Results 1601 - 1620 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1601 | Judah's motive? | Gen 37:26 | Morant61 | 8789 | ||
Greetings Prayon! I think that Judah's motives in Gen. 37 were mostly selfish. He probably couldn't bring himself to actually killing his half-brother, but he didn't really care about the pain and grief he would be causing both his half-brother and his father. However, by Gen. 44, we see a Judah that seems to have matured. At this point, he is willing to become a slave himself rather than let his father suffer the loss of another beloved son. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1602 | What did Er do? | Gen 38:7 | Morant61 | 8788 | ||
Greetings Prayon! I searched and searched, but there is nothing in Scripture about this man, other than the fact that he was a son of Judah and that we was so wicked that God put him to death. The verses that mention him are: Gen. 38:3, 6, 7, 46:12; Num. 26:19; and 1 Chron. 2:3. Two other verses refer to another Er: 1 Chron. 4:21 and Luke 3:28. If I had to guess, I would say that his sin probably had something to do with blasphemey. However, that would only be a guess. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1603 | What is the mission of the church? | Matt 28:19 | Morant61 | 8759 | ||
Greetings Hank! This is a great question. My short answer is that Mt. 28:19 tells us what the mission of the church was and should be for all time. There is only one command in Mt. 28:19. The English text obscures this point. "Make disciples" is the only command. The others, a) While going... b) Baptizing... and c) Teaching... are all participles which describe the process of making a disciple. Thus, a disciple is someone who has been won, baptized, trained, and then who goes out a repeats the process in the lives of others. Has this mission changed in actual practice? I would say yes. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1604 | Please explain | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8515 | ||
Greetings Ezekiel! I am kind of jumping into this issue late in the game, but I wanted to make a couple of observations. There is not any doubt that baptism was an important part of the life of the early church. There is not even any doubt that all Christians should be baptized. However, the question is whether or not baptism plays any role in a Christian’s salvation. There are many Scriptures that can be applied to this question, but allow me to address just a couple. 1 Peter 3:21 says, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," This verse makes three very important points about baptism. First of all, it clearly says that baptism does not remove the dirt from the body. Secondly, it says that baptism is the pledge of a good conscience toward God. The footnote in the NIV says "response of a good conscience." Finally, this verse makes very clear that the source of our salvation is Christ (cf. 1 Peter 1:3.) My denomination (United Brethren in Christ) phrases the role of baptism this way, "Baptism is the outward sign of an inward grace." This is a good summary of 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism is our response to what God has already done in our lives. It doesn’t save us. It will not get us into Heaven, but it is an important part of our Christian life as an outward testimony of what God has done. This point is illustrated in Acts 10. In Acts 10, Peter is preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius. As he was preaching, Acts 10:44 tells us that the Holy Spirit came upon all those who heard the message and they spoke in tongues, just as the disciples had in Acts 2. This is an important sign that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles. Notice however what Peter says in v. 47, ‘‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." These people had already accepted Christ. They had already been filled with the Holy Spirit. They were Christians. Now, Peter asks if there is any reason why they should not be baptized. Did the baptism save them? Obviously not, since they had already been filled with the Holy Spirit in verse 44. In conclusion, baptism is an important act of faith, but it is not a saving act. Our salvation depends entirely upon the finished work of the cross and not at all on any ritual or act that we can do (Eph. 2:8-9). Consider the case of the thief on the cross. He accepted Christ, but was not baptized. Yet, Jesus said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1605 | How old was Solomon when he wrote etc.? | Song of Solomon | Morant61 | 8411 | ||
Greetings ILoveJesus! So do I :-)! I was waiting to see if anybody else wanted to take a stab at your questions, but no one else has thus far, so I will. 1) I don't think anyone knows how old Solomon was when he wrote these three books. He must have been king by this time. He had children at the time he wrote Proverbs. And, he was probably older when he wrote Ecclesiastes, since it expresses what appears to be a more "mature" view of life. But, no one reallys knows his exact age. 2) He probably was married many times over when he wrote these books. It is important to understand two points about these multiple marriages. A) It was the political custom of the time to use marriages to cement alliances with other nations. This doesn't make it morally right, but it was the culture that Solomon lived in. B) Scripture is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the pens of normal humans. Solomon's life definitely didn't measure up to the beautiful love expressed in the Song of Songs, but that is to be expected. Even if Solomon had only been married to one woman, his life still would not have measured up to the ideal expressed in Scripture. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1606 | Is suicide a sin? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 8409 | ||
Greetings Saul! This is always a touchy issue with people. It is the kind of question that many wonder about because they have had friends or family who have committed suicide. So, naturally there is an emotional element to the question for many. I agree with everything JVHO212 said in his response to your question, but I would like to add one point. An act of sin does not cause us to lose our salvation, just as an act of righteousness does not gain us salvation. Scripture is very clear that we cannot earn salvation. It is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) and it is by grace (Eph. 2:8-9). All of us would agree with this point. Yet, for some reason, when we start asking questions about the salvation of someone who has committed suicide, we suddenly change the parameters. I realize that your question didn't do this since you simply asked if suicide would "condemn a soul to eternity apart from God?". Our salvation is based upon God's grace, not our works. So, I believe that if a Christian committed suicide, that he would not "lose" his salvation. To say otherwise would be to say that he could "unearn" salvation when we all would agree that he can't "earn" it. In fact, I don't believe that a Christian can "lose" his or her salvation. To "lose" something implies an accident. I believe that our salvation is assured by Christ's atoning work on the cross. Therefore, as long as we are "in Him" we can never be lost. Now, as an Arminian, I do believe that a Christian can knowingly reject Christ (Heb. 6:6) and no longer be in Christ. But this is a willful choice, not a "losing" of salvation. p.s. - This principle would apply to all single acts of sin. If I was angry and someone and then got hit by a car, I would not "lose" my salvation. If I told a lie and then fell off of a building, I would not "lose" my salvation. I can't do anything to earn salvaiton, neither can I "do" anything to unearn it. My salvation is totally based upon the mercy and grace of God. Special Note: By these statements, I am not implying that sin has no consequences. Sin can cause us to lose our effectiveness in minsitry (how many pastors have fallen into sin?). Acts of sin can lead to patterns of sin. Patterns of sin can lead to a hardened heart that rejects Christ (Heb. 3:12). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1607 | Who wrote the letter to the Hebrews? | Hebrews | Morant61 | 8358 | ||
Greetings Stobor! I have been doing some reading on this question. Apparently, even the early church fathers had no clue who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. A few late references mention that some thought Paul may have written it. One early African reference mentions Barnabas as being the author. Origen even wrote about the authorship of Hebrews, "But who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly." The list of prospective authors over the years include: Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Silvanus, Apollos, Philip, and Priscilla. So, the external evidence is very inconclusive. The internal evidence suggests that Paul was not the author, based upon sytle. The most telling point I could find was the Heb. 2:3 seems to indicate that the author wot someone who personally knew the Lord. Paul, even though he was not a disciple of Christ, received his commission directly from Christ, so he probably would not have described his introduction to the Gospel in the manner found in Heb. 2:3. All we know for sure is that the author was acquainted with Timothy (13:23). Every position is a guess at this point. I have always been fond of the opinion that Apollos may have written this letter. There is not a single shred of evidence to support that position, so I am not dogmatic on it. Like Origen, I would say that only God knows in this case. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1608 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Morant61 | 8256 | ||
Greetings Buf! If you look at a concordence for Gen. 1:28, you will find that the word 'replenish' is the Hebrew word 'maw-lay.' This word (Strong's # 4390) is used 248 times in the Old Testament. It is translated the following ways in the King James: a) fill 107, b) full 48, c) fulfil 28, d) consecrate 15, e) accomplish 7, f) replenish 7, g) wholly 6, h) set 6, i) expired 3, j) fully 2, k) gather 2, l) overflow 2, m) satisfy 2, n) misc 14; Thus, the usual meaning is apparent. It refers to something being filled, fulfilled, or completed in the vast majority of it's uses. It is translated 'replenish' in: Gen. 1:28, 9:1, Is. 2:6, 23:2, Jer. 31:25, Eze. 26:2, and 27:25. I'm not sure why the translators of the King James choose the word 'replenish' in these seven verses, but I think it was an unfortunate choice. The base meaning of 'filled' would fit these seven verses much better, without adding the possible misunderstanding of Gen. 1:28. It appears that all the modern translations reject the translation 'replenish.' Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1609 | Saved or Self-Deceived? | 2 Cor 13:5 | Morant61 | 8255 | ||
Greetings JVHO212! Your quote reminded me of some of the study tips that I have developed over the years for young Christians. These are tips that I think will help protect young Christians from false doctrine. 1) New Revelation: Watch out for New Revelation. I am always suspicious of anyone who claims that they have found something "new" in Scripture that no one else has ever seen. A lot of good people over thousands of years have studied the Bible. The odds of anyone finding anything truly "new" are astronomical. 2) New Authority: Watch out for Rogues. This one is related the first point. I am generally suspicious of anyone who claims that the "traditional" view is wrong. The core doctrines of our faith have been established for a long time. We may disagree on minor points here and there, but it is very unlikely that every theologian throughout history was wrong while this one person is right. 3) New Twists: Watch out for explanations that explain why Scripture doesn't mean what it says. In general, I am suspicious of any explanation that goes to great lenghts to describe why a Scripture doesn't really mean what it appears to say. Again, I am not speaking of legitimate differences of opinion, but those who take the clear meaning of Scripture and explain it away. I heard one like this while I was pastoring in Ohio. A man came on a Christian radio station and preceded to explain that Acts 1:7 didn't mean that no one could know when Christ was going to return, it just meant that it would not be general knowledge. I think that good common sense and sound exegetical skills will protect Christians against theological heresy or lack of balance. Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1610 | Called to Preach -- What is it like? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 8208 | ||
Greetings Hank! I was saved when I was six years old. My Sunday School teacher led me to Christ. My family to this day are not Christians, so I had no "church" experience. When I got to be about 12 years old, I started feeling God's call on my life. In my case, I would say that the call was a continous call. It didn't occur in just a moment, but over time. In fact, I resisted it for quite awhile. My advice to those who think that God may be calling them is this: 1) Look at your gifts! Do you have gifts that would be useful in the ministry that you feel God is calling you to? 2) Consult with family and friends! Do they think that God could use you? 3) Try to do something else! If you can be happy doing something else, go for it. If God is really calling you, you won't be happy doing anything else. 4) Above all, Pray! Your Brother in Christ! Tim Moran |
||||||
1611 | Why is "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 in | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 8055 | ||
Greetings Bud! This thread is a little old, but I just came across your question. I cannot shed any light on why the Amplified Bible changed their format, but I can shed a little light on the Greek text of this verse. There is no "is" in the verse. 2 Tim. 3:16 literally reads: "All scripture God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," It is not uncommon situation in Greek to find no verb in a sentence. In those cases, the translator must decide what verb should be supplied and where. In this case, it is clear (in my opinion) that the verse should read "All Scripture is...." The reason is simple. 'God breathed' and 'profitable' are both adjectives that describe 'scripture.' To add the 'is' after 'God breathed' would be very ackward. I hope this helps. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1612 | Plural Sabbaths? Passover Clarification? | John 19:31 | Morant61 | 7799 | ||
Greetings Brent! I have enjoyed your posts on this topic! I hold to the traditional view, but I am open to other positions. Allow me to briefly address two of your points. 1) The term used in John 19:31 for the "day of preparation" is the Greek term 'paraskeue'. It usually refered to Friday. In fact, in modern Greek, it is the term for Friday. 2) Concerning the plural "Sabbaths", the singular and the plural forms seemed to have been used almost inter-changeably. Here is a list of all the plural occurances of the word "Sabbath". Mt. 12:1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 28:1; Mk. 1:21, 2:23, 24, 3:2, 4, 16:2; Lk. 4:16, 31, 6:2, 13:10, 24:1; Jn. 20:1, 19; Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2, 20:7; Col. 2:16. All the plural uses in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ appear in verses where the plural of 'Sabbath' is being used to refer to the "1st day of the week." I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1613 | Death | Rev 20:14 | Morant61 | 7769 | ||
Greetings Cepas! I was reading this thread, and I noticed that the word "destroyed" suddenly appeared. I was wondering where did you get it from? The text of Rev. 20:13-15 makes it clear that Death and Hades both refer to a state of existence. In vs. 13, these abodes of the dead give up the dead that are in them for judgement. So in verse 14, it is the people who are in Death and Hades that are thrown into the Lake of Fire, not the abodes themselves. This is made clear in verse 15, where we are informed that anyone who is not listed in the Book of Life is thrown into the Lake of Fire. However, none of these verses says that anyone or anything is destroyed. Tim Moran |
||||||
1614 | Denominations, why? | Phil 1:1 | Morant61 | 7570 | ||
Greetings Charis! You have asked an excellent question. I'm not sure anyone can defend denominations as they exist right now. However, I think that even in the early church there was a system or structure in place. All of the early churches were under the authority of the Apostles. For instance, we read about a church council in Acts 15, which meet to decide issue of doctrine and practice concerning the Gentiles churchs. Their letter even mentions that some went out "without their authorizaton (15:24)." Furthermore, we know from Scripture that Paul constantly appointed "Pastors" over local churches. The local churches and "Pastors" were then expected to be subject to Paul's teaching and practice. While I can't endorse everything that denominations have become, I do think there is more evidence of structure and authority in the early church than most will admit. A good denominational structure will be unobtrusive as possible. It will primarily serve to provide oversight and accountability in it's pastors and congregations. In a perfect world, there would only be one denomination. However, because of the failings of both men and organizations, we have many today. In light of this fact, I think each individual believer has to decide for him or herself which denomination is the most Scriptural (if this is the direction they decide to go). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1615 | When are Christians forgiven for sins? | 1 John 1:9 | Morant61 | 7520 | ||
Greetings Lifer1J511! The short answers to your questions are: 1) Yes, and 2) Yes. 1) Yes, all of our sins were forgiven at the cross. 1 John 2:2 makes it abundantely clear that Christ died for our sins and the sins of the world. 2) However, 1 John 1:9 also makes it clear that as we live our Christians lifes we are going to sin against God and find ourselves needing to ask His forgiveness. However, I would say that this forgiveness is different from the forgiveness we receive when we first repent and are saved. When we first repent, we undergo a status change before God. His righteousness is imputed to us. But, when as a Christian we sin, our status doesn't change. We don't cease be a Christian because we lose our temper (for example). In this case, we are simply confessing our failings and maintaining our relationship with our Father, so that sin doesn't take root in our lives. So, I would say that your Pastor is absolutely correct. Concerning Heb. 9:22, this verse refers to salvation, not confession. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1616 | Willy to lose so we can gain | Phil 3:8 | Morant61 | 7435 | ||
Greetings Jim! I agreed with Steve's response to your question. And, I would like to add a few comments. The follow of Phil. 3:1-11 goes something like this. 1) Phil. 3:1-2: Warning - Watch out for the Judaizers (false teachers who taught that Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. 2) Phil. 3:3-6: They put their confidence in the flesh, but Paul had even more reason to boast in the flesh. 3) Phil. 3:7-11: However, everything that Paul had in the flesh meant nothing, because righteousness comes through faith, not through works or achievements. Therefore, the point of Phil. 3:8 is that the only way to "gain Christ" is to give up on all of our attempts to earn salvation and accept it through faith. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1617 | Arminian view of Called Rm 8:30? | Rev 21:27 | Morant61 | 7434 | ||
Part II (Cont.) Greetings Charis: I will now try to address your specific questions, though time and space will limit me from being as specific as I would like. 1) Foreknowledge: I believe that Arminians and Calvinists have both been guilty of reading a lot into words that simply isn't there. This is one of those cases. I do not believe (as many Arminians do) that God elects individuals unconditionally based upon their foreseen faith. The word 'foreknew' is only used by Paul twice (Romans 8:29 and 11:2. The word is only used five times in the entire New Testament (the other three occurances being: Acts 26:5, 1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:17. I am a firm believer in allowing the Bible to define terms, not our theology. One should look at how a word is used in all of Scripture. One should look at how a word is used by a particular author in all of his writings. Finally, one should look at how a word is used in the book in question. The last being the most important for interpreting a word in it's context. With this in mind, how does Paul use the word 'forknew'. Romans 11:2 gives us the definiton of the word. Romans 11:1-2a says, "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew...." There isn't any doubt in my mind that Paul uses this term as a sort of title for Israel. Therefore, he most likely uses it in the same way in Rom. 8:2. Does the evidence support this? Consider the following: a) Within ten verses of Rom. 8:29, Paul begins his discussion of the status of Israel in Romans 9-11. b) Within seven verses of Rom. 8:29, Pauls quotes a Psalm (44), which deals with God's perceived rejection of Israel. Therefore, my understanding of Rom. 8:28-39 is not that God is teaching the unconditional election (through either Divine fiat or foreknowlede) of individuals to salvation, but that Paul is letting Israel (the people whom God foreknew) know that nothing can seperate them from the love of God. (Of course, the message would also be just as significant for all of those who love God.) 2) Called: Your second word is another good example of where I believe many have added meanings that simply are not there. Arminians did it with 'foreknew', and Calvinists have done it with 'called'. There simply is not a single verse in the entire New Testament where 'called' is used in the sense of an irresistable call to salvation. The word is used in several ways. a) To name someone, as in Mt. 1:21. b) To physically call out to someone. c) And, by implication, to invite as in Mt. 22:3-14. Paul uses the word (# 2564) 7 times in Romans: Romans 4:17, 8:30, 9:7, 11, 24, 25, 26. Romans 4:17 seems to be a different context and usage, but the rest all are in the same context. How then does Paul use this word? Each occurances is used within a context which deals with the Spiritual Israel. Paul make the argument in Romans 9 that Israel is made up of all those who have responded in faith to God's call, not just those who are born of Abraham. Romans 9:7 says, "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Romans 9:24 includes both Jews and Gentiles in the number. This is a direct answer to God's promise in the Old Testament according to Rom. 9:25-26. This is getting long, so will close with this summary. In my view, the Elect refers primarily to Christ and then secondarily to those who are in Christ. The promises of Rom. 8:29-30, refer primarily to Israel, but secondarily to all those who respond to God's call. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1618 | Arminian view of Called Rm 8:30? | Rev 21:27 | Morant61 | 7432 | ||
Greetings Charis! You have asked some great and indepth questions here. I do not approach the Romans the way that most Arminians do, but I will try to lay out my understanding of Romans in general (Part One) and then address your specific questions (Part Two). I believe that Paul was not writing a compendium of his theology in Romans, but specifically dealing with the issue of why the Jewish people were not accepting Christ, and why Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. After all, the Messiah was a covenant promise to the nation of Israel. If Christ is the Messiah, why weren't the people of Israel coming to Him in faith? Were God's promises to Israel false? If God's promises did not hold true for Israel, then what assurance could Gentiles have that God would be true to them? Had God rejected Israel in extending the Gospel to the Gentiles? The great scholar F. F. Bruce once said of this situation, "..it was a paradox, not to say a scandal, that the very nation which had been specially prepared by God for this time of fulfillment, the nation which could glory in so many unique privileges of divine grace (including above all the messianic hope), the nation into which in due course the Messiah had been born, should have failed to recognize him when he came, while men and women of other nations, which had never enjoyed such privileges, embraced the gospel eagerly the first time they heard it. How could this be harmonized with God's choice of Israel and his declared purpose of blessing the world through Israel?" (Quoted from Beasley-Murray, G. R. "The Righteousness of God in the History of Israel and the Nation: Romans 9-11". Review and Expositor 73. April 1976, pp. 437-438.) These questions lead to what I believe is the thesis of Romans: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." (Romans 1:16) This phrase or a variation of it is repeated in: Rom. 2:9, 2:10, 3:9, 3:29, and 10:12. I believe Romans 1-11, in particular, is an attempt to answer the question of the relationship between the Gentiles and Israel within God's plan of salvation. With this in mind, I would roughly outline Romans in the following way. I. Introduction and thesis: Romans 1:1-18. II. Gentiles and God's wrath: Romans 1:19-32. III. Jews and God's wrath: Romans 2:1-29. IV. All under God's wrath: Romans 3:1-20. V. The Gift of Salvation: Romans 3:21-31. VI. Salvation through Faith: Romans 4:1-8:39. VII. God's Plan for Israel: Romans 9:1-11:36 VIII. Concluding Remarks to the church: Romans 12:1-16:27. This is only a very broad outline. The main point that I am making is simply this: Election cannot be understood outside of the context of the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles in salvation. Every great "Election" passages deals with this issue in it's context. Cont. in Part II Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1619 | Who knows? | Rev 21:27 | Morant61 | 7372 | ||
Greetings Charis! I appreciated your comments! There is nothing wrong with being firm in one's beliefs. However, we all too often become dogmatic on things that Scripture is not dogmatic about. The "book of life" occurs six times in the book of Revelation. They are: 1) Rev. 3:5 - "He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." 2) Rev. 13:8 - "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." 3) Rev. 17:8 - "The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come." 4) Rev. 20:12 - "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books." 5) Rev. 20:15 - "If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." 6) Rev. 21:27 - "Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life." There are only a couple of statements of fact that can be made from these references. a) The "book of life" is more than just the "book of the living." I have heard some say that the "book of life" is nothing more than a list of those who are or have been alive. However, the references above make it pretty clear that it refers to a list of believers. (How a believer is listed in the book is not explained!) b) Those who are listed in the book will not worship the Beast. c) Those whoare listed in the book will not be astonished (like the world) when the Beast appears. d) The "book of life" will be instrumental at judgement in some fashion. e) Those who are not listed in the "book of life" will face eternity in hell. f) Only those recorded in the "book of life" will enter the Kingdom of God. This seems to be about all that can dogmatically be said about the "book of life." Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1620 | verse besides Rev.20:5 that show two res | Rev 20:5 | Morant61 | 7330 | ||
Greetings Isabel! Off of the top of my head, I am not aware of any other verses that specify the amount of time between the two resurrections! However, we do have a very clear statement in Rev. 20:5. Concerning the telescoping of prophecy, the best example is probably Mt. 24. In Mt. 24, Jesus deals with the fall of Jerusalem and events which still have not yet occurred. However, it is very difficult to tell where Mt. 24 stops talking about past events (for us) and future events. So, John 5:25-29 could be an example of telescoping or of specificity. By that last term I mean some Scriptures simply don't deal with every detail of an issue. Some Scriptures are more general in nature. When this occurs, we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture by pulling other verses in. So Rev. 20:5, would help clarify or explain in greater detail John 5:25-29. Well, I've got to get to bed! Bye for now! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ] Next > Last [83] >> |