Revelation 19- A major Key to understanding Revelations

tttallison said:

Then the question arises, why did Jesus preach to the dead?

Click to expand...

As far as the ot saints go they were saved by faith and in paradise.

The price had not yet been paid.
After the price was paid ( innocent blood) Jesus preached to them the good news.
They were resurrected by Jesus and so paradise moved to heaven.

For some reason, God finalizes people in resurrected bodies.
Whether saved or wicked.

OMC said:

The claim that appealing to Scripture is “just personal belief” or “not admissible evidence” collapses the moment you realize that every worldview stands or falls on its own authoritative source, and Jesus Himself grounded His identity, His mission, and His claims in the Hebrew Scriptures — not the Quran, not the Vedas, not Egyptian cosmology.
The reason Christians treat the Bible as evidence is not because “we like it,” but because Jesus treated it as God’s own testimony, repeatedly saying “It is written,” “Have you not read,” and “The Scripture cannot be broken.”
If you reject Scripture as evidence, you’re not rejecting my personal belief — you’re rejecting the very foundation Jesus used to prove who He was.
And yes, Jesus is in the beginning: John 1:1–3 explicitly identifies Him as the Creator, Colossians 1:16–17 confirms it, Hebrews 1:2–3 repeats it, and Revelation 1:17–18 seals it.
That’s not hearsay; that’s multiple independent witnesses inside one unified canon, all testifying to the same reality.
Other religious texts make competing claims, but they contradict both history and each other — the Bible’s claims are internally consistent, historically anchored, and tied to a Person whose resurrection is the single most attested event in ancient history.
So no — this isn’t “my belief,” and it isn’t “dead guys’ notes.” It’s the testimony Jesus Himself used, affirmed, and fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Lots talk but i want the real evidence .
I recall king s would say it is spoken ,let it be written .suppose when that king keep his spoken word that would be the evidence .

OMC said:

​

Revelation​

• Revelation 20:3 — “the nations” not deceived during the thousand years
• Revelation 20:8 — “the nations… Gog and Magog” after the thousand years

Isaiah​

• Isaiah 2:2–4 — nations flowing to the Lord
• Isaiah 11:10–12 — nations seeking the Root of Jesse
• Isaiah 19:23–25 — Egypt, Assyria, Israel blessed together
• Isaiah 60:3–12 — nations coming to Zion’s light
• Isaiah 65:20–23 — people living, dying, bearing children

Zechariah​

• Zechariah 14:16–19 — nations going up yearly to worship the King

Micah​

• Micah 4:1–3 — nations taught and judged by the Messiah

Psalms​

• Psalm 72:8–11 — all nations serving the Messianic King

Daniel​

• Daniel 7:14 — all peoples, nations, and languages serving Him
• Daniel 7:27 — dominion over all nations under Messiah’s rule

Joel​

• Joel 3:17–21 — nations surrounding Jerusalem after the Day of the Lord

Amos​

• Amos 9:11–12 — restored Davidic kingdom possessing the nations

Ezekiel​

• Ezekiel 36:22–36 — nations witnessing Israel’s restoration
• Ezekiel 37:21–28 — nations recognizing the Lord’s sanctuary among Israel

Click to expand...

Rev 20:3 and 8 show that obviously the nations cannot be deceived until AFTER the 1,000 years are expired. Don't leave out verse 7 either.
There is no indications that there a peoples/nations left alive on earth DURING the 1,000 years.

And the rest of your texts say nothing about the 1,000 years but would rather seem to indicate these things happen AFTER the New Earth is made.

frederickdoc said:

Lots talk but i want the real evidence .
I recall king s would say it is spoken ,let it be written .suppose when that king keep his spoken word that would be the evidence .

Click to expand...

Brother, when you say “Lots of talk but I want the real evidence,” you reveal the very problem Scripture confronts: you want evidence on your own terms, but God does not submit His truth to human standards of verification.
You compare divine revelation to a king saying, “It is spoken, let it be written,” and then claim the king keeping his word is the evidence — but that is exactly what God has done.
He spoke, He caused it to be written, and He fulfilled it in history.
That is the evidence.

Jesus Himself treated Scripture as the final court of appeal — “It is written,” “Have you not read,” “The Scripture cannot be broken.” He never pointed people to philosophical proofs, archaeological digs, or human logic as the foundation of truth.
He pointed them to the written Word and then validated it by fulfilling it.
When you reject Scripture as evidence, you are not rejecting my argument — you are rejecting the very method Jesus used to prove His identity.

And the resurrection — the central claim of the faith — is not “talk.” It is the most attested event in ancient history: multiple independent eyewitnesses, hostile witnesses, public appearances, empty tomb, transformed disciples, and a movement that exploded in the very city where the authorities could have crushed it by producing a body.
That is historical evidence, not religious preference.

So when you say you want “real evidence,” I need to correct you: the evidence God gives is the evidence He Himself chose — His Word, His fulfillment of prophecy, His incarnation, His resurrection, and His works in history.
You don’t get to redefine evidence to mean “whatever fits my preferred standard.” A king’s word becomes evidence when he keeps it; God’s Word becomes evidence because He kept every promise in Christ. That is not talk — that is truth, and Scripture commands you not to dismiss it

Davidstarr said:

Rev 20:3 and 8 show that obviously the nations cannot be deceived until AFTER the 1,000 years are expired. Don't leave out verse 7 either.
There is no indications that there a peoples/nations left alive on earth DURING the 1,000 years.

And the rest of your texts say nothing about the 1,000 years but would rather seem to indicate these things happen AFTER the New Earth is made.

Click to expand...

Your claim that “there are no indications that peoples/nations are left alive during the 1,000 years” is simply not true.
Revelation 20:3 explicitly says Satan is bound “so that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years are finished.” You cannot deceive nations that do not exist.
The text itself requires nations during the thousand years, not merely after.
Verse 7 reinforces the same timeline: Satan is released after the thousand years to deceive the nations — the same nations he was prevented from deceiving earlier.
You are trying to erase nations from the millennium, but the text puts them there twice.

Your second claim — that all the prophetic passages I listed “must refer to the New Earth” — collapses under their own context.
Isaiah 65:20 says “the child shall die at a hundred years old.” There is death in that passage. There is childbearing. There is sin.
None of that exists in the New Earth (Rev 21:4).
Zechariah 14 describes nations refusing to worship and being punished with drought — rebellion and discipline, neither of which exist in the New Earth.
Micah 4 describes nations beating swords into plowshares — a transition from war to peace, not the eternal state where war is already abolished.
Psalm 72 describes kings bringing tribute — political structures that do not exist in the New Earth.
Daniel 7 describes dominion over nations — but Revelation 21 says the nations of the New Earth are healed, not ruled in judgment. These passages describe a world with nations, governments, sin, discipline, death, pilgrimage, and worship — all realities that cannot exist in the New Earth.

Brother, I need to correct you plainly: you are forcing every kingdom passage into the eternal state because your system cannot allow nations to exist during the millennium.
But Scripture does allow it — and actually requires it.
Revelation 20 places nations before, during, and after the thousand years.
The prophets describe nations living, dying, worshiping, rebelling, and being ruled by Messiah.
None of that fits the New Earth.
You are not following the text; you are trying to protect a framework.

So I stand by what I said: the millennium has nations, the prophets describe nations under Messiah’s earthly reign, and the New Earth is a different reality entirely.
Your argument does not refute the passages — it simply ignores what they say

OMC said:

Brother, when you say “Lots of talk but I want the real evidence,” you reveal the very problem Scripture confronts: you want evidence on your own terms, but God does not submit His truth to human standards of verification.
You compare divine revelation to a king saying, “It is spoken, let it be written,” and then claim the king keeping his word is the evidence — but that is exactly what God has done.
He spoke, He caused it to be written, and He fulfilled it in history.
That is the evidence.

Jesus Himself treated Scripture as the final court of appeal — “It is written,” “Have you not read,” “The Scripture cannot be broken.” He never pointed people to philosophical proofs, archaeological digs, or human logic as the foundation of truth.
He pointed them to the written Word and then validated it by fulfilling it.
When you reject Scripture as evidence, you are not rejecting my argument — you are rejecting the very method Jesus used to prove His identity.

And the resurrection — the central claim of the faith — is not “talk.” It is the most attested event in ancient history: multiple independent eyewitnesses, hostile witnesses, public appearances, empty tomb, transformed disciples, and a movement that exploded in the very city where the authorities could have crushed it by producing a body.
That is historical evidence, not religious preference.

So when you say you want “real evidence,” I need to correct you: the evidence God gives is the evidence He Himself chose — His Word, His fulfillment of prophecy, His incarnation, His resurrection, and His works in history.
You don’t get to redefine evidence to mean “whatever fits my preferred standard.” A king’s word becomes evidence when he keeps it; God’s Word becomes evidence because He kept every promise in Christ. That is not talk — that is truth, and Scripture commands you not to dismiss it

Click to expand...

Not all people would say as you say bibles says lots of stuff Satan even says it is written so scripture keaves many in different meaning that plain to see in the temptations. Anyway if you undestand what was mentioned before There is much better evidence . Your looking at if the enemy? thats shows much cus There is more That will back The written word of Men.
Didnt jesus Say he has only that bears witness ? Heres a question What is The Last that written really last of ? If its of men would say Jesus is The Last King? Or final......?

frederickdoc said:

Not all people would say as you say bibles says lots of stuff Satan even says it is written so scripture keaves many in different meaning that plain to see in the temptations. Anyway if you undestand what was mentioned before There is much better evidence . Your looking at if the enemy? thats shows much cus There is more That will back The written word of Men.
Didnt jesus Say he has only that bears witness ? Heres a question What is The Last that written really last of ? If its of men would say Jesus is The Last King? Or final......?

Click to expand...

Brother, your statement is false — Scripture is not “just men’s words,” and Jesus never said He had “only one witness”; He said the Father, the works, the Scriptures, and John the Baptist all bear witness to Him, and the “last” that is written is not about Jesus being the last king but about the final revelation God gave in Christ, which He confirmed by fulfilling every word He spoke.

frederickdoc said:

Not all people would say as you say bibles says lots of stuff Satan even says it is written so scripture keaves many in different meaning that plain to see in the temptations. Anyway if you undestand what was mentioned before There is much better evidence . Your looking at if the enemy? thats shows much cus There is more That will back The written word of Men.
Didnt jesus Say he has only that bears witness ? Heres a question What is The Last that written really last of ? If its of men would say Jesus is The Last King? Or final......?

Click to expand...

Go with word as last .

OMC said:

Your claim that “there are no indications that peoples/nations are left alive during the 1,000 years” is simply not true.
Revelation 20:3 explicitly says Satan is bound “so that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years are finished.” You cannot deceive nations that do not exist.
The text itself requires nations during the thousand years, not merely after.
Verse 7 reinforces the same timeline: Satan is released after the thousand years to deceive the nations — the same nations he was prevented from deceiving earlier.
You are trying to erase nations from the millennium, but the text puts them there twice.

Your second claim — that all the prophetic passages I listed “must refer to the New Earth” — collapses under their own context.
Isaiah 65:20 says “the child shall die at a hundred years old.” There is death in that passage. There is childbearing. There is sin.
None of that exists in the New Earth (Rev 21:4).
Zechariah 14 describes nations refusing to worship and being punished with drought — rebellion and discipline, neither of which exist in the New Earth.
Micah 4 describes nations beating swords into plowshares — a transition from war to peace, not the eternal state where war is already abolished.
Psalm 72 describes kings bringing tribute — political structures that do not exist in the New Earth.
Daniel 7 describes dominion over nations — but Revelation 21 says the nations of the New Earth are healed, not ruled in judgment. These passages describe a world with nations, governments, sin, discipline, death, pilgrimage, and worship — all realities that cannot exist in the New Earth.

Brother, I need to correct you plainly: you are forcing every kingdom passage into the eternal state because your system cannot allow nations to exist during the millennium.
But Scripture does allow it — and actually requires it.
Revelation 20 places nations before, during, and after the thousand years.
The prophets describe nations living, dying, worshiping, rebelling, and being ruled by Messiah.
None of that fits the New Earth.
You are not following the text; you are trying to protect a framework.

So I stand by what I said: the millennium has nations, the prophets describe nations under Messiah’s earthly reign, and the New Earth is a different reality entirely.
Your argument does not refute the passages — it simply ignores what they say

Click to expand...

Read the other texts I posted above. Why should I have to repeat myself?

What you trying to do is create conflict in the plain teachings of scripture by using other texts redefined according to your own theologies.
I have heard these arguments before. Years ago even. You are sounding more and more like a parrot that cannot understand what he has been taught to say.

OMC said:

Brother, your statement is false — Scripture is not “just men’s words,” and Jesus never said He had “only one witness”; He said the Father, the works, the Scriptures, and John the Baptist all bear witness to Him, and the “last” that is written is not about Jesus being the last king but about the final revelation God gave in Christ, which He confirmed by fulfilling every word He spoke.

Click to expand...

OMC said:

Brother, your statement is false — Scripture is not “just men’s words,” and Jesus never said He had “only one witness”; He said the Father, the works, the Scriptures, and John the Baptist all bear witness to Him, and the “last” that is written is not about Jesus being the last king but about the final revelation God gave in Christ, which He confirmed by fulfilling every word He spoke.

Click to expand...

Why does it say Jesus has all authority? Earth as well heaven. how can you say revelation is Last in His meaning alpha Omega? See u use what you like to appear men is all that u put together.

8 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Click to expand...

Didnt fly cus the leaders couldnt see the Father! And still how long is jesus to be with The 12 and yet have not seen the Father . How do you see the father? Tell me that .

Davidstarr said:

Read the other texts I posted above. Why should I have to repeat myself?

What you trying to do is create conflict in the plain teachings of scripture by using other texts redefined according to your own theologies.
I have heard these arguments before. Years ago even. You are sounding more and more like a parrot that cannot understand what he has been taught to say.

Click to expand...

Brother, the heart of the issue is this: you’re treating prophetic and apocalyptic language as if it were a literal chronological map, and then accusing me of “creating conflict” because I refuse to force those images into a future earthly millennium.
Revelation 20’s “nations” language fits the present age and its final rebellion, not a post‑second‑coming world of surviving mortals; Isaiah 65 uses covenantal, poetic reversal to describe blessing, not a technical mortality chart; Zechariah 14, Micah 4, Psalm 72, and Daniel 7 blend historical imagery with eschatological hope the way prophets always do, telescoping restoration, Messiah’s reign, and final new creation into a single vista.
You’re insisting these must describe a literal intermediate kingdom because your framework demands it, but the New Testament places Christ’s reign now, Satan’s restraint now, the nations’ discipling now, and the final judgment and New Earth at the end. I’m not parroting anything; I’m refusing to let a system override the canonical flow of Scripture.

frederickdoc said:

Why does it say Jesus has all authority? Earth as well heaven. how can you say revelation is Last in His meaning alpha Omega? See u use what you like to appear men is all that u put together.

Didnt fly cus the leaders couldnt see the Father! And still how long is jesus to be with The 12 and yet have not seen the Father . How do you see the father? Tell me that .

Click to expand...

Brother, Jesus’ words in John 8, Matthew 28, and Revelation are not competing ideas — they are one unified revelation about who He is. When He says “all authority in heaven and on earth is given to Me,” He is declaring the present, total, universal reign of the risen Christ, not pointing to a future phase where He finally becomes King. When He says “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” He is not talking about Revelation being the “last” book or about Himself being the last king in a sequence — He is declaring that He is the beginning and end of all things, the source and the goal of all revelation. And when He says “I bear witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me,” He is not limiting Himself to one witness; He is revealing that true sight of the Father comes only through Him. The leaders could not see the Father because they did not receive the Son — and Jesus explains the key plainly: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” You see the Father by seeing Christ — His character, His works, His words, His authority — because the Son is the perfect image of the invisible God.

OMC said:

Brother, the heart of the issue is this: you’re treating prophetic and apocalyptic language as if it were a literal chronological map, and then accusing me of “creating conflict” because I refuse to force those images into a future earthly millennium.
Revelation 20’s “nations” language fits the present age and its final rebellion, not a post‑second‑coming world of surviving mortals; Isaiah 65 uses covenantal, poetic reversal to describe blessing, not a technical mortality chart; Zechariah 14, Micah 4, Psalm 72, and Daniel 7 blend historical imagery with eschatological hope the way prophets always do, telescoping restoration, Messiah’s reign, and final new creation into a single vista.
You’re insisting these must describe a literal intermediate kingdom because your framework demands it, but the New Testament places Christ’s reign now, Satan’s restraint now, the nations’ discipling now, and the final judgment and New Earth at the end. I’m not parroting anything; I’m refusing to let a system override the canonical flow of Scripture.

Click to expand...

I have never supported the idea of "a post‑second‑coming world of surviving mortals".
This is what you seem to be doing.
I gave the references where this world is totally emptied of all life as a result of Jesus' 2nd coming.
No intermediate kingdom during the 1,000 years.
Rev 20's millennium is found ONLY in Rev 20. And nowhere does it show the 1,000 year reign is on earth.

Davidstarr said:

I gave the references where this world is totally emptied of all life as a result of Jesus' 2nd coming.
No intermediate kingdom during the 1,000 years.
Rev 20's millennium is found ONLY in Rev 20. And nowhere does it show the 1,000 year reign is on earth

Click to expand...

Your claim is that the Second Coming leaves the earth completely emptied of life, citing Isaiah 24 and Jeremiah 4, and therefore no mortals remain to populate any earthly millennium; and since Revelation 20 is the only place the 1,000 years appear, and it never explicitly says “on earth,” the reign must be heavenly? Correct or no?

OMC said:

Brother, Jesus’ words in John 8, Matthew 28, and Revelation are not competing ideas — they are one unified revelation about who He is. When He says “all authority in heaven and on earth is given to Me,” He is declaring the present, total, universal reign of the risen Christ, not pointing to a future phase where He finally becomes King. When He says “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” He is not talking about Revelation being the “last” book or about Himself being the last king in a sequence — He is declaring that He is the beginning and end of all things, the source and the goal of all revelation. And when He says “I bear witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me,” He is not limiting Himself to one witness; He is revealing that true sight of the Father comes only through Him. The leaders could not see the Father because they did not receive the Son — and Jesus explains the key plainly: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” You see the Father by seeing Christ — His character, His works, His words, His authority — because the Son is the perfect image of the invisible God.

Click to expand...

not gonna post all the flaws you posted .
Just looking for the Aman absolute and dont see just like the disciples didn't see the father when they could See' touch Jesus.
but will say They just didnt know yet. suppose Jesus Lord will speak to All as Final evidence , to the blinded for whatever Reasons.

frederickdoc said:

not gonna post all the flaws you posted .
Just looking for the Aman absolute and dont see just like the disciples didn't see the father when they could See' touch Jesus.
but will say They just didnt know yet. suppose Jesus Lord will speak to All as Final evidence , to the blinded for whatever Reasons.

Click to expand...

the claim that “you’re just looking for the Aman absolute” and that the disciples “couldn’t see the Father even when touching Jesus” is not a flaw in the argument but a flaw in the accusation, because Jesus Himself rebuked that exact misunderstanding: “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not known Me? He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), meaning the problem was not lack of evidence but lack of recognition — the blindness was spiritual, not informational, and Jesus did not promise a future “final evidence” to the blinded but declared that the revelation was already complete in His person (John 1:18; Heb 1:3). Your statement that “they just didn’t know yet” is true, but not in the way you imply; they didn’t know because sight of the Father is granted only through receiving the Son, not through additional proof (John 8:19, 8:47). And when you say Jesus “will speak to all as final evidence,” you’re contradicting His own words: He said the generation that rejected Him would receive no further sign except the resurrection (Matt 12:39–40), and He said His voice is heard only by His sheep (John 10:27), not universally as a last‑chance revelation. The text is clear: seeing Jesus is seeing the Father, and blindness is cured by faith, not by future evidence.

OMC said:

the claim that “you’re just looking for the Aman absolute” and that the disciples “couldn’t see the Father even when touching Jesus” is not a flaw in the argument but a flaw in the accusation, because Jesus Himself rebuked that exact misunderstanding: “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not known Me? He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), meaning the problem was not lack of evidence but lack of recognition — the blindness was spiritual, not informational, and Jesus did not promise a future “final evidence” to the blinded but declared that the revelation was already complete in His person (John 1:18; Heb 1:3). Your statement that “they just didn’t know yet” is true, but not in the way you imply; they didn’t know because sight of the Father is granted only through receiving the Son, not through additional proof (John 8:19, 8:47). And when you say Jesus “will speak to all as final evidence,” you’re contradicting His own words: He said the generation that rejected Him would receive no further sign except the resurrection (Matt 12:39–40), and He said His voice is heard only by His sheep (John 10:27), not universally as a last‑chance revelation. The text is clear: seeing Jesus is seeing the Father, and blindness is cured by faith, not by future evidence.

Click to expand...

You flaws in words You texted! why you change subject? turn around. you have No words to give me so don't try

frederickdoc said:

You flaws in words You texted! why you change subject? turn around. you have No words to give me so don't try

Click to expand...

Brother, I didn’t turn anything around — I answered the claim exactly where you placed it, because the accusation itself was flawed. When someone says “the disciples couldn’t see the Father even while touching Jesus,” that is not my subject‑change; that is a contradiction of Jesus’ own words, and I’m obligated to anchor the correction in the text. Jesus didn’t say they needed more evidence, or a future final sign, or some Aman‑absolute revelation; He said the revelation was already present in Himself, and their blindness was spiritual, not informational. That’s why I quoted “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not known Me?” — because that is the exact rebuke Jesus gives to the exact misunderstanding you repeated. You said they “just didn’t know yet,” but Jesus says the reason they didn’t know was not lack of evidence but lack of receiving Him. You said He will “speak to all as final evidence,” but Jesus says the generation that rejected Him gets no further sign except the resurrection, and His voice is heard only by His sheep. That’s not me changing the subject; that’s me refusing to let the conversation drift away from what Jesus actually said

OMC said:

Brother, I didn’t turn anything around — I answered the claim exactly where you placed it, because the accusation itself was flawed. When someone says “the disciples couldn’t see the Father even while touching Jesus,” that is not my subject‑change; that is a contradiction of Jesus’ own words, and I’m obligated to anchor the correction in the text. Jesus didn’t say they needed more evidence, or a future final sign, or some Aman‑absolute revelation; He said the revelation was already present in Himself, and their blindness was spiritual, not informational. That’s why I quoted “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not known Me?” — because that is the exact rebuke Jesus gives to the exact misunderstanding you repeated. You said they “just didn’t know yet,” but Jesus says the reason they didn’t know was not lack of evidence but lack of receiving Him. You said He will “speak to all as final evidence,” but Jesus says the generation that rejected Him gets no further sign except the resurrection, and His voice is heard only by His sheep. That’s not me changing the subject; that’s me refusing to let the conversation drift away from what Jesus actually said

Click to expand...

Good try read better that was an example nothing to question yes turned around read it Again. I try this again anyway .open the eyes read very carefully and if you say anything stick to this layout please

• The Hebrew order: "...וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ..."
• Literal Translation: "...and they shall look upon me [Aleph-Taw] whom they have pierced..."

Why This is Profound

1. God is Speaking: In the context of Zechariah 12, the person speaking is Yahweh (the LORD God Almighty). He says they will look upon Me (God) whom they pierced. Since God is a spirit and cannot be physically stabbed, this points directly to God taking on human flesh.
2. The Signature at the Wound: The silent Aleph-Taw—the Beginning and the End—sits perfectly in the sentence right between the words "look upon me" and "whom they have pierced." It acts like a divine marker identifying exactly who is on that cross.
3. The New Testament Fulfillment

The Apostle John (the very Same author of John 8 was standing at the foot of the cross when Jesus was crucified. He watched a Roman soldier plunge a spear into Jesus's side.
Decades later, when John wrote his Gospel, he explicitly quoted this exact verse from Zechariah to prove Jesus was the Messiah:

"And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." — John 19:37 (KJV)

Click to expand...

John recognized that the pierced man on the cross was the walking Aleph-Taw, the ultimate second witness sent from heaven. Now we show you How John fuced a mistake in the translation of hebrew using Zachariah 12
The Greek translation of Zechariah 12:10 depends entirely on whether you look at the ancient Greek Septuagint (LXX) translated before Christ, or the New Testament Greek written by the Apostle John.
There is a fascinating linguistic shift between the two.

1. The Ancient Greek Septuagint (LXX)
When Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek around 200–300 BC, they struggled with the phrase "whom they have pierced" because the Hebrew text implies that Yahweh Himself was physically stabbed. To make sense of it, they translated the Hebrew word for pierced (daqar) metaphorically as "mocked" or "treated spitefully":

• The Greek Text: ...καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ’ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο...
• English Translation: "...and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me..."
• The Root Word: The Greek verb used is katorcheomai (κατορχέομαι), which literally means "to dance in triumph over" or "insult
• Because of this specific translation choice, the silent Hebrew Aleph-Taw (את) completely disappears in the Septuagint Greek. It is replaced by standard Greek grammar particles meaning "because of" or "on account of" (anth' hon).
  
  2. The New Testament Greek (John 19:37)
  The Apostle John was standing right at the cross when Jesus was stabbed. He knew the Greek Septuagint said "mocked," but he looked at Jesus's physical body and realized the original Hebrew text ("pierced") was being literally fulfilled.
  When John writes his Gospel in Greek, he bypasses the Septuagint translation and translates the Hebrew directly into Greek himself:
  • The New Testament Greek: Ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν.
  • English Translation: "They shall look on him whom they pierced." — John 19:37
  • The Root Word: John uses the precise Greek word ekkenteo (ἐκκεντέω), which means to pierce through, stab, or plunge a weapon into someone.
• 
  Summary: The "Missing Signature" Found
  In the standard Greek Old Testament, the verse focuses on Israel mocking God. But when the New Testament unlocks the verse, it reveals the literal piercing of the Son. John shows that Jesus is the living translation of the verse—restoring the physical wound where the Aleph-Taw sits in the Hebrew text