob, and start all over with Moses and make Moses the new father of the nation He would build.

Moses talked Him out of it.

If that promise you quoted above had been unconditional, God would never have been able to suggest different intentions to Moses to make Moses the new Abraham.




However, this is what I meant by taking the promises within their proper context both in the original languages and within history.

The land was never promised literally "forever" as you are interpreting it Biblewriter . . . remember, I asked you to come to this with an open mind.

The Hebrew word translated "forever" is OLAM.

OLAM is a Hebrew word that stands for "an age" of time . . a period of time that has a beginning and an end, one of which is obscure and unknown.

It is used of a time frame that describees the lifetime of a man in scripture. It is used to describe long ages of time.

But it is used of time . . not an undending, eternity...

I am gratified that at least you have some understanding of the word "olam". That is refreshing...

The phrase "a thousand generations" is poetic hyperbole. The phrase "a thousand" is never used literally in the bible. It is not meant to be taken literally. Here it means "for a long time" and so stresses the use of "olam" here to be refering to a long period of time, but a period of time none-the-less, with a beginning and an end, not something that is undending, eternal.

That's all.

The word "a thousand" is never used literally in the bible . . it is used poetically, symbolically, to speak of a very large number:..

We use the phrase "a thousand" allegorically, poetically, figuratively in the same way:

they will be a thousand times better

Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing

discussed to death a thousand times

repeated on a thousand websites

​

It is not used in your scriptural evidence as a literal number, but as a poetic hyperbole, figuratively to express an idea, a concept of a long period of time...

And so your evidence is not valid for the purpose you are trying to use it for.

Nothing mandates such an understanding, for nothing mandates that we take what is poetic hyperbole, literally.

So there is no legitimate basis for such a claim as you have made here. It is an assumption only on your part.

God's promises are not based on assumptions.

Yet that conclusion is based upon assumptions for which there is no solid proof, for nothing mandates we understand the "a thousand generations" to be literal rather than Hebrew poetic hyperbole (which they were quite fond of using, and still are). And so, forgive me, the assumption is invalid.

Invalid assumptions result in invalid conclusions.

There is nothing to substantiate your conclusion Biblewriter.

Everything actually points to the opposite understanding when looked at logically for what is actually there rather than what is being read into it.

(Sorry, I had to delete your quotations to fit this in 15000 characters.)

I am dumbfounded that you imagine that nothing suggests that the promise made to Abraham was unconditional. This is the entire point of the passage in Hebrews six that I quoted in the first post of this thread. This is stated even more strongly in Galatians 3:16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."​

Here we specifically read that the law could not disannul the promises made to Abraham because it came after they had been confirmed. The passage I originally quoted in Hebrews six that stressed that "God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation." (Hebrews 6:17-18)

In the light of such strong language from the Holy Spirit Himself, how can you possibly imagine that there was anything conditional about these promises.

You say they were "conditional on what Abraham had done." This is only word play, not logic. But it is not even accurate word play. For it is impossible for a promise to be conditional upon an event that has already taken place. In such a case, the promise is conditioned upon the action, but not conditional upon it. That is, the promise results from a completed action, and therefore, by the very meaning of the word, cannot be conditional upon it.

Again, your word definition of the Hebrew word "olam" is incorrect.

You say it signifies "a period of time which has both a beginning and an end, one of which is obscure and unknown." You may have found such a definition in a reference book, and you may have been taught this in school. But it is not correct.

This Hebrew word is doubtless used in this way many times in scripture, but it is also used of limitless expanses of time. The first two uses of this meaning are in Genesis 3:22, where the man was expelled from the garden, lest he eat of the tree of life "and live for ever." But even after he was expelled, he still lived nearly a thousand years. A second place is Genesis 43:9, when Judah told his father Israel that if he did not bring Benjamin back to him "let me bear the blame for ever." In both of these cases, the meaning was definitely NOT "a period of time that has an end."

So which of these possible uses of "olam" did the God have in mind when He made the promises to Abraham. From the immediate context, it is impossible to tell. But the proper context of a scripture is not only its immediate context, but the context of the rest of the word of God. This is why I quoted the passage from Psalm 105:8 that the covenant was "to a thousand generations." Of course I realized that this was hyperbole. The calculation I made was simply to demonstrate the extremity of the hyperbole. But your conclusion that this expression signifies a period of time "with a beginning and an end." is simply not correct. There is nothing in the text to justify this conclusion.

The purpetuity of the God's promise is stated even more strongly in specific regard to David. We read concerning David in Psalm 89:

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore [olam], and my covenant shall stand fast with him.​

29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.​

30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;​

31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;​

32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.​

33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.​

34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.​

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.​

36 His seed shall endure for ever [olam], and his throne as the sun before me.​

37 It shall be established for ever [olam] as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.​

Selah​

Here we find explicit use of the word "olam" compared to the perpetuity of the sun and the moon. Now yes, we know from Hebrews 1:11 that the universe as we know it will eventually be destroyed, but the meaning of these words is obvious. But this is not the only thing we see in this passage. We also see that the covenant with David was so strong that even the sin of man could not cancel it. If David's children sinned, they would be punished, but the promise would still stand. This is the coup de grace to the argument that the promises were conditional.

But this language becomes even stronger in Jeremiah 33.

17For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. 19And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, 20Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; 21Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. 22As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. 23Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 24Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 25Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.​

Here God expressly says that his covenant with David can only be broken "if ye can break my covenant with the day, and my covenant with the night."

So I conclude that your conclusions about "olam" and the promises are based on an incomplete understanding of the language and of the texts.

Final note: Although a few kings ruled over the whole promised land, The people never populated it, and never considered it theirs, except by promise, as they now claim it. The area beyond Bashan was never considered part of Israel.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Biblewriter,
Good post. Galatians 3:16-19, Psalm 89 and Jer 33:17ff are great passages to consider when regarding the unconditionality of the promises within the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.


LDG

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter,
Good post. Galatians 3:16-19, Psalm 89 and Jer 33:17ff are great passages to consider when regarding the unconditionality of the promises within the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.


LDG

Thank you.

 

[thereselittleflower]

(Sorry, I had to delete your quotations to fit this in 15000 characters.)

I am dumbfounded that you imagine that nothing suggests that the promise made to Abraham was unconditional.

It's OK to be dumfounded. But there is nothing really to be dumbfounded about really when you change your paradigm to admit facts that are not part of your current paradigm.

This is the entire point of the passage in Hebrews six that I quoted in the first post of this thread.

We have a difference of opinion on this matter.

This is stated even more strongly in Galatians 3:16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

I think you are confused.

I am talking about the promise of the land. You are takling about the promise of the savior.

Two different promises.

Here we specifically read that the law could not disannul the promises made to Abraham because it came after they had been confirmed.

The Law didn't disannul anything. That is irrelevant in this discussion as we are not talking about the law.

The passage I originally quoted in Hebrews six that stressed that "God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation." (Hebrews 6:17-18)

And? What does this have to do with the promises of the land to Abraham?

In the light of such strong language from the Holy Spirit Himself, how can you possibly imagine that there was anything conditional about these promises.

You are making an illogical leap in logic by thinking that because God's promises are true, they are unconditional.

Covenants are conditional by definition.

You say they were "conditional on what Abraham had done." This is only word play, not logic. But it is not even accurate word play. For it is impossible for a promise to be conditional upon an event that has already taken place.

I think you have things mixed up a little bit . . God gave the promise first makinga covenant with Abraham, Abraham did something required by the covanant, God reaffirmed the covenant because of what Abraham did..

In such a case, the promise is conditioned upon the action, but not conditional upon it. That is, the promise results from a completed action, and therefore, by the very meaning of the word, cannot be conditional upon it.

You quoted a passage from Genesis 22:15-18

Are you seriously contending that this was the first mention of the promise to Abraham?

My replies to you are taking in the WHOLE context of the promises to Abraham, not just an isolated reaffirmation!

Do we need to go back and establsih a chronological order of events?

Again, your word definition of the Hebrew word "olam" is incorrect.

You say it signifies "a period of time which has both a beginning and an end, one of which is obscure and unknown." You may have found such a definition in a reference book, and you may have been taught this in school. But it is not correct.

This Hebrew word is doubtless used in this way many times in scripture, but it is also used of limitless expanses of time. The first two uses of this meaning are in Genesis 3:22, where the man was expelled from the garden, lest he eat of the tree of life "and live for ever." But even after he was expelled, he still lived nearly a thousand years.

Your argument doesn't hold. There is nothing in Genesis 3:22 that mandates we understand that Adam and Eve would have lived for limitless time.

A second place is Genesis 43:9, when Judah told his father Israel that if he did not bring Benjamin back to him "let me bear the blame for ever." In both of these cases, the meaning was definitely NOT "a period of time that has an end."

And again, your argument doesn't hold. You are bringing your personal interpretatoin to bear as to what this phrase must refer to. . . Judah is speaking of his life time. Not for eternity. It is used here in the same way as it is used in Numbers to speak of a slave voluntarying to be his/her master's slave "for ever" . .ie a lifetime. All this is saying is that Judah would accept bearing the blame, and all that entailed, for the rest of his life on earth.

You are just forcing your own interpretation onto this passage. There is nothing here that mandates an understanding any different than the use of OLAM for the time period one would be a slave for . .a life time.

That is, unless there is slavery in heaven and if someone becomes someone's slave "forever" here on earth, they remain thier slave forever in heaven . . . ?? Surely you would not make such a rediculous claim.

And since you would not, this shows there is nothing mandating any different understanding in the verse above.

So which of these possible uses of "olam" did the God have in mind when He made the promises to Abraham.

You failed to establish your arugments and so this question has no foundation. Olam referse to a time whose beginning or end is obscure, which can be as short as a man's lifetime, or as long as an Age of unknown duration.

From the immediate context, it is impossible to tell. But the proper context of a scripture is not only its immediate context, but the context of the rest of the word of God. This is why I quoted the passage from Psalm 105:8 that the covenant was "to a thousand generations."

Using symbolic, figurative language (and the ancient middle east was very found of hyerbole - an exaggeration to make a point) does nothing to substantiate your claims or arguments.

There is nothing in the verse you used that MANDATES we understand it the way you interpret it, or that it means a literal 1000 generations.

Of course I realized that this was hyperbole. The calculation I made was simply to demonstrate the extremity of the hyperbole.

Which is meaningless to our topic. It proves nothing, it does not substanttiate your claims.

cont.....
.

 

[thereselittleflower]

But your conclusion that this expression signifies a period of time "with a beginning and an end." is simply not correct. There is nothing in the text to justify this conclusion.

Since you did not quote me, I am not sure at this point what expression you are referring to anymore . . the '1000 generations'? "olam"?

The point is, there is nothing in the text to justify YOUR conclusions, and it is your conclusions that need to be justified . . it is your conclusions that are the claim and the burden of proof rests with you to prove them, not with me to disprove them.

All I need do is show how your conclusions are not substantiated by scriptures or other evidence you might bring to bear.

The purpetuity of the God's promise is stated even more strongly in specific regard to David. We read concerning David in Psalm 89:

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore [olam], and my covenant shall stand fast with him.​

29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.​

He is talking about Christ. . . this does not apply to the land of Israel. You are mixing up promises now. . . this does not support your claim.

30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;​

31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;​

32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.​

33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.​

34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.​

And that is true . . the covenant was for an age. God is here delcaring that He will not break that covenant. . that means it will not prematurely end. It doesn't mean it doesn't have an end. Just that it will not end before promised.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.​

36 His seed shall endure for ever [olam], and his throne as the sun before me.​

37 It shall be established for ever [olam] as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.​

and here you see that the promise is not unending, limitless time, for it is compared to the moon which shall come to an end and be destroyed. This scripture refutes your claim. It is also using poetic language and hyperbole to make a point.

Here we find explicit use of the word "olam" compared to the perpetuity of the sun and the moon.

Again, making my point for me, , , associated with physical objects that have a beginning and an end. . they are not eternal objects . . . olam is not a word that refers to eternity.

Now yes, we know from Hebrews 1:11 that the universe as we know it will eventually be destroyed, but the meaning of these words is obvious.

Yes, that olam does not mean eternal, as you just demonstrated for me again.

But this is not the only thing we see in this passage. We also see that the covenant with David was so strong that even the sin of man could not cancel it.

Yes, it would not come to a premature end . . it would not end before its time . . an olam, an age, the end of which was obscure to the writers of the OT.

If David's children sinned, they would be punished, but the promise would still stand. This is the coup de grace to the argument that the promises were conditional.

Yes, until the age was concluded . .God would not make it null and void .. He would bring it to its conclusion.

And no, this has nothing to do with what I was arguing regarding the convenant of the land given to Abraham. You are mixing things up.

But this language becomes even stronger in Jeremiah 33.

17For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;

Then why did the throne of David go unsat on even in the OT?

18Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings,

Then why were there periods where there were no burnt offerings in the OT?

and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

Why did not these things happen continually in the OT?

19And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, 20Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; 21Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

Tell me why there were times when David had no sons's of his reigning on the throne, etc?

22As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. 23Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 24Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. 25Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; 26Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
Here God expressly says that his covenant with David can only be broken "if ye can break my covenant with the day, and my covenant with the night."

My questions above aside, You have not proven the convenant is an eternal covenant of the land.

It has already been brought to your attention by another poster that even Abraham realized that it was not about the land, but that it was about something spiritual, heaven.

So I conclude that your conclusions about "olam" and the promises are based on an incomplete understanding of the language and of the texts.

Well, you can conclude what you want, but you have failed to show that your conclusions are based on sound reasoning and valid evidence.

Forcing your interpretation onto scripture presented as evidence, when nothing mandates your interpretation, is not the same thing as valid evidence or sound reasoning.

Final note: Although a few kings ruled over the whole promised land, The people never populated it, and never considered it theirs, except by promise, as they now claim it. The area beyond Bashan was never considered part of Israel.

That is your claim. Nothing to substantiate it.
.

 

[Biblewriter]

Angry denials are not refutations of logical arguments. If you wish to debate rationally, you need to tone down your emotions and tune up your logic.

I have answered you in the new thread titled "olam means forever."