Most Prophecy Teachers Clearly Reject God's Word!

[Arthur81]

When you hear or read long-winded rejection of what God's word states as truth, you must be hearing or reading a lie because God's word is truth. If a passage is misinterpreted, it does not take extensive explanation to demonstrate it. When a person rejects a clear statement of God's word, it is because he already has his belief, to which he sees God's word must conform. Example -

"So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." (Josh 21:43-45 ASV) See also Josh 23:14-16

God's word states "they possessed it", the "it" being ALL the land promised. It does not say, they failed to possess it to the full degree, nor does it say they just began to possess it; nor does it say they could have fully possessed it, "if".

To emphasize it, God's word reads "There failed not" anything promised... "all came to pass". Can language be any more clear that what is agreed upon by the various translations. It is true that God sometimes can state something accomplished when it means it is sure of accomplishment because it is God who promised it. That is covered in the following -

"I will not drive them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become desolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." (Exod 23:29-30 ASV) * NOT part of the land

Why do these prophecy blow-hards deny God's word? It is because they already have their man-made system that states that Israel has not fully possess all the land promised to her, now some 3500 years after it is recorded in Joshua as a fact in that day. Further, Joshua is dated around 1400 BC and the following statement from 1 Kings is about 435 years later -

"Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry. And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life." (1Kgs 4:20-21 ASV)

Another passage dated approximately 450 years after Joshua is in 2 Chron. 9:22ff -

"So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. And they brought every man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, armor, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. And he ruled over all the kings from the River even unto the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt. And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycomore-trees that are in the lowland, for abundance. And they brought horses for Solomon out of Egypt, and out of all lands." (2Chr 9:22-28 ASV)

It is clear that Israel HAD ALREADY possessed all the land promised to her by God in the days of Solomon, some 435-450 years after the statements of the fact in Joshua.

The claim that Tyre and Sidon were in the promise of land is unfounded, and any maps I've seen of the promised land to not include Tyre and Sidon. Prepositions can be tricky but "to" and "unto" does not mean "included" in reference to Tyre and Sidon! There is even question about the exact location and names/identity of Tyre as well as territory covered.

WHY DO SOME PROPHECY FANATICS REJECT GOD'S WORD? IT REFUTES THEIR MAN-MADE SCHEME THAT SAYS THE PROMISE OF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ACCOMPLISHED AND IS STILLL AWAITING ISRAEL'S FULL POSSESSION now some 3500 years after Joshua. I BELIEVE GOD, NOT THE NUTTY SYSTEMS OF MEN!

 

[GISMYS_7]

(Exodus 33:2). When it was time for the Israelites to inherit the Promised Land, God raised up Moses to bring His people out of slavery in Egypt and used Joshua to lead a military conquest of Canaan. The Promised Land includes modern-day Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, and Jordan, as well as parts of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq
Israel has yet to claim it all.

 

[Freedm]

As someone who has come to new understanding many times throughout my Christian life, I would just like to point out that the people you disagree with are not lying, nor rejecting God's word. They are simply understanding it differently. And yes, sometimes we, as Christians, will ignore (for lack of a better word) certain verses because they don't fit what we've already established in our minds to be true, but that is called cognitive dissonance and we're all susceptible to it.

When a presented fact does not fit with our already established facts, the dichotomy does not compute, so we have to discard one of the two facts. Naturally, most of us are going to discard the new fact, and hold onto what we've already established. This is human nature. It does not make one a bad person, or a liar, or a heretic.

In my experience, the only way someone is going to accept new facts is if they come into the conversation with an open mind. Some minds are more open than others, so when you come across a closed mind, insulting that person is not going to help. You're going to get frustrated yes, but the more you show your frustration, the more they close their mind. You can not open someone's mind, they have to do that on their own, but you can close it further, so be careful.

 

[Arthur81]

As someone who has come to new understanding many times throughout my Christian life, I would just like to point out that the people you disagree with are not lying, nor rejecting God's word. They are simply understanding it differently. And yes, sometimes we, as Christians, will ignore (for lack of a better word) certain verses because they don't fit what we've already established in our minds to be true, but that is called cognitive dissonance and we're all susceptible to it.

When a presented fact does not fit with our already established facts, the dichotomy does not compute, so we have to discard one of the two facts. Naturally, most of us are going to discard the new fact, and hold onto what we've already established. This is human nature. It does not make one a bad person, or a liar, or a heretic.

In my experience, the only way someone is going to accept new facts is if they come into the conversation with an open mind. Some minds are more open than others, so when you come across a closed mind, insulting that person is not going to help. You're going to get frustrated yes, but the more you show your frustration, the more they close their mind. You can not open someone's mind, they have to do that on their own, but you can close it further, so be careful.

When simple, direct statements of fact in God's word are rejected, by saying "That's just your interpretation", it removes all certainty of God's revelation. If the scriptures are God's truth, it is one truth and it must mean what it states, or we are saying language is incapable of conveying certain truth. In that case why did God inspire the Holy Scriptures if they do not convey His truth clearly, in such explicit language?

I have no illusions whatsoever that those with their ego invested in their man-made ideas, will be brought to admit the biblical truth. The purpose of the post is for those who are actually seeking the truth of God's word, not what is being 'read into' it. Many people read these posts who do not post and may not even be a member. It is these I wish to alert to false doctrine.

A couple centuries ago the British Methodist Adam Clarke addressed the Bible skeptics of his day with their 'cavil' on Josh 21:43-45.

"The cavil is as foolish as it is unprincipled which states, "The Israelites never did possess the whole of the land which was promised to them, and therefore that promise could not come by Divine revelation." With as much reason might it be urged that Great Britain has not subdued the French West India Islands and Batavia, (Feb. 1812,) because the ancient inhabitants still remain in them; but is not their serving under tribute an absolute proof that they are conquered, and under the British dominion? So was the whole land of Canaan conquered, and its inhabitants subdued, though the whole of the ground was not occupied by the Israelites till the days of David and Solomon. In the most correct and literal sense it might be said, There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel: all came to pass. Nor shall one word of his ever fail to any of his followers while the sun and moon endure."

Claiming the land promise is still awaiting full possession now, 3500 years later, is preposterous!

 

[GISMYS_7]

God's promise to the Jewish people===
The Promised Land includes modern-day Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, and Jordan, as well as parts of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq
Israel and we can trust God.
Israel has yet to claim it all.

 

[Freedm]

When simple, direct statements of fact in God's word are rejected, by saying "That's just your interpretation", it removes all certainty of God's revelation. If the scriptures are God's truth, it is one truth and it must mean what it states, or we are saying language is incapable of conveying certain truth.

It's not so much about interpretation, but about understanding. You might say "the sky is blue" is not open to interpretation, but if another passage says "the sky is red" then that has to be reconciled, and yes, there are such instances in the Bible where there are apparent contradictions, including your example of the land (see below).

Furthermore, not all English translations convey the same message. For example, the NIV does not support the Trinity doctrine, but the KJV does. Likewise the KJV interprets "hades" and "sheol" as hell almost every time, while the NIV often translates those words as "the grave". Sometimes "heaven" refers to the sky, sometimes not. Did Noah take two of each animal, or seven pairs of each?

The point is, generally speaking, simply agreeing on the meanings of words in scripture is not always so straight forward. Remember that the Bible was written by men, and then translated by men, not God, so there can be mistakes or inconsistencies. There can also be misunderstandings. For example, most people still think that Elijah went up to heaven without dying, though he clearly did not.

Having said that, I agree that they possessed all the land promised. It seems clear to me, but another might point to Joshua 13:1
When Joshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, “You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over.

Or 1 Kings 4:21 which states that Solomon ruled up to the border of Egypt...
And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt.
...but Genesis 15:18 states that they were promised the land beyond the border of Egypt, all the way up to the river.
To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates

These verses seem to indicate that they did not possess all the land promised, after all.

 

[GISMYS_7]

Who really wants to plant seeds of doubt about the truth of God's eternal living Word???

 

[Freedm]

Who really wants to plant seeds of doubt about the truth of God's eternal living Word???

When you say "God's eternal living Word", do you mean the Bible?

 

[ScottA]

When you hear or read long-winded rejection of what God's word states as truth, you must be hearing or reading a lie because God's word is truth. If a passage is misinterpreted, it does not take extensive explanation to demonstrate it. When a person rejects a clear statement of God's word, it is because he already has his belief, to which he sees God's word must conform. Example -

"So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." (Josh 21:43-45 ASV) See also Josh 23:14-16

God's word states "they possessed it", the "it" being ALL the land promised. It does not say, they failed to possess it to the full degree, nor does it say they just began to possess it; nor does it say they could have fully possessed it, "if".

To emphasize it, God's word reads "There failed not" anything promised... "all came to pass". Can language be any more clear that what is agreed upon by the various translations. It is true that God sometimes can state something accomplished when it means it is sure of accomplishment because it is God who promised it. That is covered in the following -

"I will not drive them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become desolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." (Exod 23:29-30 ASV) * NOT part of the land

Why do these prophecy blow-hards deny God's word? It is because they already have their man-made system that states that Israel has not fully possess all the land promised to her, now some 3500 years after it is recorded in Joshua as a fact in that day. Further, Joshua is dated around 1400 BC and the following statement from 1 Kings is about 435 years later -

"Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry. And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life." (1Kgs 4:20-21 ASV)

Another passage dated approximately 450 years after Joshua is in 2 Chron. 9:22ff -

"So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. And they brought every man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, armor, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. And he ruled over all the kings from the River even unto the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt. And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycomore-trees that are in the lowland, for abundance. And they brought horses for Solomon out of Egypt, and out of all lands." (2Chr 9:22-28 ASV)

It is clear that Israel HAD ALREADY possessed all the land promised to her by God in the days of Solomon, some 435-450 years after the statements of the fact in Joshua.

The claim that Tyre and Sidon were in the promise of land is unfounded, and any maps I've seen of the promised land to not include Tyre and Sidon. Prepositions can be tricky but "to" and "unto" does not mean "included" in reference to Tyre and Sidon! There is even question about the exact location and names/identity of Tyre as well as territory covered.

WHY DO SOME PROPHECY FANATICS REJECT GOD'S WORD? IT REFUTES THEIR MAN-MADE SCHEME THAT SAYS THE PROMISE OF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ACCOMPLISHED AND IS STILLL AWAITING ISRAEL'S FULL POSSESSION now some 3500 years after Joshua. I BELIEVE GOD, NOT THE NUTTY SYSTEMS OF MEN!

My wife does the same thing when someone asks for directions, even when they don't. She, who has a poor sense of direction will step up, often cutting in front of me to give her two cents worth giving no clear direction or help. But I love her...and yes, she has many other great qualities.

Unfortunately, that is a people trait. Crazy human stuff. People get one little grasp of a thing and want to tell others a thing or two like their some kind of expert, whether they are or not. And yes, when a Christian does it people get hurt all the more.

I should think that there is something missing in the new Christian equipping that is the charge of the church and its local leaders. I say local, because there is One Leader or Head of the church, and His equipping is quite clear--that women (which in context is the Bride of Christ men and women alike, meaning all the church) are to "be silent in church." What? Yes...and the point (and equipping) is that Jesus has arranged instead for the Holy Spirit to speak. But here comes the Bride, just like my own wife, and steps in front of the One who has good directions to give their own bit of something far less valuable or even confusing.

Go figure.

 

[Nancy]

As someone who has come to new understanding many times throughout my Christian life, I would just like to point out that the people you disagree with are not lying, nor rejecting God's word. They are simply understanding it differently. And yes, sometimes we, as Christians, will ignore (for lack of a better word) certain verses because they don't fit what we've already established in our minds to be true, but that is called cognitive dissonance and we're all susceptible to it.

When a presented fact does not fit with our already established facts, the dichotomy does not compute, so we have to discard one of the two facts. Naturally, most of us are going to discard the new fact, and hold onto what we've already established. This is human nature. It does not make one a bad person, or a liar, or a heretic.

In my experience, the only way someone is going to accept new facts is if they come into the conversation with an open mind. Some minds are more open than others, so when you come across a closed mind, insulting that person is not going to help. You're going to get frustrated yes, but the more you show your frustration, the more they close their mind. You can not open someone's mind, they have to do that on their own, but you can close it further, so be careful.

Hi Freedm,
Welcome to our site! I hope you will share more of the above "common sense" filled posts! One of the most logical, mature and well written post I've read in awhile on the agree/disagree subject.
Hope you enjoy.
God bless brother.

 

[ScottA]

It's not so much about interpretation, but about understanding. You might say "the sky is blue" is not open to interpretation, but if another passage says "the sky is red" then that has to be reconciled, and yes, there are such instances in the Bible where there are apparent contradictions, including your example of the land (see below).

Furthermore, not all English translations convey the same message. For example, the NIV does not support the Trinity doctrine, but the KJV does. Likewise the KJV interprets "hades" and "sheol" as hell almost every time, while the NIV often translates those words as "the grave". Sometimes "heaven" refers to the sky, sometimes not. Did Noah take two of each animal, or seven pairs of each?

The point is, generally speaking, simply agreeing on the meanings of words in scripture is not always so straight forward. Remember that the Bible was written by men, and then translated by men, not God, so there can be mistakes or inconsistencies. There can also be misunderstandings. For example, most people still think that Elijah went up to heaven without dying, though he clearly did not.

Having said that, I agree that they possessed all the land promised. It seems clear to me, but another might point to Joshua 13:1
When Joshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, “You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over.

Or 1 Kings 4:21 which states that Solomon ruled up to the border of Egypt...
And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt.
...but Genesis 15:18 states that they were promised the land beyond the border of Egypt, all the way up to the river.
To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates

These verses seem to indicate that they did not possess all the land promised, after all.

Welcome Freedm!

Sorry, but there is quite a bit of misunderstanding if not error in that. Certainly, misunderstandings should be made clear.

Given the benefit of the doubt, yes there are contradictions in translations, but not in the scriptures. Such would-be contradictions are due rather to a misunderstanding of how different passages can and do actually reconcile; for God does not disagree with Himself, nor actually contradict Himself. Heaven forbid.

As for translations, indeed some do not even represent the truth at all. However, there are no coincidences to any of this. Yes, history will suffer the side trips and rabbit holes of such error, but it is not for naught. His strength is made perfect in weakness. But there is also another reason and purpose for all of this: "Sufficient for the day is its own trouble"--by design, that every generation equally faces the choice between life and death, blessing and cursing, that God has set before us all. This choice was not uniquely given to Israel, but was only made known by Israel, and yet applies to us all since the beginning and unto the end.

And none of this is the providence of men, not the scriptures by any translation, not by diligence of men or by error, not even times, but for better or worse are solely the providence of God. Ours is only to choose.

 

[Randy Kluth]

When you hear or read long-winded rejection of what God's word states as truth, you must be hearing or reading a lie because God's word is truth. If a passage is misinterpreted, it does not take extensive explanation to demonstrate it. When a person rejects a clear statement of God's word, it is because he already has his belief, to which he sees God's word must conform. Example -

"So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

The point to me is irrelevant. I believe the promise of possession to Israel was not something to be fulfilled and then ended. Israel's failures along the way were missteps and delays to their ultimate return to the land.

God will not complete judgment of Israel for their waywardness until many other nations have had their opportunity as being "chosen nations." The goal is to collect as many "chosen nations" as possible, and then to keep them as such.

But before that happens we know that there is an internal challenge to every one of these countries, including Israel. The time for judgment will come, and what had been a temporary possession of land will become a permanent possession of land, in my opinion.

 

[covenantee]

(Exodus 33:2). When it was time for the Israelites to inherit the Promised Land, God raised up Moses to bring His people out of slavery in Egypt and used Joshua to lead a military conquest of Canaan. The Promised Land includes modern-day Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, and Jordan, as well as parts of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq
Israel has yet to claim it all.

So Joshua and the Holy Spirit who inspired him were lying when they said:

"Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers".

 

[Freedm]

Welcome Freedm!

Sorry, but there is quite a bit of misunderstanding if not error in that. Certainly, misunderstandings should be made clear.

Given the benefit of the doubt, yes there are contradictions in translations, but not in the scriptures. Such would-be contradictions are due rather to a misunderstanding of how different passages can and do actually reconcile; for God does not disagree with Himself, nor actually contradict Himself. Heaven forbid.

As for translations, indeed some do not even represent the truth at all. However, there are no coincidences to any of this. Yes, history will suffer the side trips and rabbit holes of such error, but it is not for naught. His strength is made perfect in weakness. But there is also another reason and purpose for all of this: "Sufficient for the day is its own trouble"--by design, that every generation equally faces the choice between life and death, blessing and cursing, that God has set before us all. This choice was not uniquely given to Israel, but was only made known by Israel, and yet applies to us all since the beginning and unto the end.

And none of this is the providence of men, not the scriptures by any translation, not by diligence of men or by error, not even times, but for better or worse are solely the providence of God. Ours is only to choose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying that there can be no contradictions in scripture, because it is the word of God. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Keraz]

"Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers".

Sure; the Lord has given all of the holy Land to Israel. Obviously, He didn't mean the ethnic, Jesus rejecting Israelis, but the Spiritual Israelites, the peoples of faith and who trust in God and have accepted the Salvation offered by Jesus. Romans 9:24-26

God's word states "they possessed it", the "it" being ALL the land promised. It does not say, they failed to possess it to the full degree, nor does it say they just began to possess it; nor does it say they could have fully possessed it, "if".

Youi get a fail - for not reading all of what the Bible says about ancient Israel.
Read: Judges 1:18-36, it tells how every one of the 12 tribes failed to conquer the Canaanite peoples. They lived with them and that was the cause of their downfall, intermarriage and idolatry.

God's Promise will be fulfilled to His faithful peoples. John sees them worshipping God and the Lamb, as they live in peace and prosperity in ALL of the holy Land. Revelation 7:9

 

[covenantee]

Sure; the Lord has given all of the holy Land to Israel. Obviously, He didn't mean the ethnic, Jesus rejecting Israelis, but the Spiritual Israelites, the peoples of faith and who trust in God and have accepted the Salvation offered by Jesus. Romans 9:24-26

As confirmed in Joshua 21:43, God fulfilled His OT literal promise of the land to Israel. No dispen can deny that. In the NT, His promise is fulfilled spiritually in Christ and in those in Christ. Galatians 3:16,28,29; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Hebrews 1:1,2. There is no hint of a literal fulfillment in the NT because (1) It was literally fulfilled in the OT, and (2) It has been completely removed from the NT.

 

[jeffweeder]

As confirmed in Joshua 21:43, God fulfilled His OT literal promise of the land to Israel. No dispen can deny that. In the NT, His promise is fulfilled spiritually in Christ and in those in Christ. Galatians 3:16,28,29; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Hebrews 1:1,2. There is no hint of a literal fulfillment in the NT because (1) It was literally fulfilled in the OT, and (2) It has been completely removed from the NT.

Amen.
Peter, an ethnic Spiritual Israelite looked forward to inheriting the NHNE (land) where only the righteous dwell. He had no anticipation of inheriting the promise on the OHOE (old)



11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be [in the meantime] in holy behavior [that is, in a pattern of daily life that sets you apart as a believer] and in godliness [displaying profound reverence toward our awesome God], 12 [while you earnestly] look for and await the coming of the day of God. For on this day the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the [material] elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But in accordance with His promise we expectantly await new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

14 So, beloved, since you are looking forward to these things, be diligent and make every effort to be found by Him [at His return] spotless and blameless, in peace [that is, inwardly calm with a sense of spiritual well-being and confidence, having lived a life of obedience to Him]. 15 And consider the patience of our Lord [His delay in judging and avenging wrongs] as salvation [that is, allowing time for more to be saved]; just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him [by God], 16 speaking about these things as he does in all of his letters. In which there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the untaught and unstable [who have fallen into error] twist and misinterpret, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 Therefore, [let me warn you] beloved, knowing these things beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men [who distort doctrine] and fall from your own steadfastness [of mind, knowledge, truth, and faith], 18 but grow [spiritually mature] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be glory (honor, majesty, splendor), both now and to the day of eternity Amen.

 

[ButterflyJones]

Who really wants to plant seeds of doubt about the truth of God's eternal living Word???

Seriously?

 

[Patrick1966]

When you hear or read long-winded rejection of what God's word states as truth, you must be hearing or reading a lie because God's word is truth. If a passage is misinterpreted, it does not take extensive explanation to demonstrate it. When a person rejects a clear statement of God's word, it is because he already has his belief, to which he sees God's word must conform. Example -

"So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." (Josh 21:43-45 ASV) See also Josh 23:14-16

God's word states "they possessed it", the "it" being ALL the land promised. It does not say, they failed to possess it to the full degree, nor does it say they just began to possess it; nor does it say they could have fully possessed it, "if".

To emphasize it, God's word reads "There failed not" anything promised... "all came to pass". Can language be any more clear that what is agreed upon by the various translations. It is true that God sometimes can state something accomplished when it means it is sure of accomplishment because it is God who promised it. That is covered in the following -

"I will not drive them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become desolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." (Exod 23:29-30 ASV) * NOT part of the land

Why do these prophecy blow-hards deny God's word? It is because they already have their man-made system that states that Israel has not fully possess all the land promised to her, now some 3500 years after it is recorded in Joshua as a fact in that day. Further, Joshua is dated around 1400 BC and the following statement from 1 Kings is about 435 years later -

"Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry. And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life." (1Kgs 4:20-21 ASV)

Another passage dated approximately 450 years after Joshua is in 2 Chron. 9:22ff -

"So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. And they brought every man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, armor, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. And he ruled over all the kings from the River even unto the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt. And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycomore-trees that are in the lowland, for abundance. And they brought horses for Solomon out of Egypt, and out of all lands." (2Chr 9:22-28 ASV)

It is clear that Israel HAD ALREADY possessed all the land promised to her by God in the days of Solomon, some 435-450 years after the statements of the fact in Joshua.

The claim that Tyre and Sidon were in the promise of land is unfounded, and any maps I've seen of the promised land to not include Tyre and Sidon. Prepositions can be tricky but "to" and "unto" does not mean "included" in reference to Tyre and Sidon! There is even question about the exact location and names/identity of Tyre as well as territory covered.

WHY DO SOME PROPHECY FANATICS REJECT GOD'S WORD? IT REFUTES THEIR MAN-MADE SCHEME THAT SAYS THE PROMISE OF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ACCOMPLISHED AND IS STILLL AWAITING ISRAEL'S FULL POSSESSION now some 3500 years after Joshua. I BELIEVE GOD, NOT THE NUTTY SYSTEMS OF MEN!

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Patrick1966]

As someone who has come to new understanding many times throughout my Christian life, I would just like to point out that the people you disagree with are not lying, nor rejecting God's word. They are simply understanding it differently. And yes, sometimes we, as Christians, will ignore (for lack of a better word) certain verses because they don't fit what we've already established in our minds to be true, but that is called cognitive dissonance and we're all susceptible to it.

When a presented fact does not fit with our already established facts, the dichotomy does not compute, so we have to discard one of the two facts. Naturally, most of us are going to discard the new fact, and hold onto what we've already established. This is human nature. It does not make one a bad person, or a liar, or a heretic.

In my experience, the only way someone is going to accept new facts is if they come into the conversation with an open mind. Some minds are more open than others, so when you come across a closed mind, insulting that person is not going to help. You're going to get frustrated yes, but the more you show your frustration, the more they close their mind. You can not open someone's mind, they have to do that on their own, but you can close it further, so be careful.

Welcome!