Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

quote:

---

lol....this is why debating with you is futile.

---

Well it is for people who keep saying silly things and then bitterly complain when it is pointed out. If you took the time to carefully consider what you are saying - and to read the Bible properly - you might not do so poorly.

quote:

---

now you are even twisting my words. I never claimed that solomon was not the one being spoken of in the verse...i have repeatedly said that Solomon was the one to build the temple as per the scripture says.

---

2 Samuel 7:11-13 refers to a person who is a son of David, who will succeed David to the throne when David dies and who will build the Temple. Do you not agree that this is Solomon ? So how can you say of these very verses: Isn't it clear that there is a reference to Solomon in there ?

quote:

---

What i have said is that the 'indefinitely lasting kingdom' spoken of in that verse is not a reference to Solomon but to the Messiah AND that the 'throne' is what will be established, not Solomon.

---

That would be the kingdom of the son of David, who succeeds David to the throne when David dies and who will build the Temple. Isn't that Solomon and not the Messiah ?

quote:

---

actually its not a reasonalble inference for the reason that the throne was always Davids and the kingdom would always be called the 'house of David'.

---

So when it talks about the throne of Solomon's kingdom it doesn't mean Solomon's throne ? Why not ?

quote:

---

it is absolutely relevant because PD proclaimed that the bible does not say or imply that tit was Gods throne. The scriptures I posted showed clearly that the Isrealites viewed the throne as belonging to God. It was a theocracy! Theocracy means 'God Rule' and the king was bound by the laws of God.

​

So you can keep denying that the isrealites viewed the throne as Gods throne, but the writings of the isrealites themselves prove otherwise.

---

I didn't say that the Israelites did NOT view the throne as God's in some sense. I asked how it was relevant. Meaning how it was relevant to the argument. If it was not, then it really doesn't matter much to this discussion.

quote:

---

the early followers of Jesus did not live the life of outcasts because they felt like being persecuted....they lived such a life because they were eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus life. They witnessed his miracles, heard his teachings, saw his death and most importantly, witnessed his resurrection from the dead and they were 100% convinced that he fulfilled the role of the Messiah...that he was the messiah.

---

Whether or not Jesus successfully fulfilled the role of Messiah is precisely what is at issue in this discussion. So pointing to things that the Messiah is - according to you - supposed to do, but which Jesus had not done hardly helps your case.

quote:

---

Lets say that is the case, Jesus is the Messiah, then we can expect some very great things in the near future. The role of messiah is not complete yet, he still has work ahead of him and until that time, no one can say that he has failed.

---

Of course if there is no Messiah (as seems likely) it will never be "complete" in your sense. There is no reason to wait for something that will probably never happen, rather than simply looking at the evidence we do have and coming to a conclusion based on that.

And still you don't address the text.

quote:

---

Oh no, am I going to need to extract from you as we did Paul exacally what your position on God and Gods alleged word is or is not?

---

The beauty of it is that the words are there for all to see despite one's belief system or lack there of. I laid out my analysis of the text in Message 284. The text does not tell us that God wrote the account. God does speak in the story, but the text does not tell us that God was directing all aspects of the story. If you disagree with my analysis, then show me where the text supports your position.

quote:

---

You speak as if you dont believe the bible can be taken as one text. As I explained to Paul anyone can look at one verse and derive any conclusion they wish, especially if they percieve it as a work of a man or group of men with no particular direction except thier own.

---

The Bible is a compilation of writings by several different authors, covering various ages. Yes, anyone can look at one verse and derive any conclusion they wish. Mankind has done this since they put chisel to stone. That is why you have been asked to address the text and show how we are supposedly misunderstanding what was written. You haven't provided that analysis.

quote:

---

here is a simple question. If the throne is not Gods throne as the other passages Peg has quoted indicate and ascribe, then what are the scriptures? Are they a work of men or are they work of God through men.

---

I don't know what passages of Peg's you are referring to and am not going to guess. Again, I laid out my analysis in Message 284.The CEO of a company has his position of authority. Managers within that company have their positions of authority. Managers can come and go, but that doesn't change the authority of the CEO.In the Judeo/Christian Religions, God is the CEO. David would be equivalent to a manager. God promised that David and subsequently his descendants through Solomon would manage the Nation of Israel as long as they behaved. They didn't behave. They lost Israel and were allowed to continue managing Judah, but eventually lost that also. Once the kingdoms fell to Gentiles, the position of manager was gone because Israel was no longer an independent nation with a government to manage. None of this affects the authority of the CEO (God). God has his own seat of authority. David was not given God's seat of authority. David was given his own seat of authority from God.So the Messianic prophesies are essentially saying that God is going to reinstate that managerial position because Israel will be a nation again.Now if you want to argue that the promise made to David ended and the messianic prophesies are making a new promise, I would entertain that possibility and analyze the text; but I disagree that Jesus fulfills the promise made in 2 Samuel 7:13.

quote:

---

My and Pegs mind work as if the scriptures are the word of God, completely. If that is not what you expected can please tell me how you expected our minds to work

---

As I said before; Show me that the throne spoken of in 2 Samuel is separate from David or his heirs through Solomon. You haven't shown us that yet.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Hi Paul. If you understood that the corroborated relative scriptural harmonious whole must be applied so as to fully understand individual texts, you would understand why it has not happened yet, why the phenomenal 19 century global dispersement and the return and re-establishment of Israel relative to the forever throne which was to be in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount; you would understand why the nations have been drawn into the Middle East where the re-established Israel is: you would understand the relevance of the anti-Christ (ian) Islam Jihad and you would understand all of the other corroborated fulfilled or fulfilling prophecies relative to the end times at hand just before that forever throne would become reality.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Can a Christian please show me where scripture mentions dual prophecies? Thanks.

quote:

---

If you read the bible as a whole, you would understand what the throne meant. How did the isrealites understand it? How about the kings themselves?

---

I do understand what the throne means in 2 samuel 7:13. In the context of 2 Samuel 7:13, the throne is just that; a throne that the king of Israel sat on a reigned from. By "his kingdom" it is referring to the kingdom that the king governs. This takes nothing away from God. The Israelites are still God's people. You are the one who claims otherwise and have yet to explain how the story supports your view of the throne.

quote:

---

Moses told the Isrealites that when they starting asking for a king they couldn't choose one for themselves, God would choose the king. And the king could not make his own laws for the isrealites, he would have to impart the laws of God because the throne he was sitting on was not his, it was Gods and he would sit as a representation of Gods rulership over the nation.

---

Since you didn't reference the scripture, I only have the above and I don't see that God said the throne the king was sitting on was not the king's own. As with any ruler, the throne, IOW the position not the physical throne, is the king's until the king's reign is over. The human king's job is to govern the people using God's laws.

quote:

---

the bible does not agree with you

​

Jeremiah 3:17 In that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and to her all the nations must be brought together to the name of Jehovah at Jerusalem

​

Jeremiah 14:20 We do acknowledge, O Jehovah, our wickedness, the error of our forefathers, for we have sinned against you. 21 Do not disrespect [us] for the sake of your name; do not despise your glorious throne

​

Ezekeil 43:7 And He went on to say to me: Son of man, [this is] the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I shall reside in the midst of the sons of Israel to time indefinite

---

These verses are not referring to the position of human king as 2 Samuel 7:13 is. That is the issue you are missing.As I tried to illustrate to EMA, there are levels of management. The use of the word throne in the Bible isn't automatically referring to the same position or thing.

quote:

---

1chronicles 29:23 " Solomon began to sit on Gods throne"

---

The kingship is described in many different ways, but it is still referring to the job of human king the same as 2 Samuel 7:13.

quote:

---

the thing is PD, you read one scripture and try to put a meaning to it rather then taking the whole bible into consideration before drawing your conclusions.

​

this is a fatal flaw in your reasoning on the scriptures because the bible is a coherent whole and needs to be read in whole. In MSG 284, you give a rundown of the scripture about David but then immediately apply it to Solomon.

​

????

​

How did you manage that? Seriously? Just take a look

---

Languages have certain rules. If they didn't then they would be useless, IMO. Pronouns are used to replace nouns within sentences, making them less repetitive and mechanic. I would like you to show me how the verse does not refer to Solomon in the same way I showed who was speaking and who was being spoken of. Break it down. The pronouns can only refer to the nouns within the sentence. As for why this refers to Solomon, aside from the other scriptures I have provided earlier confirming that it is Solomon (Message 131); the one who builds the temple is the one who will succeed David. That was Solomon. The one who will succeed David is the one whose kingdom will last for a long time. So within the rules of English show me otherwise.

quote:

---

The LORD declares to you (David) that the LORD himself will establish a house for you (David)

​

The throne was already in existence because David was sitting on it. So God is declaring that Davids kingdom is going to be firmly established.

---

The verse does not imply firmness; just established.

quote:

---

You have to remember that God made a covenant with David and here in Davids old age, God was reassuring him that his kingdom and the covenant that God had made was going to come to fruition. The covenant was so binding that centuries after Davids death God said at Jeremiah 33:20-21 ‘If you people could break my covenant of the day and my covenant of the night, even in order for day and night not to occur in their time, likewise could my own covenant be broken with David my servant so that he should not come to have a son ruling as king upon his throne.’

​

Notice there is no mention of Solomon in that scripture? This is because the verse in Samuel is the promise to David that his existing kingdom would last forever and one of his decendents would appear who would be the messiah.

---

And I showed in Message 228 that that speech by Jeremiah was not in the Septuagint. It was a later addition.

quote:

---

This is why the gospel account mentions the Angels words to mary about Jesus birth in Luke 1:32
"This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father.

---

The throne of David is nothing more than human kingship over Israel. Jesus didn't do that.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

EMA writes:

quote:

---

My and Pegs mind work as if the scriptures are the word of God, completely.

---

Circular reasoning. You cannot use the Bible as proof of the Bible. While inconsistency in the text is evidence that it isn't legit, the fact that it is internally consistent is not evidence that it is valid. The Iliad is internally consistent, but I don't see you claiming it is an accurate description in every detail of what happened in Troy.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

how about you explain how the covenent that God made with David fits into the scripture. then we can discuss it.

quote:

---

Hi Paul. If you understood that the corroborated relative scriptural harmonious whole must be applied so as to fully understand individual texts, you would understand why it has not happened yet...

---

Yawn. We've discussed this in the past. Your arguments were shredded because you DIDN'T pay attention to what the Bible says. Or the context.The reason why it hasn't happened is simple. The prophecies were wrong.

quote:

---

how about you explain how the covenent that God made with David fits into the scripture. then we can discuss it.

---

We are discussing the Davidic Covenant. I'm not sure what you're asking or mean by fits. Scripture is already written. No fitting is necessary. How dogma stacks up against the scripture is what we've been arguing. We are studying what the Bible actually says. I say the promise made to David concerning his dynasty ended due to the bad behavior of his descendants and you disagree. As I said to EMA: Now if you want to argue that the promise made to David ended and the messianic prophesies are making a new promise, I would entertain that possibility and analyze the text; but I disagree that Jesus fulfills the promise made in 2 Samuel 7:13.You seem to have difficulty accepting that covenants are contracts that are conditional. Throughout the Bible we see that covenants with God can come and go as God pleases. According to the writers of the Bible, Israel and her kings didn't follow God as they should have and God took back some promises. Even Jeremiah says these promises are conditional and you have been shown this earlier in this thread. (See Message 196) This verse is in the Septuagint. Message 228The promise in 2 Samuel 7:13 that we call the Davidic Covenant was restated many times in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Through all these references it is made clear that the promised job of human king over God's chosen people is conditional and the promise that the job would be held by one of David's descendants is also conditional. We have shown you those verses. Message 131BTW, Solomon was considered a son of God. These are all from the Septuagint. While reading the Septuagint I noticed that 1 Chronicles 29:23, which you shared earlier, is written differently than standard Bibles. If we look at 2 Samuel closer we see that the kingship is not the only promise God had Nathan pass on to David. That promise didn't last for Israel either, supposedly because of behavior.God giveth and God taketh away. Of course the promise to David is useless when it comes to Jesus. You agree that Jesus was not Joseph's biological son. Message 238 I explained in Message 125 that Jewish adoption in that age isn't like ours today, especially when it comes to the royal line. The NT text also doesn't say that Mary is from the line of Judah, let alone David. Her relative Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron.It isn't my job to mesh what's written in the Bible with your position. It is your job to show us that what is written in the Bible supports your position.Oddly enough, I've given you a way out of this promise corner that shouldn't conflict with your belief system or the messianic prophecies. It still doesn't help Jesus because the prophecies still require a person who governs, but at least you wouldn't need to twist the rules of grammar.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

You can use the Bible as proof of the Bible, if you are having a Biblical discussion in a Biblical context. As I told the atheistic PaulK, our goal here is not to demonstrate at this point whether the scriptures are the word of God, but to look at the totality of scripture, AS OUR ILLUSTRIOUS ORIGINATOR OF THE THREAD INDICATED, we should, to determine the qualifications of Jesus Go back and read the OP, understand the nature of the discussion from that standpointThere is no indication in the OP as to why we should not assume for argument sake we are dealing with t he word of God as a whole, or atleast we may proceed in that manner, without everyother line by skeptics, stating, it isnt real anyway.The idiocy, which proceeds in a discussion, assuming that these are simply the works of men, with no inspiration from and of God, is both a waste of time and and will result in total chaos from an argument standpoint, for those that believe that it is actually a total work of God. Believing God is nowhere in the process is profitable for nothing such a discussion, for anyone could ascribe any meaning they wish to any passage or text. If however the scriptures are viewed on a whole as Gods Word, the discussion will have some simlitude of relevanceIf one views the fulfillments in Jesus as stricly physical items to be determined at every turn, approaching it from a work of men, then most if not all of the meanings will be missed. Samething for the Old Testament as wellAs I explained to Paul and PurpleD many times now, God never intended Israel to have a king other than himself, he never intended there to be ONLY a physical kingdom, even though there existed a physical aspect of it represented in physical formEarly on God said to Samuel, "Give them all thier hearts desire, because they have not rejected you, they have rejected me, THAT I MIGHT REIGN OVER THEM."I believe kings reign correct?Only a humanist or the psuedo-theologian, not paying any attention at all will not put the above passage together with 2 Samuel 7:13, to see that they are speaking about the same thing. One is speaking about one aspect of it at one point, the other is speaking about the same kingdom at another point addressing another issue, yet, the same kingdom and throne.Its eventually all about God and Samuel makes that point clear very early in thier historyThis is why I pressed paul to give me his position on what he believed the scriptures actually were. From that point he quickly lost the discussion and had virtually nothing left to say on the matter.It is not my intention to press people on that issue to aggrevate or be rude, there is simply no logical way to proceed if there is not a common frame of reference.i do not believe the Iliad is a work of God, therefore we have no discussion or common frame of reference, to examine it, as to its application to real world affairs. It is internally consistent with mythological items, so who cares what it has to say in relation to real world events, or the success of this person or that personThis is why I say, that for you and myself to have discussion about issues you believe (I think) are mythological is a waste of your time and mine.You had a better discussion, I watched in times past with that delightful Bertot fellow about axioms. I could be wrong, but I dont believe this is really an area where you are going to have much success. however, I could be wrong, if you feel an atheist approach is warrentedPerhaps you could explicate your views Rrhain, on the Word of God contained in the scriptures, Is it actually the work of God or the work of men?If it is the word of God, could that explain the connection of writers, words, thoughts and ideas across a long period of time?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Wrong again, it always refers ultimatley to God or comes back to God and when you quit being purposely obstinate, you will acknowledge that simple truthYour levels of management (theory) are the first and only attempt you have ever made to me, that you believe the scriptures are the Word of God. Even this illustration is a weak indirect answer to the direct question I put to you concerning the word of GodIs your implication here and in your previous post to me an indication, that you actually believe the scriptures, Old or new or both are the word of God? Is this what you are trying to void saying in so many words and illustrations. How can I know if you wont tell me plainlyJust like the ark, the tabernacle and the judges, the THRONE is a representation of Gods rule over Israel. Notice carefully in context of 1 Samuel chapter 7, whos throne it actually is, starting verse 8 Notice how God uses the word, Judges, house, and other terms as if they refer actually to him and his kingship and rulership. Actually we could say any rulership God gave to anyone, was only temporary and limited.You know in your heart of hearts PD, its all just about God, whether we are tallking about a specific person, an aspect f the throne, timeline of some physical aspect of the throne, timeline of some human that will sit on some physical, throne, who built this or that, or whatever else. you know these are just vain attempts to avoid the fact that God is the ruler, God is the king, the kingdom is his and, all the other facts in this connectionEven if one isolates a verse like 7;13 and tries to strangle out of it some specific meaning, which you are justified in doing in some respect, THE CONTEXT OF NOT ONLY THIS BOOK, but all other passages presented by Peg and your vain attempts and word usage and verbose rambling, will not allow any other interpretation, than it is actually Gods throne, Gods purpose and intentions through time.there is nothing wrong with identifying certain specfic aspects and points in specfic passages, but the TEXT TRUMPS the individual verse. the context, is that it is MY PEOPLE, MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, MY JUDGES, MY TABERNACLE, MY ARK, MY THRONE, MY TEMPLE, MY KINGDOM and MY KINGSHIP You fellas are simply my insturments to complete MY WILL. And MY WILL is that the throne and the kingdom will continue forever and it has in the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ, who was and is the very God that spoke to Nathan, Samuel and David. It came full circle, as if it would notAgain pointing to the fact that often times the word throne is refering to a person or persons does not allivate you of your problem concering the context and verses quoted above by Peg that CLEARLY INDICATE AND DESIGNATE, who is actually the king and what is involved in context as king of Israel.from this aspect alone you have been demonstrated to be in error and have demonstrated certain sidetracking techniques to avoid that obvious point
Nice try though PDEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Just like the ark, the tabernacle and the judges, the THRONE is a representation of Gods rule over Israel. Notice carefully in context of 1 Samuel chapter 7, whos throne it actually is, starting verse 8

---

When used figuratively a throne represents royalty, power authority. Physically it is a seat usually used by royalty. Only when the word is used in the correct way in a sentence would it refer to God's authority. I've shown several times that within the grammar of the sentence in 2 Samuel 7, the throne represents the position of the human king. (Message 284) You haven't shown grammatically that it doesn't.The writer(s) of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles present the Ark of the Covenant as being God's throne. (2 Sam 6:2, 2 Kings 19:15, 1 Chr 13:6, Is 37:16) That is the representation of God's power, not the king's seat.

quote:

---

you know these are just vain attempts to avoid the fact that God is the ruler, God is the king, the kingdom is his and, all the other facts in this connection

---

Just like the CEO and manager or Owner and Plant Manager. The owner owns the company, but someone has to run it, to deal with the people. God did not deal directly with the people. Remember in Exodus they didn't want to hear the booming voice. Yes an owner can remove a person from a leadership position, which BTW is exactly what God did, but when the person is in the position it is that person's job, not God's. That person works for God, but that person is in the seat of authority for that job. In the case of 2 Samuel 7:13, it is the job of human king over Israel.Because of Israel and Judah's misbehavior and the misbehavior of their kings, God pulled the plug on the kingdom business. All the kings fired and a hostile takeover by another kingdom.The Hebrews were still God's people, but they didn't have a government of their own. They were governed by their oppressors.

quote:

---

there is nothing wrong with identifying certain specfic aspects and points in specfic passages, but the TEXT TRUMPS the individual verse. the context, is that it is MY PEOPLE, MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, MY JUDGES, MY TABERNACLE, MY ARK, MY THRONE, MY TEMPLE, MY KINGDOM and MY KINGSHIP You fellas are simply my insturments to complete MY WILL. And MY WILL is that the throne and the kingdom will continue forever and it has in the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ, who was and is the very God that spoke to Nathan, Samuel and David. It came full circle, as if it would not

---

Yes, the overall concept of the Bible books is the everything belongs to God.Like the owner of a company. In our jobs we know the chair and desk don't belong to us, but to the company. When we leave the position, those stay behind; but while we are in the job they are considered ours. When the boss says, "Go to your desk", I know he is talking about the desk in the office, not the desk I own at home.When I take another job in the company, that desk is no longer mine even though I'm still with the company. Just as Solomon's descendants lost Israel. They still had the position over Judah, but not Israel.The throne referenced in 2 Samuel 7:13 refers to the position of human king and you haven't shown otherwise. That position was conditional. The messianic prophecies say Israel will have a king again. IOW, they will have their own government again and someone to govern them. Jesus didn't govern.As I've pointed out several times. For ever doesn't mean without end. Message 173

quote:

---

Again pointing to the fact that often times the word throne is refering to a person or persons does not allivate you of your problem concering the context and verses quoted above by Peg that CLEARLY INDICATE AND DESIGNATE, who is actually the king and what is involved in context as king of Israel.

---

Again using basic reading and grammar skills, those verses were not referring to the position of human king. The kings are gone, the temple destroyed.

quote:

---

from this aspect alone you have been demonstrated to be in error and have demonstrated certain sidetracking techniques to avoid that obvious point

---

Sidetracking techniques.

thats right i do disagree with you because that is not what the bible says.I have shown you about 3 times how Jeremiah...a prophet who lived hundreds of years after Davids (and Solomons) death... wrote that Gods covenent with David would not be broken and would still see a fulfillment. these words were given at the time when Nebudchudnezza was about to destroy jerusalem and remove the last king of Judah, zedekiah. So Gods plan was still current. The covenent with David to have a righteous man for his throne was still ahead. The covenent had not ended at all.You do realise that David died faithful? So for what reason would God have to renig on his covenant with David? None.Show me scripture that says that the covenant with David had been abandoned.

quote:

---

thats right i do disagree with you because that is not what the bible says.

---

But it is what is written in the Bible.

quote:

---

I have shown you about 3 times how Jeremiah...a prophet who lived hundreds of years after Davids (and Solomons) death... wrote that Gods covenent with David would not be broken and would still see a fulfillment.

---

And just as many times I have shown you that Jeremiah 33:14-26 is not in the Septuagint. I provided a link with supporting information. (See Message 228). You didn't address that issue.I also provided the verses from Jeremiah that are in the Septuagint that say God does change his mind when circumstances change. You didn't address that issue either.

quote:

---

these words were given at the time when Nebudchudnezza was about to destroy jerusalem and remove the last king of Judah, zedekiah. So Gods plan was still current. The covenent with David to have a righteous man for his throne was still ahead. The covenent had not ended at all.

---

Read the article "The Jeremiah Scroll" that I linked to in Message 228 and quoted.

quote:

---

You do realise that David died faithful? So for what reason would God have to renig on his covenant with David? None.

---

Contracts usually end with the death of the other party. The promise to David concerning his descendants being on the throne was contingent upon their behavior and that is the way they understood the promise. Message 131

quote:

---

Show me scripture that says that the covenant with David had been abandoned.

---

I've shown you that before also. You didn't respond. See Message 197.Even Psalm 89 reflects that the people felt God had renounced the promise. Message 199I've been quite patient, now it is your turn to address the text as I requested in Message 320. In Message 322 you said: how about you explain how the covenent that God made with David fits into the scripture. then we can discuss it.Although I said I didn't understand what you meant by fits (I tried), you didn't bother to explain. So it is your turn to address the text.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

no, its what your interpretation of one verse in one book says is writtenWhat is actually written in the bible is the opposite of what you have stated. Over and over again we see the mention of Davids covenant being repeated and God himself saying that the covenant is a sure thing.What you are doing is taking one verse out of context and out of harmony with the rest of the bible and making a claim that is contradictory to many other scriptures. The Greek Septuagint is said to be shorter than the Hebrew text by about 2,700 words thus the majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation is defective....not the hebrew text itself.Why are you so sure that you are not basing this on an incomplete manuscript? Im sorry but this passage does not say that Davids covenent has been abandoned. This passage is a warning to Solomon and his decendents that they must obey God the way David did otherwise the kingdom will be taken from them.But it doesnt say anything about the kingdom being taken away from David. In fact it says in Vs 5I also shall indeed establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel to time indefinite, just as I promised David your father, saying, ‘Not a man of yours will be cut off from [sitting] upon the throne of Israel.Where does God say that Davids covenant will be thrown out? No, Psalm 89 does not relfect this idea at all.
It tells us that Davids coventant is sure while its his SONS who will be cut off if they transgress.
It is also a prophetic description of the Messiah. David and the covenant God made with him forshadowed the messiah and his role as the future king. This Psalm is speaking of both david and the Messiah as being assured of Gods promise and his covenant. The remainder are now speaking of a different set of circumstances. These verses are describing, not only the times when the kingdom of Judah would be defeated by enemy nations, but also about the Messiah and the death he would experience at the hands of his enemies.
So it is completely unrelated to the covenant of the previous verses. If you dont understand the covenant, then it is very clear why you keep applying the everlasting kingdom to Solomon.The sons of David were not the ones with whom the covenant was made which is why God could cut any of them off for lack of obedience. But David himself was promised that one from his line would take the throne and rule on it forever.What human could rule on a throne forever? None.But the Messiah was more then human, he was a mighty spirit person who would reside in heaven and so he could rule on the throne forever.Jesus christ was that faithful man who was resurrected to heavenly life and given the throne of david his father. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.