Results 101 - 120 of 146
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: benjamite Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | benjamite | 34544 | ||
I'm not sure that we'll ever see eye to eye on this. It seems like what you are saying is that there won't be a future, literal, physical, earthly reign of Christ. I see way too much evidence to the contrary. There is a lot of information here. I do not wish to bombard, but to present the evidence. Obviously, I see Revelation 20 as beeing yet entirely unfulfilled (and still future). Outside of this chapter, there is a bunch of evidence for an earthly reign of Christ (where He is physically present on the earth.) I see the first resurrection as that of the just (before the millennium), and the second as that of the unjust (afterwards). Romans 8:18-22 says that creation will be set free. (I see this as being before it is destroyed by fire - 2 Peter 3.) Isaiah 11 speaks of physical blessings that have yet to happen (I have yet to see a weaned child putting his hand on the viper's den). Also, Isaiah says that the nations rather than being "deceived" will resort to the root of Jesse. Isaiah 65 speaks of youth dying at the age of 100, yet it still speaks of death. Few people over the last two thousand years could even dream of reaching the century mark. In the new heaven and new earth, there will be no more death (Rev 21:4). Although John 18:36 says that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, it doesn't mean that it cannot be on the earth. (cf. John 8:23). Note also that Jesus says that we, believers, are "not of the world" (John 15:18-19). There are those who look at Luke 17:21 and say that the Kingdom has already begun. I would respond that the kingdom of God was "in [their] midst" because the King was there. Note also that in Acts 1:6, the disciples still had to ask if Christ was, at that time, going to restore the kingdom to Israel. If they were not still expecting a physical reign, they would not have asked. In Acts 3:19ff, Peter speaks of "times of refreshing". Note that it says "times", not just personal "refreshing". Also, we see that the sending of verse 20 is in contrast to the "receive" of verse 21. Note also the future "period of restoration". There is coming a day when the Lord will restore the Kingdom to Israel. (Acts 3:22-26) For these reasons, and others, it is my belief that Rev. 20 is yet to be fulfilled. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
102 | what is meant by work out your own salva | Philippians | benjamite | 34459 | ||
Philippians 2:12 is an interesting verse. It was pointed out to me that it doesn't say "work for" but "work out". Here, Paul seems to be speaking about obedience. If you are saved, show it. You represent God, not yourself. What do you think? Benjamite |
||||||
103 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34031 | ||
To answer your first comment, what I meant was, no human being can claim the infallibility and inerrancy found in the Bible. (Romans 3; 2 Tim 3:16-17) When you or I say something, but the Bible disagrees, we are wrong, no questions asked. Sure, commentaries, and other works, might have their place, and they can be pretty useful at times, but they are not Scripture. If they don't correctly handle one verse that relates to the given subject, they are wrong in that spot, but it still means that they are wrong. Between the writings of man and the Bible, the writings of man pale in comparison, to such an extent that they don't matter. |
||||||
104 | How is the end really going to happen? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34005 | ||
Hello, I don't know if, or when, you'll check this site again. Much has been said here since you asked your question. (As of this writing, not even 24 hours ago.) Was it too much? I don't know. I know I have said quite a lot. If it was too much, I'm sorry. The subject matter itself can be a bit overwhelming, (much less all the posts here - I know I got carried away). I would encourage you to read your Bible. Evreybody has an opinion, and Van Kempen, Irenaeus, LaHaye and Jenkins, do have their place, (If you haven't seen some of these names yet, you'll see these names in the rest of the posts.) Compared with Scripture, they don't matter (for that matter, neither do these posts). I don't know if this was necessary, but since I haven't seen your name pop up again, I wanted to check back in with you. Maranatha - "Come Lord!", Ben |
||||||
105 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33994 | ||
First, let me say, "Thank you". Please understand, Scripture matters. Yes, Van Kempen, and even LaHaye and Jenkins, and others might be great reading, but compared with Scripture, God's Word, they don't matter, nothing matters - not books, not websites, nothing. I am working on a more detailed response, than this, but I felt this needed to go out first. In Him, Benjammite |
||||||
106 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33985 | ||
Legeis Hellenisti? Lego Hellenisti. First, if I can't ask a question, why have the forum in the first place? However, if you know the Greek, you can still go ahead and talk to me. Let's forget about other books for the moment, and let Scripture interpret Scripture. If the books don't fit with Scripture, the books are wrong. As for the last part of your first paragraph, I agree with you. All the verses must fit into my view, as well as yours. Again, each verse must fit into my view, or my view is wrong. I have done the legwork and the so called "pre-wrath view" doesn't fit with the sum of Scripture. The whole tribulation is God's Wrath, not just the last part of it. (Again, Rev 6:16-17) Am I wrong? Please, bear witness with Scripture. Regarding the one verse you mentioned, what it means is that all the verses, of all of Scripture, must be taken into consideration without compromising any other verse in all of Scripture. (2 Tim 3:16-17) I have given you five verses (on the subject). I have not pulled one verse out of context. If I have, please bear witness. If we were counting, that would mean you have to come up with 75 (fifteen for each). Thus far, you've only given one (well, granted, that wasn't really related to the pre-wrath view). If you have the Van Kempen book, this should be easy. In response to your other remark, I don't have scripture "twisted around". Happy Hunting, Benjamite |
||||||
107 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33919 | ||
Wrong question to ask. Benjamite |
||||||
108 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33918 | ||
Sorry, I meant, given 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; and Romans 5:9, does "that site" (www.signministries.org") place the rapture before or after Rev. 6:16-17? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
109 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33917 | ||
Without spending hours trying to find exactly what I am looking for on the website, given 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; and Romans 5:9, does this site place the rapture before or after Revelation 6:16-17? | ||||||
110 | How is the end really going to happen? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33901 | ||
That is the question, isn't it. What verses pertain to the tribulation. I can give you quite a few, but others will disagree with me. Does human error play a part in the translation? It always does. (We don't have the originals. At least my Greek is sorely lacking. We're still looking "forward" to the end times. (Meaning only that it hasn't happened yet - hindsight is 20-20.) With that said, here's the verses. Daniel 9:27 (Some see a break in between the 69th and 70th week. Even one of the Church Fathers, Irenaeus, saw this as "yet future" from his time.) Other verses, I Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, note the change from the first person "us" and "we" to third person "they" and "them". Matthew 24-25 are sometimes seen as referring to the Tribulation period, but others see it as after that time, when the Lord comes back to clean up (at his 2nd coming). Revelation 6:1 through 16:21 (or there abouts) Daniel 11:36 to the end of the book. I do hope these don't overwhelm you these are more than enough to get you started. In Him, and Maranatha, Benjamite |
||||||
111 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | benjamite | 33899 | ||
No sweat Preacher Tim, If you don't mind my asking, you said "righteous souls" and "unrighteous souls". "Souls" can be pretty generic, so some poor soul might still be confused. Are you saying that only the souls (or may I say "immaterial parts") of men are resurrected? Or, were you just using "souls" in the general sense to mean person? (as I did above) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
112 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | benjamite | 33875 | ||
Three points, 1. Rev 20:6 does not limit the resurrection to OT saints. 2. 1 Peter 5:8 says, "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." The devil isn't bound. He is still deceiving the nations. (2 Cor 11:3; Titus 3:3). 3. 20:6 says, "over THESE, the second death has no power" (speaking of those raised in the 1st Resurrection). That fits me. John 3:16. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
113 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | benjamite | 33867 | ||
Wait a second. It is an interesting theological "aside", but let's get back to the issue. If we want to make too much out of the word again, let's take it in the context of John 10:17. Christ, who had taken "life" (John 1 - the word became flesh), laid his life down. When He rose, he took life again. When Revelation says "This is the first resurrection", it speaks of those who came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (Rev 20:4). |
||||||
114 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | benjamite | 33856 | ||
Okay Tim, What did I say wrong, it sounds like you are agreeing with me. I didn't complete the thought of the "1st resurrection in the "points" but I mentioned it above that, (1 Cor 15:23). Now, since I've given an opinion on Matthew 27:52, what's your take? Where does Daniel (etc.) fit in? In Him Benjamite Missouri Bible Scholar |
||||||
115 | Is the first resurection in Mat 27:52 | Rev 20:5 | benjamite | 33852 | ||
Matthew 27:52 might be a precursor to the first resurrection, but it is not complete. Look at what happens to the 'rest of the dead" in Rev. 20:11-15. The first resurrection primarily refers to those at His coming, 1 Corinthans 15:23. Daniel might fit into the Matthew passage, but I'd have to do more research. The thing with Matthew 27:52, is that it appears to be local, i.e., only in Jerusalem. (At least, those dead are all that is mentioned.) A couple points to note on the order 1) Christ's resurrection (and those who came out of the tombs - unless these died again, Matt 27:52). 2) (Time gap) 3) His coming (and 1st Resurrection) 4) (Time Gap) 5) The end (and 2nd Resurrection for the "rest of the dead" Rev 20:5,11ff. Others might think differently, but I think that this fits the best with Scripture. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
116 | TNIV: How Will It Affect Us? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33722 | ||
Hey Brother, I saw your note and meant to get back to you, but I got a little sidetracked. As for a REAL translation, some have tried. I do like the NASB '95. Another one that is worth mentioning is the New English Translation. (www.bible.org) To be honest, there's too many bibles as it is. Unless we take all the NIV, KJV, etc. and have a worldwide "book burning" (which I do not advocate), there will always be far too many different Bibles on the scene. However, because there is the ability to make more kinds of Bibles, right or wrong, it will happen. Realistically, we will never again have the perfect Bible, this side of Glory. We don't have the Autographs available, and even if we did, most don't have the ability to read them. Translations can only do so much. For example, why did you choose "Makarios" instead of "Eulogetos"? (Aside from the fact that it is hard to represent an eta in English.) They translate the same into English, for the most part, but are different Greek words. You didn't chose "Eulogetos" probably for the following reason - "Eulogetos" is used only of God. How do we translate that into English? It is automatically diluted by means of translation. In that sense, we are all somewhat uneducated. Is Zondervan right in what they are doing? I agree that they are not. (We still have "man" and "son" in our vocabulary, among other words.) There are those who prefer a "thought" translation like the NIV. Maybe it does better express the thought of the author, but it sure doesn't look like it. Well, I admit these are somewhat random thoughts on the issue, but I wanted to make sure that I followed up with you. Makarismoi! (Oops, the "blessings" in the Septuagint are all "eulogiai"). Ben Ben |
||||||
117 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33707 | ||
Actually, I misspoke when I asked about the verb being "active" or "passive". I am familiar with the active, passive, as well as the middle voice. ("I'm doing something to myself.") I guess my question was more along the lines of, how persuasive is the drawing? Since, I see you have Reformer Joe to deal with, I'll leave the two of you alone. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
118 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33691 | ||
To answer your question first, the Bible explicitly states, "elect" (Romans 8:33 and elsewhere). Why He did, doesn't matter. The fact is that He did. As the Lord, Himself, told Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." He "loved the world" (no qualifications given) He "gave His only begotten Son" (from the immediate context, to the world, not just to the elect.) "that whoever believes in Him" (the offer is open for any whoever.) This verse doesn't address the issue of who will believe or how they will believe, and therefore doesn't qualify the offer. The offer is open to and is good for everybody. Just because some people don't (or "won't") believe doesn't mean that the offer isn't good for them. John 6:37, "all that the Father gives me will come". All who have been predestined for salvation will be saved. But unless I am missing something from this verse, the blood is still good for all. 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Despite the fact that whoever will come may have life, only those who are drawn by the Father will come and be saved. From 45, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." I'd have to do a little more research on this one, as I understand it now, "Everyone who is drawn comes." 6:65, "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." Only the elect can come to Christ. That has nothing to do with the extent of the offer of redemption. Is the death of Christ only able to save the elect? These verses don't address that issue. Is it good enough to save everyone, if they would come (even though they don't.)? Yes, and I can honestly tell an unbeliever, "Christ died for your sin. Now, you must accept His payment to have eternal life." Romans 5:6, "Christ died for the ungodly." (All of them. Note, this verse does not just say "us" - it is a general truth, 5:8 personalizes it. 5:6 can stand alone.) If, by your comment, you mean that the Reformed understanding of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 needs to be reconciled with the rest of Scripture, I agree with you. The way it stands, it isn't now, but needs to be. God wants "thelo" everybody to be saved. God intends "boulomai" all the church (we might say "elect") to come to repentance. Scripture does interpret scripture. I cannot reconcile particular redemption with the balance of the New Testament. Your turn, Ben |
||||||
119 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33647 | ||
Hello Brother Tim, That is an interesting thought. However, there are some who would say that in John 12:32, the idea is that He will draw all "peoples", meaning not just Jews, to Himself. Perhaps He is actively drawing from all nations. ("Men", as I recall is not in the Greek, is not in the orignal. Can you verify that for me?) Would this fit the context of the passage? The word "draw" if I am not mistaken is active. Meaning that what is drawn actually comes, like a sword or a fishing net. Obviously, if it could be passive (i.e., the drawing only works if the object drawn wants to be drawn) then John 6:44 could possibly be interpreted that way. Your thoughts? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
120 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33645 | ||
Dear WAK, For what it is worth, let's see if we can answer your questions. First, let me invite you to bring whatever verses you have with you to the table. We would be glad to discuss them if you would like. Now for your questions. "If you're elected, I will answer the door???" Only the elect come knocking. There is no desire to know God. Romans 3:10ff; John 6:44. The fact that God chose to save any (even one), when all deserving of Hell (meant to be taken literally), is not bad news. Please, in my neck of the woods, "Hell" has become a swear word when it is not used in proper context. I would appreciate if you would use it only as given in Scripture. I'm not sure that anybody has a problem with the fact that God is there for all who ask. The question is "who is asking?" Please, again, when you return, I invite you to bring your verses to the table. Perhaps they can shed some light on the subject. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |