Here's another possible explanation of this verse (Isa.65:20)



This was the conclusion I came to in looking at the verse. I was looking around the Internet when I came across the above. I was wondering if there were any translations which translated the verse this way, and the closest I came across was the CEV:



If we change "will be" to "would be" we would have:



which language would be make sense with the suggestion above.

Tom,

To me that rendering doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense to pick and choose Bible versions just to find one you can agree with. I would respect your position a little more if you actually delved into the Hebrew and found the King James did not translate properly. But here, picking a modern version "just because" you like it better for this particular verse seems inappropriate, especially in view of the fact that those modern versions have plenty of error introduced into them based on what their translators "liked better."

I guess what I'm saying is that I do not respect those translations. The NRSV is barely better than the Never Inspired Version, and the CEV? I have yet to post on a rather important flaw in these modern versions in the KJV-NIV thread, but when I get around to it, I would welcome your input. I feel our church leaders have dropped the ball in not informing our membership of the problems with the modern versions.

The part of the verse that you cannot escape easily is this:

"...the sinner, being an hundred years old, shall be accursed."

That is future tense, and in prophetic form, not conditional form. As you said yourself, and it is obvious to all of us, there will be no curse in heaven. Therefore, those statements I presented from our pioneers would seem correct in that they believed this 100-year period would come just before the ushering in of the New Earth, while sin was still present on this earth.

Speaking as if one would actually die or be cursed in Heaven would be senseless. That is the part that I most strongly object to.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It shows that a translator thought the suggested way of translating the verse is viable, which is what I was interested in ascertaining.



I don't think this is the right way of looking at it. Thoughts from one language don't translate one to one into another language. The fact that the KJV translated is one way, and another translator translated it another way doesn't make the KJV translation "incorrect." There's more than one way to translate things.



That doesn't mean the *Hebrew* can't be understood this way. That is, that fact that *English* distinguishes between tenses in a certain way doesn't mean that Hebrew does. To be even more specific, the question is if the suggestion by Ty Gibson (that I quoted above) is a viable interpretation based on the Hebrew. My Hebrew isn't good enough to answer that question, so the best I can do is comment that the explanation he suggested is the same conclusion I came to.

This is another one of those texts to where there's a lot of different interpretations offered. I'm certainly open to change my mind if I come across an explanation which makes more sense, taking into account the context and other things written in inspiration.

I looked at some other things on-line, where it was brought out that the point of the text was not that there would be sinners in the new earth, but that there would be no premature death. This makes more sense to me than that there will be sinners in the new earth, which seems to be the alternative.

Verse 17 says:



which brings out that the context is the new earth, which is after the destruction of the wicked. So how could there be any sinners dying?

Thanks to some help back home, I now have the scans of a few pages from the book which answered the question on this 100 years verse.

In 1911, the Pacific Press published a book - Questions Answered - compiled by the editor, Milton C. Wilcox, gathered from the "Question Corner" of the Signs of the Times. The book was later updated/reprinted in 1938, and most copies existent today are likely from that second printing.

As the book is a compilation, this does not tell us who (which pioneer) might have held this particular view, and answered the question. However, it may be possible to find the material in the archives of the "Signs of the Times."

I'm attaching the scans to this post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't know why, but it seems that the attachments have messed up with the width of page 2 of this thread.

There's no problem here, but if you see a problem, feel free to make adjustments.

(Note: I'm using Firefox 3.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe it is only an IE problem, which, if so, I will see if it can be fixed on my end.

I will take a look at it with Firefox.

One hundred years, with the saved being inside the city and the wicked outside the city? Those among the wicked who died very sick and old will be raised to life bearing "the traces of disease and death" (GC 662). Yet most of them will be able to live longer after the millennium than before it! And the righteous, within the city, will behold their relatives blaspheming God during 100 years! Could there be a greater nonsense than this theory?

Rosangela,

You have exhibited very nearly my own first reaction to the hearing of this theory. The trouble is, when once you have heard the theory, everything else you see will seem to match it, and after a while, you find yourself agreeing with it, if for no other reason because you have no evidence against it. There seems to be nothing in the scriptures or Ellen White to refute it, for they, if anything, support it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i would think, since it was in the signs, that it was a general view, but not really "taught".

whether it will literally be a hundred years or not we do know that it will take time for them to build weapons, train an army, etc.

after the flood God provided that plants and trees would immediately reclaim the earth. i havent collected the quotes referring to the second coming and the destruction yet, but they will need some kind of materials to construct weapons. i would think, after a 1000 years, everything would be pretty much decomposed.....