Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Yes the Hebrew word "yamut" shall die is in the text. That cannot be explained away. But in the OT this is part of the Law: Deuteronomy 21:18-21I didn’t understand it any of the times you posted and reposted it, I guess because I speak English and not Hebrew, that’s why I didn’t respond. But I DID post the rest of the verse somewhere, to which I didn’t get a reply from anyone to my recollection. You covered the first of the verse in Hebrew, (which as I said didn’t make any sense to me), but not the rest of the verse. Not that it would have helped if you did because I read and speak in English.
So, I looked it up myself in that Hebrew thingy you used and it said:
For
The child
Old
A hundred
Years
Shall die
but…you know, I just like to read in my own language
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
This is not a death you mourn and cry over. This is the removal of a cursed child, and not a superstitious type of curse. This is a young human with a mindset that can never follow after God. This is what Isaiah was referring to. This is the Wycliffe Bible:
"A young child of days shall no more be there, and an eld man, that filleth not his days; for why a child of an hundred years shall die, and a sinner of an hundred years shall be cursed. (And there shall not be a young child there, who liveth only for a few days, nor an old man who filleth not all of his days, for why should any child die before a hundred years of age; but a sinner shall die there before living a hundred years, for he shall be cursed.) "
John Wycliffe lived in 1300 and was one of the first English translations. So there were theologians prior to and during the Reformation that accepted death and sin in this verse. Thus it cannot be totally construed as pertaining to the NHNE in Revelation 21. Modern day pre-mill did not invent a future Millennium. Isaiah 65 clearly shows that at the Second Coming a new heaven and earth is being created, not out of nothing, but a change from the bondage of sin and death. The physical earth itself will be free of sin and death, not just the invisible church, that starts out on earth, and gathers in Paradise.
Why is it hard to see that Jesus reigns on a changed earth, instead of just dismissing God's Word or changing God's Word for one's private biased opinions?
This verse does not mean sin reigns on earth. It means all sinners will die as soon as they are called out for being disobedient. Since it is in the text and context of a child, it will be the parents responsibility to do as God commanded concerning a rebellious child.
To totally disregard this point and claim this will go on through the next reality for a very long time, is not paying attention to the fact that Death is the last enemy, and these dead sinners in the Millennium cannot exist in a future reality after Death is defeated.
Trying to say that children live at home until they are 100 is not the point. Trying to explain death away is not the point. Another interesting point is the birth of Seth, after Adam and Eve were banned from Eden. Seth was born 130 years after some point. Neither Adam nor Eve died before 100. They were blessed and not cursed even though they were the first 2 sinners. But why did it take 130 years? In the context of Isaiah 65, 100 years is a cut off point. After 100, one seems to be safe from this curse and are not declared sinners. Nor is this a natural death, because sin is defined as breaking the law. Sin in the context of Isaiah 65 is not natural, but a curse. A child whose mind is only rebellious continually is the only reason Death is still an enemy until the Millennium is completed.
Now the account of Seth's birth, Isaiah 65, Deuteronomy 21, and Revelation 20, all corroborative Scripture, should be proof, but I am sure it will just be tossed out as "private opinion". The same as we toss out the private opinion of Amil. Neither side wants to budge on the actual text.
Sure Isaiah is saying people don't ever die and forever is a long time. Yet Isaiah confirms there is death, which falls under current reality until Death is defeated. Isaiah is not saying that there is constant sin and death. That is not the point either.