Results 761 - 780 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
761 | why is "wield" in only the Ampl. trans.? | Rev 2:12 | Beja | 236040 | ||
Wolfie11, If I am not mistaking the translators' motive, they are simply translating the word "echo" as "wield." This word would less colorfully mean simply "to have." You'd normally just say "the one who has" However, when discussing weapon which one is carrying, "wield" becomes a fair way of expressing possession. That's all that the translators are doing there. Simply read it to refer to the one who has the sharp two edged sword. There is nothing in the greek implying usage of the sword -in this particular verse- In Christ,Beja |
||||||
762 | Crowns we cast at Jesus feet real or not | Rev 4:10 | Beja | 224145 | ||
Just my opinion on the crowns. I think we've sorely missed the type of language used on these. Are we suggesting that we are going to have a large hat wardrobe in heaven? Shall we coordinate and all decide that today is the crown of rejoicing day, and another day we shall wear our crown of life? Honestly I think we've missed the point. The crown of life, is not a crown, it is life. The notion of crown is a metaphor. The crown is the thing itself. When God says He will give us the crown of life, he means that He will give us the reward of life. When He gives us the crown of righteousness He is saying to give us righteousness. A crown is a metaphor for the thing itself. So with this in mind, we are not going to throw down our righteousness, our life, and our rejoicing literally at the feet of Jesus. IF we wish to say that is what the 24 elders in Revelations represents (which I don't agree with) then at the very least we should say it is a complete acknowledging that all these things are from God alone and not ourselves, certainly not literally throwing down a wardrobe of crowns. Again, just my interpretation of the passages. This certainly is not an issue worth dividing anybody. But I highly encourage anybody interested to look at the verse references that have been giving and see if you don't agree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
763 | rev.7:4 | Rev 7:4 | Beja | 229051 | ||
Mdyke, Two qualifications for my answer. I will be happy to answer your question from an amillenial perspective. Keep in mind there are a multitude of opinions, I give you my own from a particular theological point of view. That being said, I believe whole heartedly that I am right. Second qualification is that due to space I must skim what I in preaching take longer to explain. Revelations 6-7 is one chunk of the book meant to be taken as a whole. This whole is meant to paint one vantage point of the entire sweep of time between Christ's first and second coming. The first five seals paint a picture of what we must endure during that time period. 1. Nations conquering each other. 2. War 3. Famine 4. An intensifying of all these horrors. 5. Persecutions even unto death. We might stop and marvel as to how this is almost exactly how Christ described that this age would be in Matthew 24. Now in the fith seal the martyrs ask the question that set the stage for us in chapter 7. They ask, "How long, O Lord?" So all of this paints a question that is about to be answered. How long must we endure this world of suffering and persecution and war? Why has God not returned to end it and when will He do so? We get a two part answer. The sixth seal shows us a glimpse of the return of Christ to destroy this wicked world, and this glimpse is to be taken as a promise that however much delayed, it is indeed coming. Chapter 7 gives us the second part of our answer to this question. It shows us why He is waiting. We see four angels holding back the winds. They have the instructions to not harm the earth yet. So we understand the holding back the winds to be holding back these final winds of destructions. The end destructions of the sixth seal can not happen yet. The return of Christ to usher in this destruction can not happen yet. Why? Not until all the servants of God are sealed. That is the thing Christ is waiting for before returning. Now, note that in Rev 7:4 he HEARS the number of the saints being sealed. It is a perfect number from every tribe of Israel. After he hears the number in verse 9, he looks upon them and sees a multitude of every tribe and nation and tongue. The two are the same group, he heard of them, then he saw them. Now here is the point. To us the saved are a great multitude that no man can number. But to God they are the perfect number of the elect. The holy Israel of God. And He will not bring the end judgement until the very last one is sealed by the Holy Spirit for eternity. So the answer to, "How long, O Lord?"; the answer to why we are waiting so long, is that God is waiting for the full number of the elect to be saved. He will not loose a one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
764 | Who is the persecuted woman in Rev 12:13 | Rev 13:12 | Beja | 226667 | ||
John1968, I would suggest that the woman is the people of God. This does not exclude "Israel" as an answer, however it is meant to include the fact that scripture sees a continuity between the faithful of Israel and the Church. (Rom 11) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
765 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241207 | ||
EdB, I'm not an anhilationist but just to be fair, if you are referring to Rev 20:10 there is not actually a present tense verb there in the greek. The verb is left implied. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
766 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241209 | ||
EdB, You said: "To do it you need a way to explain extra-Bibically why the beast and false prophet were mentioned in a present after being thrown in the lake of fire." I took the "in a present" part to be referring to a present tense, and in the context of your post it sounded to me like you were trying to refer to Rev 20:10. I'm not sure where else you would be referring to. If I misread you I apologize. I'm not suggesting in any way that Rev 20:10 teaches anihilation. I personally believe scripture teaches eternal torment. As for my motive it was as I said, "just to be fair." I thought you were saying he needed to explain a present tense verb there, when there isn't actually one to be explained. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
767 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241214 | ||
allisraelsaved, I think you are mistaken about it meaning until the end of the age. The greek behind "forever and ever" assuming we are referring to Rev 20:10 says literally unto the age of ages. It was the way the new testament says what you and I would mean by forever. Contrast that with the end of Matthew where Jesus literally says until the close of the age. So they could very specifically state until the end of the age with biblical greek, the phrase unto the age of ages is something quite different meaning extending throughout them all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
768 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214114 | ||
crk, There might be more to think about than just rev 3:9-10. In fact, I find pretrib rapture very hard to argue in light of a couple passages. 1 Thess 4:13-18 make it plainly clear that the dead in Christ will rise(the ressurection) before the rapture. Second when we turn to Revelations 20:4,5 we see that in the FIRST ressurection are those who died for refusing to take the mark of the beast. Now, I feel confident that you yourself believe the mark of the beast happens during the tribulation. So lets put this together, the rapture will not happen until after the first ressurection. The first ressurection will not happen until after the mark of the beast, and the mark of the beast will not happen until during the tribulation. As for Revelations 3:9-10, I'd like to suggest to you that a ratpure is not God's only way of keeping people from evil. Check out Isaiah 57:1 as an example. You just might be misunderstanding God's intentions. In Love, Beja |
||||||
769 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214116 | ||
Val, I'll certainly try to visit that link soon, probably won't be today with all the church things. However, I have heard the arguement before about the first ressurection being in phases, and right now all I can say is it seems completely ad hoc. Meaning that there is no reason anybody would believe this from scripture except for the fact that the pre trib view is sunk without it. Therefore if you want to believe pretrib you must buy into this idea also. But perhaps this link will provide a better arguement for it than I've heard in the past. I'll look at it and let you know. As I've always said, if the pre-trib stance could provide a good arguement I'd certainly like to believe them! Who would want to believe we'd be here for that? But I will go look at it with as much of an open mind as possible as soon as I have oportunity. In Love, Beja |
||||||
770 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239227 | ||
Ed.O. You ask a good question but a hard question. The question can be answered by a simple yes or no, but the reason it is so hard is because the way one answers your question is determined by how I first understand a great multitude of other texts. So when I answer, it is going to tell you a lot about how I have already made up my mind prior to coming to this text. Let me give you two reasons this isn't a bad thing. First, it is not so bad of a thing because revelation naturally comes at the end of the entirety of all other inspired authoritative revelation given by God. In other words, the original readers of the letter were 'suppose' to already have many issues of doctrine already established in their mind. This includes many notions about what happens upon Christ's return. These may not have been horribly specific ideas, but they at least had broad brush-strokes such as resurrection, judgment, new creation etc. So we are suppose to have much in place before this passage. Secondly, it is not a bad thing because we 'ought' to interpret unclear texts in light of clear texts. This is not irresponsible reading but good hermeneutics. Yes, first seek to understand the passage on its own merits, but other scripture ought to interpret scripture. Having given those statements I'll give an attempt to sort of kind of answer you. 1.) You are not the firs to suggest your answer. For whatever its worth, other Christians have put the pieces together in the way you have. 2.) I disagree with the premise that there will be a resurrection before the final tribulation. In this case also, I am not the first Christian to suggest this notion. I believe the first resurrection happens at the end, not seven years prior to the end. This of course would allow you to simply read the "first resurrection" as the first resurrection. I encourage you to study, make your educated guesses, and then test those theories further against scripture. It will only lead to further understanding, but I invite you to agree with me that two believers who truly love their Lord can disagree on such difficult issues. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
771 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239243 | ||
Ed.O. Well articulated. Its good to see you have scriptures in mind rather than popular fictions, sir! You also have illustrated my point very well. You come to the passage already certain that my particular interpretation can not be correct based on how you have previously interpreted these other verses. I also come to this passage having already determined that some interpretations aren't possible due to my take on other scriptures. Though I do hope we both would be willing to change our view should the passage be plain enough, it is apocalyptic literature which is rarely plain. This is why I said that the answer would not be able to be a simple one, when we ask what Rev 20 means we necessarily press upon ourselves a great many passages concerning end times. Let me give you some examples of where we disagree before we ever come to that passage. 1.) Do a search on the greek word for "keep" in Rev 3:10 and see the only other place where John uses the word. Does it mean that he will remove them from the problem or keep them through the midst of it? 2.) You say that it could not be at the end of 7 years because then we would know just when to expect him. But that would only allow believers to know when to expect him and doesn't Paul plainly say, contrasting believers to unbelievers, "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a theif. For you are all children of the light, children of the day." 1 Thessalonians 5:4,5. 3. I disagree with a 7 year period of tribulation at the end. In this we have most likely interpreted Daniel chapter 9 differently. This again would make it such that Christ could come post tribulation and yet still surprise us. And these are all me simply responding to the verses you put forward, we then must look at the verses that a post-trib rapture thinks prove their point. I'm not actually trying to sway you to my view at this point, I'm simply attempting to persuade you that the answer to what Revelation 20 means is going to necessarily be tied to a discussion of the entirety of your end-times framework. But on the other hand as I said in my first post: Given all your assumptions a double first resurrection is one way to see it. If I'm not mistaken my father-in-law- holds that view. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
772 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239270 | ||
Ed.O. Know that I have no intention of belittling your views on this. Most of those I hold most dear in life would agree with your posts. My intentions are not at all to convince you of a post tribulation rapture. In order to do that we would have to begin with a very systematic review of relevant texts in order that I might try to persuade you. My single point with regards your original question can be stated in these two notions: 1.) To just answer your original question only, you will need somebody who first agrees with you on all other points of eschatology. 2.) Absent that, you will necessarily have to discuss all the other texts which you do not agree upon in order to explain how your are reading Rev 20. With a certainty you disagree with my post-trib view, but you amply illustrate the point I am trying to make. I'm not sure how well suited this venue would be for carefully discussing all the places where you and I would disagree. On this forum it is sometimes very hard to flesh out one thought before one of the people in the conversation rushes of to a point they would prefer to be discussing. The effect can sometimes be that rather get one idea across well we only skim many ideas poorly. However, I would not want you to think that I am playing with words. With regards to the apostle John attributing to Jesus the statement, "I will keep you from..." We need to think clearly. Hear is my thought process there. 1.) The assertion is that the phrase, "I will keep you from" the hour of trial necessarily means that they will be taken away from this hour of trial so that they will not have to face it. 2.) The only other place John uses this word, indeed the very phrase "keep them from" the evil one, he specifically states that what he does not mean is to take them away from it so that they don't have to endure it. In that context it can not possibly mean what you suggest it to mean in Rev. 3) Therefore it is error to say it 'must' mean that in Revelations. It could mean that, but it is no fancy playing with words to suggest that in Rev the phrase means what it clearly means in the gospel of John. I don't think that argument is playing with words. I leave you to decide whether the argument is valid. Again, I do not say this to persuade you of post-trib, I merely say this to clear myself of the notion of exegetical malpractice. When all has been weighed all I am saying is this: Your original question begs a lot of other questions. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
773 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239283 | ||
Ed.O. That was Searcher who said that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
774 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239285 | ||
Ed.O. You needed to read point 2 and 3. I was disproving number 1. The way you quoted me makes it sound like I was suggesting it. My logic was as follows. 1. Your Assertion:In Rev 20 phrase X must mean A. 2. My Counter Evidence: In John phrase X can not possibly mean A. 3. Therefore: Phrase X might not mean A in Rev 20. Statement 1 is false. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
775 | Mystery Resurrection For Holy Ones | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239287 | ||
Ed.O. When posting a new question mid thread to a specific person, the unwritten norm on the form is to still mark it as a note. It will still alert me via e-mail that I was replied to so that I will not miss the question, and that way a question not meant for the general forum will no clutter the question section. But no worries, as I said, that is an "unwritten" norm. With regards to your question...I will answer it but then I would like to bow out of the conversation. I will try to refrain leaving my post in such a way that challenges you to respond as that would be an ungracious way to ask to be excused. I never wanted to debate viewpoints but only to be helpful in guiding whatever further discussion might ensue apart from me. But to the question...Let me first state what difficulty you might be assuming the text gives my viewpoint and then I will give my answer to it. Let me quote the text for the sake of the many silent readers. "And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God willcome, and all the holy ones with him." The given is that these are saints. I assume we both accept this point. The problem presumably comes when it says that he will bring the holy ones "with" him. The assumption being that they are already with him. How can I therefore say that they were not previously gathered? Clearly this triumphant judgment return of Christ happens at the turning of the ages. Any so called tribulation happens before the return depicted in this verse and here we see the saints are with him here when he does. This is the problem you are suggesting, yes? Let me give you a matching statement from the New Testament which I believe explains this. Paul states that when the Lord returns he will "Bring with him those who have fallen asleep." He says this in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. So here we have a clear statement of whom Christ shall bring with him on his return. Those who have fallen asleep is a euphemism for those who have died in Christ. Second, and this is very much to the point, he is stating whom he will bring with him when he comes to rapture his church. So those whom Christ brings with him are not the raptured, they are the faithful saints through the ages who have died in Christ. Third, even the "bringing them with" is not what we would first expect for he goes on to explain that the "bringing them with" in specifically how it will play out will be Christ showing up, resurrecting the entire lot of them, and then he will call up those still alive. Now you and I would say, "Hey! but that isn't bringing them with him!" How can Paul say they are brouth "with him" and yet his very explanation of this phrase is that he ressurects them just before the rapture? But that is exactly the words that Paul uses for this. So I would argue that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 explain specifically who are brought with Christ, and this event happens AT the rapture. So we see the rapture happens AT the time of Christ's return with his holy ones and AT the resurrection. Which also is AT the same time as his judgment on unbelievers (2 Thess 1:5-10), which happens AT the time of the destruction of the current heavens and earth (2 Pe 3:7). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
776 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225647 | ||
Let me respond to two points from this thread. First, the original post is missunderstanding Psalm 1:5. When it says the wicked will not stand in the judgment, it does not mean they won't be present. It means they will perish. It would be like saying, "I was unable to stand before his onslaught." It means you were overcome by it. Second, Revelations 20 does indeed say that they are judged. Revelations 20:12,13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were JUDGED from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were JUDGED, every one of them according to their deeds. (caps mine of course.) It specifically says they were judged and it specifically says that the judgment was according to their deeds. Not simply on the basis that they rejected Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
777 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225681 | ||
EdB, When our "thought process" contradicts plain scripture it would be wisdom for us to throw our reasoning in the trash. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
778 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225684 | ||
EdB, I suppose it would be good for me to give an example of the clearly stated scripture. Acts 17:30,31 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. A clear statement that there is a FUTURE specific date of judgement for the whole world. Here is another from Paul teaching Felix about the Christian Faith. Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgement, Felix was alarmed and said... Do you see that Paul taught a COMING day of judgement? Your thought process is in error. The root of your error is that you are failing to see that the judgement has a both now and yet to come aspect just as our salvation has a now and yet to come aspect. If you do a search on the word "salvation" sodzo in the greek. Then you will find it is sometimes spoken of past, sometimes ongoing, and sometimes as a future event. The judgement upon us is in much the same way. God has judged the world, is pouring out restrained judgement on the world now, and will one day finally judge it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
779 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225686 | ||
EdB, Be very careful of what you are doing. You say "what would be the point?" But because you can not see the point shall we ignore them? I think I will let God be God and if He sees fit to have a judgement at the end in order to place that judgement on display in a some clear final sense, I will not critique his choice with my ability to see whether or not it is fitting. I see, and have shown, that scripture very very clearly states that he has chosen to do so. At that point it is no longer my roll as sitting underneath scripture to argue whether or not it is, but to only understand that God has seen fit, and then to apply my mind to understanding perhaps why. If you wish to not hear or see these exceedingly clear scriptures, then I intend to spend no further effort trying to show you. Only take care with how your handle and read the word of God. For if we are to give an account of every idle word we speak, how much more so will we give an account for how we handle His words? Let us always be ready to let scripture correct us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
780 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225688 | ||
EdB, While I was taking my daughter to dance class tonight I had some thought on how we might get very specific and have therefore some hope for our conversation. Let me step by step go through a few points in the passage that sparked our original discussion, Revelations 20. Let me quote again verses 12 and 13. "And I saw the dead, grea and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." Now let you and I, just for a few posts, agree to restrict ourselves to discussing this passage. This is the only way we are going to get anywhere is if we actually focus on the passages. Now, I will lay out some points and you let me know specifically at what point in my reasoning that you and I part ways. Let me begin with my Thesis, then my points. Thesis: There is a future judgement. 1.) I take this scene to be something happening in the future. Whatever that "something" may be which is being described in Rev 20:11-15, its at a future date to our current moment in history. 2.) Whatever that "something" is, scripture describes it in these particular two verses as saying "they were judged." It uses these specific words more than once. This is not some word that I have randomly chosen to describe but but whatever is taking place, SCRIPTURE has chosen to descibe this future even with these words. 3.) Now, assuming we are in agreement that there is "some future event" and in these two verses scripture refers to it as "they were judged" I have a question. How do you say that I am in error when I say there will be a future time when people will be judged? How can you at the same time say that scripture is correct when it says it, yet I am wrong when I say it? I can think of only two ways you could possibly argue this. a.) You assume that what I mean, and what scripture means when we say this are two very different thigns. So that when scripture says there will be an event in the future when individuals will be judged, it means one thing and is correct, yet when I say that in the future there is an event in which individuals will be judged I mean something very different from what scripture is saying and therefore I am wrong. b.) You consider both I and scripture both to be wrong in asserting this. Assuming you didn't disagree with points 1 and 2, I ask you on which of these grounds do you disagree with my Thesis? Please, I ask you again, let us restrain ourselves for the moment to this one passage. Show me where I am missunderstanding THIS particular scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |