Unprofitable Servant wrote: Brother Lurker, here is a link that has multiple commentaries on all the verses in the passage (if you use the arrow keys at the top) http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/65-20.htm
Thanks. I'll have a look as time permits.
Considering our past brief discussions it is clear we are at polar opposites regarding biblical interpretation, and apparently settled, so I don't see any profit for either of us to continue any further.
John UK wrote: Bro Lurker, methinks you make the same mistake the Presbies make when they take the Gen passage for their covenant theology and baby sprinkling, instead of getting the increased light from the NT and the understanding the apostles had of what those passages meant. Heavens and Earth? The universe and the planet. We shall dwell upon the new earth, in a new state, eternal, with no death (which is the last enemy). 2 Pet 3 is clear enough for me, bro.
You may be right, John. I am by no means settled on this and was simply probing for some thoughts. But it seems I poked a hornets nest.
I just finished reading Matthew Henry on Isaiah 65. Very interesting, so much I agree with and nothing that I would disagree with. The only thing I was left wondering about is he didn't make an effort to explain how the time of the creation of the new H&E relates to the rest of his commentary which he rightfully places in the days of Paul and God's mercy being turned to the Gentiles.
For anyone interested.... http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Isa/Isa_065.cfm?a=744017
With that, I'll stop being a distraction to the thread.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Again, you don't obliterate the clear with the obscure. If you just saying the new heaven and new earth is not part of the eternal state, then what point are you trying to make? If it is not then what is it? How does that thinking line up with II Peter 3:10-13?
I'm not sure why you bring up the mil reign. Tradition seems to teach that the new H&E follows the bema seat judgment which follows the mil reign. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
My point is simple. Rev 21:1 doesn't give any details about the new H&E except there will be no more sea. Isaiah 65 does. So why wouldn't we look to the Isaiah text (clear) to determine if what we perceive in Rev 21 (unclear) is true?
I don't see any gain to cloud up the question with a lot of irrelevant scripture. Either Isaiah 65 describes the new H&E of Rev 21:1 or it doesn't.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Not sure why brother Lurker, the good brother who sees allegory and/or historical fulfillment in most everything else, would imply that a place of eternal life would somehow experience death or sinners.
To be clear, I am saying that the new H&E is NOT the eternal state.
My defense is Isaiah 65:17-25. Unless God is speaking to Isaiah of a different new heaven and earth than that of Rev 21, doesn't it make sense that our beliefs regarding the new H&E should not contradict what is written in Isaiah?
Can anyone read Is 65:17-25 and nod in agreement at every word?
Are you going to build and inhabit a house in the eternal state? What about the house Jesus went to prepare for us?
Going to plant a vineyard and eat the fruit thereof?
How do you feel about having your days numbered to those of a tree? I'm expecting the inheritance of eternal life.
And how about offspring in the eternal state? Children?
And why the need to call on the Lord when we will be with Him forever in the air?
And what about the serpent who shall eat the dust of the earth? I though he was cast into the lake of fire at the bema seat.
I can present the biblical facts but I can't compel anyone to deal with them. I regret bringing it up.
Dorcas wrote: Lurker, Just what is the 'unseen' error universally accepted as truth on this thread , that you say we have all missed?
The interpretation of the new H&E being the eternal state. I don't know about you, but I don't expect to be rubbing elbows with sinners in the eternal state.....
Is 65:17-20 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 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. 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.
Maybe a few sinners slipped through the bema seat judgment. Maybe God made a mistake when he dictated to Isaiah. Maybe I should stop making waves, get on the bandwagon and stop worrying about such a small biblical fact getting in the way of centuries of tradition.
John UK wrote: Lurker, do you mean that this verse.... Revelation 21:3-4 KJV (3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. (4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. ......is contrary to the prophecy in the OT which you quoted?
No, brother. These verses are the attributes of New Jerusalem, not the new heaven and earth. Under the first covenant, they were distinct.....
Mat 5:34-35 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
What God said of the new heaven and earth in Isaiah does not contradict.
Dorcas, I'm not ignoring you. I'm out of time for now.
John, Frank..... do you not see the contradiction between the quote from the article and what God said.... between what you apparently have accepted as biblical fact and what God said?
My hermeneutic has nothing to do with it. Either there is death in the new H&E or there is not. Choose whom you will believe.
But all that has little to do with the purpose of my comment. I've watch this thread and sadly watched divisions between brothers and sisters develop that will never be erased. And all the while, there is unseen error almost universally accepted as truth. It doesn't add up.
Should we not be redeeming the time, being Bereans to see if the things we've been taught by fallible preachers/teachers are so, because the days are evil?
"There will no longer be any more death in any way, shape, or form. The curse of Adam and Eve will have finally been broken and completely done away with. There will also be no more pain since we will all have brand new, glorified, spiritual bodies."
Over the years I've come to believe most Christians would give this quote an amen. But God said:
Is 65:17-20 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 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. 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.
Does anyone even care that this error has been perpetuated for centuries by your preachers/teachers?
John UK wrote: The other thing, that little book? Now Lurker, it is not like you to speculate. Not that speculating is wrong, if there is sufficient inference. Mind you, the tablets were locked away in the ark of the covenant, along with a pot of manna and Aaron's rod that budded.
You're right John, I don't speculate. I am absolutely settled with my interpretation of the book. But....... I would be hard pressed to string together a few verses to establish by belief for your benefit. Sometimes what something figures can only be learned by taking in all the surrounding context and learning what was going on at the time. In this case, the opening of the seals was leading up to the judgment of the first resurrection and there can be no just condemnation of unrepentant sinners to the lake of fire if sin can't be imputed which demands the law.
That said, I wouldn't want you to take my word on this and consider it settled. Only the Word can do that for you.
The ark of the covenant; the Decalogue locked away (sealed) with God sitting on it as the mercy seat, throne of grace. And He made reference to the tables as His "secret things" (Deut 29:29) and His "treasures" (Deut 32:34). But He brought them against His rebellious people in judgment (Jer 11:8).
John UK wrote: Saint Lurker, thanks for the extra scriptures and greek concerning the thrones, it's very interesting. I just wish I had more brainpower to take it all in and work it all out. Them Revelations sure are cloudy. I used to try the commentaries to see if they would help, but it seems theologians had a hard time of it as well, some saying that it had all come to pass already. Could it be?
Full preterism? Built on the assumption everything was fulfilled 70 AD. If that be true, then the proponents should be able to write entire books explaining how and when all the mysterious events of the Revelation were fulfilled in historic reality. They should be able to identify all the mysterious figures and match them up with 1st century AD realities. I'm not aware of any such books.
Anyway, the reason I replied to your question was I had just read the Revelation the evening before and it was fresh in my mind. And, of course, Steve's egging me on prompted me to look into the idea you posted about the 24 elders and I'm glad I did. I needed to work that through anyway.
Why was the seals on the book removed? "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God".
The Lamb was worthy being the only one to fulfill the law.
John UK wrote: The 24 elders: seeing as the New Jerusalem had 12 foundations of apostles and twelve walls of 12 tribes of Israel, I thought the elders might be figurative for these 24.
I've seen that interpretation and it sounds reasonable but reasonable is not necessarily biblical.
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The word "seat" used to describe the 24 seats of the elders is actually the same Greek word for throne. So there is a cross reference which accounts for 12 of the 24 elders being the apostles so by good and necessary consequence, I can see that the other 12 elders would be the heads of the tribes of Israel based on Rev 21:12-14.
The only question remaining; is the timeline of Rev 4 compatible with "the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory"?
Rev 5:11 (before the 1st seal was opened) "the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" compared to Daniel 7:10 (same wording) and 7:13-14 son of man receiving the kingdom of God....... I'd say yes.
SteveR wrote: Good Morning Lurker Helen Keller and Observer could have offered John UK similar responses. OK, Perhaps Im exaggerating about Observer. Dont you think you should answer the original question? Dont get me wrong, Im glad John UK woke you up from your slumber. But you need to answer who the elders and creatures are, and why they are worshipping in the manner they are.
I believe I did answer the original question, Steve. What do you think, John? Did I answer your question?
John seemed to think the crowns implied post resurrection probably because of 2 Tim 4:8 but that wouldn't answer the crowns on the heads of locusts (Rev 9:7), the 7 heads of the dragon (Rev 12:3) or the 10 crowns on the 10 horns of the sea beast (Rev 13:1). Crowns don't always imply victory over death.
As far as the identity of the 24 elders, I honestly don't know. If you can help both John and me out with that, I'm open for instruction.
John UK wrote: Thanks Lurker. I'm in the Revelations on my daily readings, and it never fails to make my head spin.
I remember the first time I read the Revelation...... when I got to the end my thoughts were 'Is that all there is?'
One thing I'd pass on for your benefit..... the book sealed with 7 seals. What is it? A tiny but important clue:
Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne **a book written within and on the backside**, sealed with seven seals.
Ezek 2:9-10 And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein; And he spread it before me; **and it was written within and without**: and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.
Exo 32:15 (ESV) Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, **tablets that were written on both sides; on the front and on the back they were written.**
(I normally quote from the KJV but in this case the ESV gives a clearer rendering which is consistent with the other texts.)
When all the seals were opened, the judgment of the first resurrection was set (Daniel 7:10, Rev 19). (Note Dan 7:11-12 corresponds with Rev 19:20.)
Does anyone know if this passage is referring to a time after the resurrection, seeing as these twenty four elders appear to have been resurrected and received their crowns?
Before the resurrection, John.
The first clue is "and is to come" (Rev 4:8).
While the Revelation is not chronological beginning to end, chapters 4-6 are. So observe at the opening of the 5th seal.......
Rev 6:9-10 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
The souls and innocent blood of God's people had not yet been avenged. Now scroll forward to the first resurrection.......
Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
See also Rev 20:4 for the resurrection of the souls under the altar...... same as those mentioned in 19:2.
Frank wrote: 1) I like your edit and I agree. If someone disagrees with me about the perfection of Christ, they are not a heretic. Is that what you meant.
2) Who said there were any perfect preachers, including Paul?
3) Who said they disagreed with our heavenly Father as to how He builds His church?
4) I don't know whether or not folks were saved at BG crusades. What does that have to do with it?
5) If someone was saved at a Joel Osteen crusade, would you say the same thing?
6) But, I do appreciate your kindness, but I think we should stick to BG and what he said.
1) Not what I meant but now you've got the hang of a straw man.
2 & 3) Didn't imply anyone did..... just making a point.
4) I should have everything to do with it, brother. Yes, this thread has been filled with quotes from BG which reveal his errors and I don't discount a one of them...... not one and I thank Ladybug an others who posted them up. But, if all we can find to talk about BG is his errors with no mention of the souls he may have been party to leading to Christ, well......
Btw, Frank. A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of an opponents position. If you can find an example of me doing that, please post it up.
Blessings to you and yours.
Edit: Bro. Frank. As you know for many the term heretic is anyone who doesn't agree with me. So if you would care to put up a biblical definition of a heretic I would be glad to answer.
Michael: I happen to believe many souls have eventually come to Christ by way of BG's crusades so, even though he owns many errors, I refuse to cast a stone. Far be it from me to dictate to God how He calls His own. Who can point out a perfect preacher in this late age of apostasy? Even Paul had a thorn in his flesh.
Excerpt wrote: From the Free Presbyterian Church website: "Dr. Graham uses a deceptive fundamental terminology which is acceptable to liberals, Roman Catholics, and pagans alike. It is suspect and does not mean what the Bible means. It is this that makes Dr. Graham's ministry so dangerous. In this pamphlet Billy Graham and his liberal friends will speak for themselves. It will be for you, the reader, with the Scriptures, to decide whether there has been a transition from truth to error..." http://www.freepres.org/pamphlet_details.asp?graha..
Thank you for that excerpt as it reminded me of another point.
Would any of BG's errors preached from the pulpit or spoken in interviews lead anyone who belonged to the Father and given to the Son to save in time to perdition?
Is God's purpose of election back in the hands of the preacher when its convenient?
This piece from the FPC truly amazes me........ dangerous to who? Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?
I wasn't going to comment on this hot topic either but after reading so many comments on the man Billy Graham and all his errors, I get the distinct impression he'll be licking up flames of perdition soon and to me, that is sad.
Was Paul 100% successful in the course of his ministry? Of course not.
Was God 100% successful during Paul's ministry? Absolutely.
Is there anyone here who can say with absolute certainty that no one has ever come to Jesus Christ because of the meager beginnings of attending or hearing a BG crusade?
Instead of focusing on all the shortcomings of the man, why not at least balance that out with the millions of people worldwide who had a taste of the salvation which can be found only in Jesus Christ and trust that God just maybe drew a few with loving kindness to seek out His Son and actually found Him.
. . .
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain your understanding of Paul's gospel. What does Christ crucified mean to you and how is that simple message the power of God unto salvation?