Incomprehensible stupidity!
My first version of this post was decidedly blistering. It's rare to find something so stunningly idiotic that you have to check yourself to see if you actually read it correctly. What follows is an edited version of my original post that is quite a lot less hostile....
So the passage leaps into the eternal state in verse 17, then apparently snaps back into the Millennium in verse 20? On what basis? It’s one thing to say prophetic literature can contain telescoped visions, but here, we're not dealing with overlapping layers of prophecy so much as a self-serving game of prophetic hopscotch. The passage itself gives no indication of supporting this idea at all.
Which only makes the previous claim more puzzling. The argument now is that Isaiah suddenly rewinds his prophetic lens, openly contradicts the tone of the previous verses, and introduces a new period with different ground rules. All without any textual marker, narrative shift, or prophetic reintroduction. It's just a hard pivot that we're expected to accept because Bladerunner makes the claim.
This part takes the cake. I mean WOW!!!
“The death I speak of is only caused by sin... therefore only Gentiles die.”
So only Gentiles sin? Is that really what Bladerunner believes? He talks of the bible in such lofty terms but ignores some of its most important passages in order to build an eschatology that ONLY HE believes!
I have a news flash for you Bladerunner! All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Jew and Gentile alike (Romans 3:23). If sin causes death, and people still die in the Millennium, then the death is the result of sin, not ethnicity. The attempt to draw this clean line where Israel gets an automatic exemption from death because of the New Covenant is pure fiction.
You've created a class of immortal Jews living among mortal, dying Gentiles, not because the text says so, but because...well, there is no "because"...it just seems to be made up out of whole clothe! Isaiah doesn’t say any of this. Jeremiah doesn’t say it. The New Covenant certainly doesn’t say it. But apparently, the best way to interpret a passage is to throw in entirely new theological categories on the fly and pretend it’s all self-evident because you showed up to tell us about it!
Well, what I actually got out of it was a reminder of just how far someone can drift from the text when they start building doctrine from implications of implications of assumptions. There’s nothing wrong with noticing thematic shifts or layered prophecy, but if you have to rewrite the plain reading, add whole classes of people that the passage never introduces, and contradict your own timeframe within three sentences, maybe it’s time to let the text speak for itself.
