Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

    Sometimes the phrase "new earth" is used in the Bible, yet the context is nothing at all like a new planet earth, because the SAME places exist in the new earth. Hopefully this discussion will shed some light on what is meant by a "new earth".

    Isaiah 65 mentions the regathered Israel in a time of blessing, and specifically states that the place Sharon and the Valley of Achor will be used for flocks and herds. If these old places exist in the new earth, how can it be a new earth?
    Isaiah 66 also describes a new earth, yet describes the same dead bodies from that final war (Isaiah 66:23-24)

    Obviously the way we use the phrase "new earth" is nothing like the way the Bible uses it, because a new planet is not even hinted at in those 2 chapters. Let's look at how the Bible uses that Hebrew word "erets" in other situations:

    Jos 13:7 divide this LAND for an inheritance unto the nine tribes
    Psalm 74:7 They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the GROUND.
    Isaiah 21:9 Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the GROUND
    Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large COUNTRY; there shalt thou die

    Consistently the word erets means land/ground, but sometimes context is small (fell on the ground) , and sometimes huge (the waters covered the whole earth). If we use CONTEXT to decide what is actually in mind, then this explains the contradiction in Isaiah 65/66. The phrase "new land" means something like this:

    India was a new country after independence. Mozambique was a transformed landscape after the flood.

    These type of descriptions would suit the Isaiah 65/66 situation. It is the same planet, but with some transformations at the beginning of the Messianic Age. This explains why the phrase "new land" is used, referring to a renewed landscape and renewed nation.

  • #2
    Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

    Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Sometimes the phrase "new earth" is used in the Bible, yet the context is nothing at all like a new planet earth, because the SAME places exist in the new earth. Hopefully this discussion will shed some light on what is meant by a "new earth".

    Isaiah 65 mentions the regathered Israel in a time of blessing, and specifically states that the place Sharon and the Valley of Achor will be used for flocks and herds. If these old places exist in the new earth, how can it be a new earth?
    Isaiah 66 also describes a new earth, yet describes the same dead bodies from that final war (Isaiah 66:23-24)

    Obviously the way we use the phrase "new earth" is nothing like the way the Bible uses it, because a new planet is not even hinted at in those 2 chapters. Let's look at how the Bible uses that Hebrew word "erets" in other situations:

    Jos 13:7 divide this LAND for an inheritance unto the nine tribes
    Psalm 74:7 They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the GROUND.
    Isaiah 21:9 Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the GROUND
    Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large COUNTRY; there shalt thou die

    Consistently the word erets means land/ground, but sometimes context is small (fell on the ground) , and sometimes huge (the waters covered the whole earth). If we use CONTEXT to decide what is actually in mind, then this explains the contradiction in Isaiah 65/66. The phrase "new land" means something like this:

    India was a new country after independence. Mozambique was a transformed landscape after the flood.

    These type of descriptions would suit the Isaiah 65/66 situation. It is the same planet, but with some transformations at the beginning of the Messianic Age. This explains why the phrase "new land" is used, referring to a renewed landscape and renewed nation.
    Great point. I concur. A "New Earth" is not a new planet. It is a *reformed* earth. As we read elsewhere, God made the earth to last forever. Currently, the earth has the quality of temporalness--its future doom looms because the universe is by nature destructive. But that will apparently change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

      Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
      Sometimes the phrase "new earth" is used in the Bible, yet the context is nothing at all like a new planet earth, because the SAME places exist in the new earth. Hopefully this discussion will shed some light on what is meant by a "new earth".

      Isaiah 65 mentions the regathered Israel in a time of blessing, and specifically states that the place Sharon and the Valley of Achor will be used for flocks and herds. If these old places exist in the new earth, how can it be a new earth?
      Isaiah 66 also describes a new earth, yet describes the same dead bodies from that final war (Isaiah 66:23-24)

      Obviously the way we use the phrase "new earth" is nothing like the way the Bible uses it, because a new planet is not even hinted at in those 2 chapters. Let's look at how the Bible uses that Hebrew word "erets" in other situations:

      Jos 13:7 divide this LAND for an inheritance unto the nine tribes
      Psalm 74:7 They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the GROUND.
      Isaiah 21:9 Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the GROUND
      Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large COUNTRY; there shalt thou die

      Consistently the word erets means land/ground, but sometimes context is small (fell on the ground) , and sometimes huge (the waters covered the whole earth). If we use CONTEXT to decide what is actually in mind, then this explains the contradiction in Isaiah 65/66. The phrase "new land" means something like this:

      India was a new country after independence. Mozambique was a transformed landscape after the flood.

      These type of descriptions would suit the Isaiah 65/66 situation. It is the same planet, but with some transformations at the beginning of the Messianic Age. This explains why the phrase "new land" is used, referring to a renewed landscape and renewed nation.
      I agree with you, other Scriptures support this view, for example Psa. 78:69 "And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever". God created one planet earth and "refurbishes" it when necessary. He did this for example after Noah's flood, en will do so at the return of Christ.
      "Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
      a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
      rightly dividing the word of truth."
      2 Tim. 2:15

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

        Originally posted by Adonijah View Post
        I agree with you, other Scriptures support this view, for example Psa. 78:69 "And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever". God created one planet earth and "refurbishes" it when necessary. He did this for example after Noah's flood, en will do so at the return of Christ.
        Well said. Some other verses on that theme :

        Micah 6:2.“Hear, you mountains, the Lord’s accusation;
        listen, you everlasting foundations of the earth.

        Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

          Originally posted by randyk View Post
          Great point. I concur. A "New Earth" is not a new planet. It is a *reformed* earth. As we read elsewhere, God made the earth to last forever. Currently, the earth has the quality of temporalness--its future doom looms because the universe is by nature destructive. But that will apparently change.
          Thanks, I believe scripture points to this transformed earth both at the second coming, and then 1000 years later.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

            Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
            Sometimes the phrase "new earth" is used in the Bible, yet the context is nothing at all like a new planet earth, because the SAME places exist in the new earth. Hopefully this discussion will shed some light on what is meant by a "new earth".

            Isaiah 65 mentions the regathered Israel in a time of blessing, and specifically states that the place Sharon and the Valley of Achor will be used for flocks and herds. If these old places exist in the new earth, how can it be a new earth?
            Isaiah 66 also describes a new earth, yet describes the same dead bodies from that final war (Isaiah 66:23-24)

            Obviously the way we use the phrase "new earth" is nothing like the way the Bible uses it, because a new planet is not even hinted at in those 2 chapters. Let's look at how the Bible uses that Hebrew word "erets" in other situations:

            Jos 13:7 divide this LAND for an inheritance unto the nine tribes
            Psalm 74:7 They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the GROUND.
            Isaiah 21:9 Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the GROUND
            Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large COUNTRY; there shalt thou die

            Consistently the word erets means land/ground, but sometimes context is small (fell on the ground) , and sometimes huge (the waters covered the whole earth). If we use CONTEXT to decide what is actually in mind, then this explains the contradiction in Isaiah 65/66. The phrase "new land" means something like this:

            India was a new country after independence. Mozambique was a transformed landscape after the flood.

            These type of descriptions would suit the Isaiah 65/66 situation. It is the same planet, but with some transformations at the beginning of the Messianic Age. This explains why the phrase "new land" is used, referring to a renewed landscape and renewed nation.
            The following logic proves the NHNE in Isaiah 65/66 are the same NHNE in Rev 21-22. And if that is the case, what then?

            Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


            Obviously the first heaven and the first earth can only be referring to this present heaven and present earth. The text indicates only one thing follows the passing away of these, rather than multiple things, that being a new heaven and a new earth.


            The text in Revelation 21:1 does not say...And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, and the first new heaven and the first new earth passed away afterwards; and there was no more sea.

            Not what the text says, but that is obviously what one's interpretation says if one has the NHNE Isaiah 65/66 meaning a different one from that of the one in Revelation 21:1.

            It puzzles me as to why some don't also consider Isaiah 60? There is clearly NHNE context in that chapter, and in that chapter the following takes place within this era...Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

            Why would that be within NHNE context when it's obvious the NHNE are for forever? Could it be that the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE? At least it would make sense of Isaiah 60:12 if that were the case. I guess one can simply argue that it's only meaning the NHNE mentioned in Isaiah 65/66, and not the NHNE mention in Rev 21-22. Where I would then refer one back to this...The text in Revelation 21:1 does not say...And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, and the first new heaven and the first new earth passed away afterwards; and there was no more sea.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

              Originally posted by divaD View Post
              The following logic proves the NHNE in Isaiah 65/66 are the same NHNE in Rev 21-22. And if that is the case, what then?

              Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


              Obviously the first heaven and the first earth can only be referring to this present heaven and present earth. The text indicates only one thing follows the passing away of these, rather than multiple things, that being a new heaven and a new earth.


              The text in Revelation 21:1 does not say...And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, and the first new heaven and the first new earth passed away afterwards; and there was no more sea.

              Not what the text says, but that is obviously what one's interpretation says if one has the NHNE Isaiah 65/66 meaning a different one from that of the one in Revelation 21:1.

              It puzzles me as to why some don't also consider Isaiah 60? There is clearly NHNE context in that chapter, and in that chapter the following takes place within this era...Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

              Why would that be within NHNE context when it's obvious the NHNE are for forever? Could it be that the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE? At least it would make sense of Isaiah 60:12 if that were the case. I guess one can simply argue that it's only meaning the NHNE mentioned in Isaiah 65/66, and not the NHNE mention in Rev 21-22. Where I would then refer one back to this...The text in Revelation 21:1 does not say...And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, and the first new heaven and the first new earth passed away afterwards; and there was no more sea.
              You do make a good point there, but on the balance of logic the descriptions in Isaiah 65 and 66 match the land of Israel immediately after the second coming, and not 1000 years later. The dead bodies from the war against Israel are still there, the place names are still there, there are mortals with long life, yet Rev 21 has no more death.

              They are building houses in Jerusalem in Isaiah 65, yet the New Jerusalem is so massive, it takes up all of Israel, not just Jerusalem. Isaiah 65 describes the regathering of Israel at that time, which is a second coming event, not a post-millennial event.

              My conclusion is that although the land was renewed at the flood, and again at the second coming, these are partial renewals, still the first land. But at the millennium there will be a more dramatic change, the land "fled away" to such an extent there is no more sea.

              I know it's not entirely satisfactory, but that's my best answer. Isaiah 65/66 certainly looks like a partial second coming transformation, rather than a complete Rev 21 transformation of the land.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                Sometimes the phrase "new earth" is used in the Bible, yet the context is nothing at all like a new planet earth, because the SAME places exist in the new earth. Hopefully this discussion will shed some light on what is meant by a "new earth".

                Isaiah 65 mentions the regathered Israel in a time of blessing, and specifically states that the place Sharon and the Valley of Achor will be used for flocks and herds. If these old places exist in the new earth, how can it be a new earth?
                Isaiah 66 also describes a new earth, yet describes the same dead bodies from that final war (Isaiah 66:23-24)

                Obviously the way we use the phrase "new earth" is nothing like the way the Bible uses it, because a new planet is not even hinted at in those 2 chapters. Let's look at how the Bible uses that Hebrew word "erets" in other situations:

                Jos 13:7 divide this LAND for an inheritance unto the nine tribes
                Psalm 74:7 They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the GROUND.
                Isaiah 21:9 Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the GROUND
                Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large COUNTRY; there shalt thou die

                Consistently the word erets means land/ground, but sometimes context is small (fell on the ground) , and sometimes huge (the waters covered the whole earth). If we use CONTEXT to decide what is actually in mind, then this explains the contradiction in Isaiah 65/66. The phrase "new land" means something like this:

                India was a new country after independence. Mozambique was a transformed landscape after the flood.

                These type of descriptions would suit the Isaiah 65/66 situation. It is the same planet, but with some transformations at the beginning of the Messianic Age. This explains why the phrase "new land" is used, referring to a renewed landscape and renewed nation.
                Anybody who proposes that the earth will dissolve and be replaced will have to admit that he/she has overturned a number of scriptures.

                Psalm 78:69; "And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever."

                Psalm 104:5; "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

                Psalm 119:90; "Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth."

                1st Chronicles 16:30; "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

                Psalm 93:1; "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

                Psalm 96:10; "Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."

                Added to this, Canaan, part of the earth, say the Almighty in Genesis 17:8, "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

                So also Genesis 48:4 (KJV)

                The answer is in TWO places
                The Greek word for "New" means "made pristine"
                Hebrews 1:10-12, which quotes Psalm 102;
                10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
                11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
                12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."


                A "garment" in Parable is one's works (e.g. Rev.19:8). And verse 12 clearly shows that far from destruction, the earth will be "changed". We have the example in the Great Flood. It was still the same earth, but all evidence of what men were doing before it is gone. The earth that Noah stepped onto after the flood was a "new" earth. Even the weather had changed. Peter prophesies in 2 Peter 3:5-7;

                5 "For this they (the scoffers) willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
                6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
                7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."


                The SAME earth has seen (1) perfection when it was created (Isa.45:18) and the angels rejoiced (Job.38:4-7), (2) being covered with water and in darkness (Gen.1:2), (3) being covered with water at Noah's time, and will (4) be immersed in fire after the White Throne judgment.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                  Good points. Even the earth itself looks forward to Jesus' return.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                    Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                    If these old places exist in the new earth, how can it be a new earth?
                    The problem disappears when we discover "the land" made new is the believers themselves. Just as an example,

                    And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. Psa.1:3

                    In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Rev.22:2

                    This is why passages like Isa.65 don't only refer to the future, but the present,

                    They shall not labour in vain Isa.65:23

                    your labour is not in vain in the Lord. 1Cor.15:58

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      Great point. I concur. A "New Earth" is not a new planet. It is a *reformed* earth. As we read elsewhere, God made the earth to last forever. Currently, the earth has the quality of temporalness--its future doom looms because the universe is by nature destructive. But that will apparently change.
                      It has been changing,

                      Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2Cor.5:17

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                        Originally posted by journeyman View Post
                        The problem disappears when we discover "the land" made new is the believers themselves. Just as an example,

                        And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. Psa.1:3

                        In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Rev.22:2

                        This is why passages like Isa.65 don't only refer to the future, but the present,

                        They shall not labour in vain Isa.65:23

                        your labour is not in vain in the Lord. 1Cor.15:58
                        Sure we are a new people, a new kingdom. That occurred at salvation when we joined the kingdom of God.

                        But prophetic precedent shows us that whenever prophets speak of wars to come, these wars actually occur in a very literal manner. The Assyrians, the Babylonian, the Romans, these were not symbolic wars, but very real wars.

                        The Bible predicts a great war to come at the second coming, a northern army, also from the East. This army is to attack Israel. With such a strong biblical precedent of literal wars, it would be incorrect hermeneutics to see this future war as a symbol.

                        Now this war is associated with precise place names, Megiddo, Jehosaphat etc. In addition the world after the war is also associated with precise place names, there is absolutely no reason to suddenly see symbols in detailed prophecy whenever the Bible contradicts your position.

                        Zech 14 describes this war, and refers to surviving nations.

                        Joel 2/3 describes this war, and the subsequent ravines of Judah, the holiness in Mt Zion and Jerusalem, the desolation of Egypt and Edom.

                        Ezekiel 38/39 describes this war, followed by chapters 40-48 which have exact tribal allocations to certain areas, and describes locations in the Dead Sea which are no longer dead, and can be fished.

                        Isaiah 34 describes the post-war wasteland of Edom in some detail.

                        There is no reason for God to give unnecessary detail if all these chapters are symbolic, there will be a literal major war against Israel, and the blessed world after that war is described in the Bible.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                          Originally posted by Adonijah View Post
                          I agree with you, other Scriptures support this view, for example Psa. 78:69 "And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever". God created one planet earth and "refurbishes" it when necessary. He did this for example after Noah's flood, en will do so at the return of Christ.
                          Yet God is building his sanctuary now,

                          In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: Eph.2:21

                          This is why Peter says the ungodly will say,

                          Where is his promised return? 2Pet.3:4

                          They're unaware of how God formed the earth out of water (baptism 1Pet.3:20-21). The earth will be transformed at the return of Jesus, but it was also changed before that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                            Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                            Sure we are a new people, a new kingdom. That occurred at salvation when we joined the kingdom of God.

                            But prophetic precedent shows us that whenever prophets speak of wars to come, these wars actually occur in a very literal manner. The Assyrians, the Babylonian, the Romans, these were not symbolic wars, but very real wars.

                            The Bible predicts a great war to come at the second coming, a northern army, also from the East. This army is to attack Israel. With such a strong biblical precedent of literal wars, it would be incorrect hermeneutics to see this future war as a symbol.

                            Now this war is associated with precise place names, Megiddo, Jehosaphat etc. In addition the world after the war is also associated with precise place names, there is absolutely no reason to suddenly see symbols in detailed prophecy whenever the Bible contradicts your position.

                            Zech 14 describes this war, and refers to surviving nations.

                            Joel 2/3 describes this war, and the subsequent ravines of Judah, the holiness in Mt Zion and Jerusalem, the desolation of Egypt and Edom.

                            Ezekiel 38/39 describes this war, followed by chapters 40-48 which have exact tribal allocations to certain areas, and describes locations in the Dead Sea which are no longer dead, and can be fished.

                            Isaiah 34 describes the post-war wasteland of Edom in some detail.

                            There is no reason for God to give unnecessary detail if all these chapters are symbolic, there will be a literal major war against Israel, and the blessed world after that war is described in the Bible.
                            Well my friend, the war the Messiah fought was very real. And the battle believers are involved in is very real. The idea that the Messiah would defeat powers far above flesh and blood wasn't apparent to the scribes, but it's the truth of the scriptures.

                            The big war doesn't occur when Jesus returns. When Jesus returns, that's when the war ends. If you want to discuss prophecy, pick one. Don't pick 2 or 3 or 10.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: *ISAIAH AND THE NEW EARTH*

                              Originally posted by journeyman View Post
                              Well my friend, the war the Messiah fought was very real. And the battle believers are involved in is very real. The idea that the Messiah would defeat powers far above flesh and blood wasn't apparent to the scribes, but it's the truth of the scriptures.

                              The big war doesn't occur when Jesus returns. When Jesus returns, that's when the war ends. If you want to discuss prophecy, pick one. Don't pick 2 or 3 or 10.
                              Yes definitely we are in a spiritual war, that concept does not infer we are ghosts in a spiritual world. We have flesh and blood, this world is full of corrupt leaders, Christians get physically persecuted, wars actually occur, and Jesus will actually come again to put order and morality and fairness into this corrupt world.

                              Even in Daniel's day, Daniel describes wars in the heavenlies, but also predicts actual wars and the rise and fall of kingdoms, and these occurred literally, with that as our precedent we can expect a final literal war exactly how the Bible describes it.

                              I'm not sure why I should only pick one prophecy to discuss. Multiple prophecies add strength to a case.

                              The war is in progress when Jesus returns to save Jerusalem. Joel 2 indicates the war comes first, then the repentance of Israel and God's intervention.

                              Zech 14 indicates the war comes first, the nations come against Israel, then God intervenes.

                              Ezekiel 38/39 predicts the war against Israel comes first, then the repentance and blessing of Israel.

                              In Rev 6, death by the sword comes first, then the leaders hide from the wrath of the lamb.

                              Rev 16 isn't as clear, describing the gathering armies at Armageddon, and end of the world events like the great earthquake, and hailstones.

                              The trumpets of Rev 9-11 describe the great army at the 6th trumpet, then the Messiah takes over the kingdoms of the world at the 7th trumpet

                              Zech 12 describes the same war, the nations attack Israel, and then God intervenes, and Israel enters a time of blessing.

                              With such a strong precedent of the prophets predicting actual physical wars, and these wars occurring, there is no reason to doubt that this massive army from the north and the east will attack Israel on the final day of this age.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X