Why People Stumble over Kingdom Now

[Asyncritus]

Re: It's all good..

No. He returned in the spiritual realm as King of Kings at the right hand of power- just like Jesus told the Jewish high priest He would & they would see Him coming in the power of the Father-

Got any proof?

which they denied. But indeed He was the King of the Jews (& came as a lion of Judah & not the sacrificial Lamb they killed)

They killed the Lion, and not the Lamb?

He told the apostles the "signs of the times" to look for. And they preached about Christ's return being imminent through the Holy Spirit which told them of things to come.

'Imminent' means 'about to happen'.

So it hadn't happened when they wrote that His return was imminent.

When did it happen?

Not us. But them They were told in that generation. Respect that & one will begin to understand prophecy correctly.

???

Jesus WILL NOT BE KING as you say in some future. He was offered that the 1st time & turned it down (John 6:15)

So He won't be king at all?

Read it & try to comprehend why Jesus will never want to be King on a literal earth.

The people rejected God in favour of Saul.

But God has chosen the King He wants - Jesus. And He WILL be king, whether you or they like it or not.

 

[Lehigh3]

Re: It's all good..

Got any proof?

Yea, if you'd study some history - you'd know.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]QUESTION: Did Jesus Christ return in AD 70 without fanfare?[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ANSWER: I wouldn't exactly call the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 an event “without fanfare.†Josephus mentions some loud voices and trumpet sounds being heard, as well as angelic armies being visible in the sky over Judea at the time of the Jewish revolt (AD 66-70). Jews today still commemorate it in some fashion in almost every joyous occasion they celebrate (the shattered goblet at Jewish weddings, and a special fast day every year in August (Tisha b'Av) are two ways in which they still remember the destruction). Rabbi Davis (from White Plains NY), in his opening remarks of his (1978?) lecture on “Post-Biblical Judaism,†commented that he would begin the study of post-Biblical Judaism with “the end.†Then he said, he would begin with AD 70., because AD 70 was “the end of Biblical Judaism†and the beginning of rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism. Josephus, a Jewish priest and one of the ten Jewish generals who started the war with Rome in 66 A.D., gives his eyewitness account of that gruesome judgment which Jesus said was, “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.†(Matt. 24:21) A few days later Jesus (at His trial) said the High Priest & the Sanhedrin, “shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.†(Matt. 27:64) Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius and the Talmud all record the FACT that God’s presence was perceived at that awesome destruction. They even record that angelic armies were seen in the clouds. -Edward E. Stevens[/FONT]

They killed the Lion, and not the Lamb?

Are you being silly now? They crucified Jesus as "the Lamb." The Lion of the tribe of Judah (see Revelation) returned & destroyed them.

'Imminent' means 'about to happen'.

So it hadn't happened when they wrote that His return was imminent.

When did it happen?

Imminent is what we call it. He was to return "soon" & "quickly" When Paul asked that the saints be sent to him "quickly" he didn't mean thousands of years later.
Note how God didn't tell Daniel his prophecy was "to take place shortly" But He said it was for "the end of the time" - a distant prophecy. So we gauge God's time to be clear & literal to us. He did create the sun & moon for our time, didn't He?

So He won't be king at all?

He is reigning as God now. Lord of Lords- King of Kings.

The people rejected God in favour of Saul.

But God has chosen the King He wants - Jesus. And He WILL be king, whether you or they like it or not.

Uh, the ppl selecting a king doesn't mean they were doing right- God just allowed it to be for them.

Whether I like it or not?! Well, friend, whether anyone realizes it or not- He rules the nations with a rod of iron NOW. He is the Judge of the universe.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

I believe you and I had this conversation before. It's because Kingdom now and Dominion theology are very close-knitted. Dominion theology brings some very unorthodox and heretical beliefs to the table that just shouldn't be tolerated.

But from what I've read from you so far, your belief about the kingdom closely matches that of Jeff's and neither one of you bring any of the other baggage to the table.

Fair enough - I will check out what is meant by Dominion theology. I am going to guess that it involves a kind of "triumphalism" that you and I would probably agree is not orthodox.

 

[TruthSeeker2012]

Re: It's all good..

...I agree that ultimately God's will WILL be done.. although He doesn't make evil happen.. ...

Then you have rejected Scripture and rejected certain verses you do not like.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

You have to make a choice..accept all of Scripture or none at all. You cannot reject and delete the verses you do not feel comfortable with.

And answer me these questions:

1. If I ran into a village and slaughtered and murdered all women and children, would you think I did an evil act? Yes or No?

2. If I threw a person into a burning fire and stood back and watched them burn in agony and didn't lift a finger to save them or to put out the fire, would you think I did an evil act? Yes or No?

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: It's all good..

Then you have rejected Scripture and rejected certain verses you do not like.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

You have to make a choice..accept all of Scripture or none at all. You cannot reject and delete the verses you do not feel comfortable with.

HI TS

Don't you think it might be a good idea to get your theology squared up before sounding off as you've done here?

We know that God tempts no man to do evil.

We know that He is :

Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: ...

We know that He is righteous

We know that He abhors iniquity

Given all that, and a lot like it besides, don't you think it might be a good idea to check out in the concordance what 'evil' means in Isa. 45.7?

Why not have a look? We can compare notes afterwards.

 

[TruthSeeker2012]

Re: It's all good..

HI TS

Don't you think it might be a good idea to get your theology squared up before sounding off as you've done here?

We know that God tempts no man to do evil.

We know that He is :

Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: ...

We know that He is righteous

We know that He abhors iniquity

Given all that, and a lot like it besides, don't you think it might be a good idea to check out in the concordance what 'evil' means in Isa. 45.7?

Why not have a look? We can compare notes afterwards.

1. Explain what you mean by "a good idea to get your theology squared up"?

2. Do you have perfect theological understanding and interpretation of entire Scripture? Yes or No? If no, then what parts of the Scripture have you theologically misunderstood and misinterpreted?

3. How can you say to me "a good idea to get your theology squared up" if you yourself admit you do not have perfect theological understanding and interpretation of entire Scripture?

4. Are you indication and claiming that the Bible Scholars who wrote and translated the KJV Bible got Isa 45:7 wrong? If so, are you fluent in Hebrew and a Hebrew Scholar who can prove their errors of the verse? Yes or No? If yes, then please provide your evidence.

5. Explain to me what this verse really says: (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Does it say the Lord creates evil? Yes or No? If no, then prove it me and everyone else, because the verse clearly says God creates evil.

6. When God commanded Moses to enter a village to slaughter and murder women and children, do you believe it was a good act? Yes or No?

7. If you saw me speaking with a man and you heard him command me to run into a village and slaughter and murder women and children, and you then saw me do it, would you claim our act was evil? Yes or No?

8. Tell me in your own words what "evil" means in the KJV Isa 45:7.

For the record, I believe God creates certain evil, e.g cursing the ground, commanding Moses to slaughter and murder women and children etc..but I believe those "evil" acts lead to the greater good will of God and final purpose of God's ultimate plan to expose Satan, sinners, sin. God is good, His plan is good, His main purpose is good, even through "evil acts". And besides, I accept WHOLE Bible, every verse as truth, and Bible clearly says God creates evil, and so I believe it. I don't select verses that I just like and ignore the ones I don't... I trust and accept ALL verses.. and when all verses in entire Bible are contextualized, they reveal a GOOD and JUST and LOVING and MERCIFUL GOD! And at the end of the days, when God will commit one of the worst "evil acts" known to history of mankind..by throwing the lost into the lake of fire where they will burn and scream in agony, I will be praising God and declaring Him a GOOD and JUST GOD and thanking him for cleansing the universe of all sin and for wiping my tears away, Rev 21:4.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: It's all good..

1. Explain what you mean by "a good idea to get your theology squared up"?

I mean that there may be a possibility that your understanding is wrong. Ther is also the possibility that it may be right - and the only way to square it up is to check it with other scriptures, isn't it?

2. Do you have perfect theological understanding and interpretation of entire Scripture? Yes or No? If no, then what parts of the Scripture have you theologically misunderstood and misinterpreted?

No I don't ,but since you don't either, there's room for some discussion, isn't there?

3. How can you say to me "a good idea to get your theology squared up" if you yourself admit you do not have perfect theological understanding and interpretation of entire Scripture?

I've just explained that.

4. Are you indication and claiming that the Bible Scholars who wrote and translated the KJV Bible got Isa 45:7 wrong? If so, are you fluent in Hebrew and a Hebrew Scholar who can prove their errors of the verse? Yes or No? If yes, then please provide your evidence.

Since the KJV is 400 years old, don't you think it's possible that the meaning they had in mind may have changed over the years?

5. Explain to me what this verse really says: (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Does it say the Lord creates evil? Yes or No? If no, then prove it me and everyone else, because the verse clearly says God creates evil.

Before I do that, I'd like to ask you to look in the concordance (a Hebrew one, such as the Online Bible has in it, or the Englishman's Hebrew Concordance will do nicely. I use the OLB because it's convenient and quick).

Then let me know what you see that the word ra means in the other places it's used. I don't want to bias your thinking on the subject.

How's that for proceeding sensibly?

 

[Eventide]

Re: It's all good..

Then you have rejected Scripture and rejected certain verses you do not like.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

You have to make a choice..accept all of Scripture or none at all. You cannot reject and delete the verses you do not feel comfortable with.

LOL... yeah ok.. I reject scripture.. What I actually reject is taking one verse out of its context and building a doctrine from it.

Do you actually believe that the LORD forced men to nail Him to a cross.. ? Seriously, do you believe that or do you believe that He foreknew it and allowed it to happen..?

And answer me these questions:

1. If I ran into a village and slaughtered and murdered all women and children, would you think I did an evil act? Yes or No?

2. If I threw a person into a burning fire and stood back and watched them burn in agony and didn't lift a finger to save them or to put out the fire, would you think I did an evil act? Yes or No?

I already did answer this and evidently you don't like it.. God HAS and WILL in the future judge wickedness.. NOW if He's the root cause of it, then how can He rightfully judge it as evil ?

 

[Eventide]

Re: It's all good..

You asked Drew: "you understand that 1 Cor 15 is within a future context.. the literal resurrection of the dead.."

Verse 24: "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power."

Here we see that Jesus will deliver "the kingdom to God the Father." How can he deliver something if he does not already possess it? This happens at the end, after Jesus destroys "every rule and every authority and power."

Again, don't you see that the context IS FUTURE..?

Should we just ignore the rest of scripture... things like Hebrews 2 which hasn't been answered ? ? Maybe I can ask you the same question..

In your opinion, according to Hebrews 2, where it says that NOW we see NOT YET all things put under Him.. So tell us, what HAS NOT YET been put under Him ?

This supports the idea that Jesus is King now. He wouldn't become King after handing over everything to the Father. And surely a King is precisely one who can and does destroy "every rule and every authority and power."

Jesus IS a King now, even the King of kings.. although how does that mandate that He is ruling the nations right now.. How's He going to judge them for their iniquity when He does come, if He's the one making the rules right now..?

Seriously... and why ignore the other portions of scripture which teach us plainly that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against the RULERS OF THE DARKNESS OF THIS WORLD... or how about John where he writes that the WHOLE WORLD lies under the SWAY of the WICKED ONE ? ? Or Paul where he writes that the god of this world has blinded those who believe not the glorious gospel of Christ.. ? ?

Should we just forget all that and sit back and say that this is God's rule.. all the wickedness, lawlessness, etc etc.. ? ? I can't imagine why anyone would think this..

 

[Drew]

For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

This one text, yes this single sentence, demolishes the notion that Jesus cannot be reigning as King right now because there is still evil in the world. The text does not establish that Jesus is reigning now, but it does prove that the presence of evil does not, in and of itself, rule out the possibility of His present rule, as so many seem to think.

The statement from 1 Corinthians 15 is of the following form “Fâ€:

Agent A must perform continuing action X until state Y has been achieved.

Who is agent A in the 1 Corinthians 15 text? Answer: Jesus

What is continuing action X? Answer: Reigning.

What is the state Y? Answer: The state where all enemies have been defeated.

There is simply no wiggle room here – the text proves that the reign of Jesus will indeed be “active†during a time when there are still enemies. This is simple English.

Here are examples showing that the 1 Corinthians 15 text can only be read such that the reign is active before all enemies are defeated:

For he must study until all credits required for graduation are achieved.

Is this student studying prior to getting all his credits? Of course he is.

For she must swim laps in the pool until the time equals 5 PM.

Is this person swimming prior to 5 PM? Of course she is.

For President Obama must negotiate until all a solution to the debt crisis is achieved.

Is the President negotiating prior to a solution being achieved? Of course he is.

I challenge any and all readers to provide any statement in English of the form “F†where the continuing action X is not “in forceâ€, or active, prior to the attainment of state Y.

Now here is another sentence "Drew will wait until an example is provided".

And, of course, it will be a long wait indeed.

 

[Drew]

Re: It's all good..

KINGDOM means The King's Domain... and right now the earth is not His domain.. it's Satans', who is the god of this present evil world.. and that's why the Lord is calling people OUT OF IT.. the whole world lies under the SWAY of the WICKED ONE.. although that will all change when the LORD comes and destroys the man of sin... and THEN shall the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.. until then, they're still Satans to give to all who will bow down and worship Him.

There is no Biblical support for all this, even though it is indeed widely believed:

1. The fact that Satan might be 'god of this world' does not make him King of this world - the Bible is clear that Jesus is indeed king.

2. The fact that the world is evil does not mean that Jesus cannot be reigning over it - "He must reign until all enemies are defeated";

3. The instruction that believes are to be "called out of this evil world" is merely a way of saying that we are to be set apart from the vast swathe of humanity that is not obedient to King Jesus. In no way does such a statement overturn what is otherwise so massively attested to in the Scriptures - that Jesus is indeed a presently reigning King.

 

[Drew]

And where are the rest of the saints.. where's Moses and Elijah and Jacob etc etc.. all the OT saints.. are not they supposed to be here with us.. that's what the LORD said right.. ? That they will sit down with Him in His kingdom..

Where are they ?

Assuming that there is indeed a statement to the effect that all these people will "sit down with us in the kingdom" - and I am confident that you are correct in pointing out that such a statement is indeed in the Scriptures - the fact that they are not here right now does not mean that, at some point, they will indeed appear and sit with us. So their present absence is not evidence that the kingdom is not here right now.

 

[Drew]

Where is He? (Remember, 'every eye shall see Him...')

If you are referring to the Revelation 1 text, you are actually helping establish that the kingdom is already here:

BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." 9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos....

This text clearly asserts that John understands himself to be a partaker in Jesus' kingdom. How do you explain this statement by John? Let's suppose that John believed that Jesus was not presently king. How, and please be specific, would you explain that John characterizes himself as a partaker in a kingdom that is "in Jesus"?

Are you going to say that this is a "spiritual" kingdom? I have always been amazed when people do that. When faced with a text they don't like, they feel that its OK to simply "invent" notions like a "spiritual-only" kingdom to rescue their position. I am not saying that you will take a such a line - we'll see.

While you are chewing on that, I will point out that this "every eye shall see Him" text could, repeat could be a poetic way of pointing out that, with the defeat of Jerusalem, and the rise of the post-resurrection church, Jesus was indeed "seen" back in the first century in the sense of being "seen to be the true Lord over all the world", even if not literally seen.

I suspect you may respond with the "every eye means every eye in the whole earth" line of thinking. Well, that does not work for two reasons. The first is that "every" does not always apply universally, depending on context. Consider this statement delivered by an angry coach to the members of the New York Yankees:

"I want to see everyone running 10 laps around the stadium"

Does the coach expect every human being to run these laps? Of course not.

But there is a much better reason as to why we should see this "every eye" allusion as being focussed more locally on the nation of Israel. And it is by understanding the Old Testament material that the Revelation text is drawing on. This material quotes from Zechariah 12:

I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have (B)pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one (mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11 In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; 14 all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves....

This material is clearly what John is drawing on:

1. In both texts, there is a "seeing" or a "looking" at one who has been pierced;
2. In both texts, there is mourning over such a person.

It stretches credulity to think that John is not invoking this text from Zechariah. And as you can see, the focus in Zechariah is on, yes, Israel. So it is a huge leap to imagine that John is talking about a "seeing of Jesus" by all humanity at some time in the distant future.

But even if you do challenge this "Israel" reading of the Revelation 1 text, remember that the Scriptures comprise a narrative produced by a specific people in a specific time. So a writer like John could easily use phrases like "all the tribes of the earth" to refer to his own local world of the Mediterranean basin. Despite what some may imagine, it is exceeding unlikely that all writers of Scripture were granted perfect knowledge of all things transcending their time (in this case, we can reasonably assume that John knew nothing of the existence of places like North America, Australia, etc.). So when he refers to "all the tribes of the earth" it is not likely he is thinking in such universal terms as you seem to suppose.

 

[Drew]

Re: It's all good..

Jesus IS a King now, even the King of kings.. although how does that mandate that He is ruling the nations right now..

Because this is simply what it means to be a King.

Imagine if I re-worked your statement as follows:

Mr. Obama is a president right now, but how does that mandate that he has goverrnmental authority over the citizens of the USA?

The point is that, of course, you cannot be the President without having such authority. Likewise, Jesus cannot be a King over the world and not have authority over the nations.

 

[Drew]

My point was not whether it should read "god of this age" or "god of this world," but rather that your understanding of what is being said is not necessarily correct. It could mean that, since there is no other god, Satan is the one the world follows or worships so as to set him up as god. It could mean that Satan is the leader of all that is wrong and evil in this age.

Right. To hang the "Jesus is not King, Satan is" position on the "god of this world" phrase would be like saying that Justin Bieber is the President of the United States simply because he is viewed as a "god" (sadly) by many people.

The term "god" is not a term of governmental authority, unlike the term "King".

 

[Drew]

Re: It's all good..

And when you've done saying 'in heaven' (or is there a theological nuance I've missed?) then please let me know what the Lord's Prayer means when it says

Thy kingdom come' thy will be done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN..
Are still to pray that way, or not?

I am pretty sure this has been answered already.

But here goes again. If ones begs the question and presumes that the kingdom arrives in a fully-realized state, then indeed you have an argument.

But, of course, it is a priori not only plausible that the kingdom will develop progressively, it is in fact certain that it will:

For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

I will not tire of pointing out what is obvious to all who understand what the word "until" means - the "reigning" is going on before all enemies have been defeated. The fact that Paul could have used the term "while" does not change the meaning of the world "until".

So, in the correct Biblical context - one where the Kingdom develops progressively, it is perfectly legitimate to pray for the kingdom to come - in the sense of praying for it to be more fully realized - even in a context when it is already here (albeit, in a less than fully consummated state).

 

[TruthSeeker2012]

Re: It's all good..

I mean that there may be a possibility that your understanding is wrong. Ther is also the possibility that it may be right - and the only way to square it up is to check it with other scriptures, isn't it?


No I don't ,but since you don't either, there's room for some discussion, isn't there?


I've just explained that.


Since the KJV is 400 years old, don't you think it's possible that the meaning they had in mind may have changed over the years?



Before I do that, I'd like to ask you to look in the concordance (a Hebrew one, such as the Online Bible has in it, or the Englishman's Hebrew Concordance will do nicely. I use the OLB because it's convenient and quick).

Then let me know what you see that the word ra means in the other places it's used. I don't want to bias your thinking on the subject.

How's that for proceeding sensibly?

That's not proceeding sensibly at all, because I have asked you to explain the verse to me seeing you are making a bold claim that the KJV translators and Bible Scholars got it wrong..yet you sidestep and run and hide from answering my questions, trying the old trick of getting me to answer your questions for you.

Now answer this:

1. Show me proof and evidence that the word "evil" has changed in meaning and in English literature since the KJV was written.

2. Tell me what translation has the "correct" translation for Isa 45:7.

3. Then tell me what Isa 45:7 is actually saying.

Now please stop sidestepping and running, and instead address my questions and backup your claims.

Thank you.

 

[TruthSeeker2012]

Re: It's all good..

LOL... yeah ok.. I reject scripture.. What I actually reject is taking one verse out of its context and building a doctrine from it.

Do you actually believe that the LORD forced men to nail Him to a cross.. ? Seriously, do you believe that or do you believe that He foreknew it and allowed it to happen..?



I already did answer this and evidently you don't like it.. God HAS and WILL in the future judge wickedness.. NOW if He's the root cause of it, then how can He rightfully judge it as evil ?

1. You claim the KJV Isaiah 45:7 is taken out of context! So I have a challenge for you.. put Isaiah 45:7 into proper context for me. I look forward to your reply.

2. Did God command Moses to slaughter and murder women and children? Yes or No? If no, then you reject Bible. If Yes, then tell me in your own words if that act was evil or good.

3. How will God judge Moses and Moses' acts when God had commanded Moses to slaughter and murder women and children?

I await your answers.

 

[Asyncritus]

If you are referring to the Revelation 1 text, you are actually helping establish that the kingdom is already here:

BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

Drew, I really do admire your fertile imaginativeness. Alas, it runs aground so often.

Did you notice the simple words 'WILL see Him'?

So let's, for the sake of the argument, agree that this is 'every eye in Israel'.

When, from John's time of writing, WILL, or DID EVERY EYE IN ISRAEL SEE HIM after His ascension?

Say John wrote in AD60.

At some point FUTURE to that, 'EVERY JEWISH EYE WILL SEE HIM' is the message of this passage.

When did they see Him, and WHERE IS HE NOW?

That passage was partially fulfilled at the crucifixion. John says so:

19.37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

But it was only PARTIALLY fulfilled, because there is much of that prophecy that has not happened yet, as you will be forced to agree.

Zech 12.9 ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

[Hasn't happened yet]

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

[a national, ethnic mourning for Christ - hasn't happened yet - or has it according to you?]

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13 the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart;
14 all the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
1 ¶ In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

[This will be the time when God will forgive ethnic Israel's sins. It hasn't happened yet]. So all this is yet future, isn't it?

8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." 9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos....

This text clearly asserts that John understands himself to be a partaker in Jesus' kingdom. How do you explain this statement by John?

Again you have failed to read your context. Here it is:

6 and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice anything odd about that statement, (which immediately precedes the one you're asking about)?

Yes, this is 'to be'. Meaning simply that it hasn't happened yet.

Here's confirmation:

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

[Clearly this includes people who AT THE TIME OF JOHN, hadn't been born yet. These are ALL THE REDEEMED].

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

[And when do you suppose that will be? If it includes ALL THE REDEEMED, then it MUST be considerably future to John's time. The kingdom hasn't come yet, Drew].

9 ¶ I John, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Let's suppose that John believed that Jesus was not presently king. How, and please be specific, would you explain that John characterizes himself as a partaker in a kingdom that is "in Jesus"?

A very important fact helps here:

Php 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,ESV

Php 3:20 For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: ERV

The redeemed are presumptive citizens of the Kingdom of God, and are as such presumptive heirs of that Kingdom.

Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

When will that be? When

31 ¶ ... the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

It is thus that John can say that he is a partaker of the kingdom and all else that goes with it, like the tribulation and dogged perseverance (patience) necessary before he gets there.

Are you going to say that this is a "spiritual" kingdom? I have always been amazed when people do that. When faced with a text they don't like, they feel that its OK to simply "invent" notions like a "spiritual-only" kingdom to rescue their position. I am not saying that you will take a such a line - we'll see.

I'm glad to hear that you now know me a bit better than that! You are justified in your opinion, as you've now seen!

I think I've answered the rest of your post in the material above, so I won't bore you with needless repetition.

If I've missed anything, please let me know.

Async

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: It's all good..

That's not proceeding sensibly at all, because I have asked you to explain the verse to me seeing you are making a bold claim that the KJV translators and Bible Scholars got it wrong..yet you sidestep and run and hide from answering my questions, trying the old trick of getting me to answer your questions for you.

Now answer this:

1. Show me proof and evidence that the word "evil" has changed in meaning and in English literature since the KJV was written.

2. Tell me what translation has the "correct" translation for Isa 45:7.

3. Then tell me what Isa 45:7 is actually saying.

Now please stop sidestepping and running, and instead address my questions and backup your claims.

Thank you.

I'd like you personally to 'square up' your thinking here.

I'll do the donkey work for you, and ask you what conclusions you come to about the word 'evil'. What does it mean from this list in the concordance:

Ex 5:19 And the officers of the children of Israel did see that they were in evil <07451> case, after it was said, Ye shall not minish ought from your bricks of your daily task.
Ex 10:10 And he said unto them, Let the LORD be so with you, as I will let you go, and your little ones: look to it; for evil <07451> is before you.
Ex 21:8 If she please <07451> not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Ex 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil <07451>; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
Ex 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief <07451> did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil <07451> against thy people.
Ex 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil <07451> which he thought to do unto his people.
Ex 32:22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief <07451>.
Ex 33:4 And when the people heard these evil <07451> tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments.
Le 26:6 And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil <07451> beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.
Le 27:10 He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad <07451>, or a bad <07451> for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.
Le 27:12 And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad <07451>: as thou valuest it, who art the priest, so shall it be.
Le 27:14 And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the LORD, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad <07451>: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand.
Le 27:33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad <07451>, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.
Nu 11:1 And when the people complained, it displeased <07451> the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
Nu 11:15 And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness <07451>.
Nu 13:19 And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad <07451>; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds;

A few more from Isaiah himself:

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil <07451> good, and good evil <07451>; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isa 7:5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil <07451> counsel against thee, saying,
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil <07451>, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil <07451>, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Isa 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil <07451>, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
Isa 31:2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil <07451>, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.
Isa 32:7 The instruments also of the churl are evil <07451>: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
Isa 33:15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil <07451>;
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil <07451>: I the LORD do all these things.
Isa 47:10 For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness <07451>: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.
Isa 47:11 Therefore shall evil <07451> come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know.
Isa 56:2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil <07451>.
Isa 57:1 The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil <07451> to come.

Note that when men do 'evil' that's one meaning. When God does it, it carries another meaning.

Now let me know what you think.