All eschatological views are correct?

[Enoch111]

The word for ‘damnation’ in this verse is the Greek word krisis, which is usually rendered as judgement. Judging is an act of weighing up matters of positive and negative aspects, justice and injustice, right and wrong.

That interpretation is subject to the context. So if you do not believe that the Great White Throne Judgment is for damnation, you don't really believe God. The KJV used the correct word, since that is exactly what Christ meant.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Either you did not read my posts on the first page or two or you did read them but did not think while you were reading.

It shouldn't matter to you what I do, say, think, or believe since you promote Relativism here.

You can't have your cake intact and eat it too.

 

[marks]

I talked with a few different people over these years who followed by a strict sense of either no peace or extreme peace. It’s how they operated. If they lost their peace, they stopped and reassessed or decided against a certain course. Even down to temporal matters like…buying a house or not buying a house, they decided solely on if they were in peace about it or not in peace about it. It sounded so easy that I envied them and questioned them for more description but they were simple souls and they just couldn’t further expound other than peace versus lack of peace, and lack of peace made them change course. Very unlike my turbulence for so many of my first years!

Let the peace of Christ rule in your heart. Ask Him to show you how that happens, the one who ask, receives.

I need to follow that better than I do. Good reminder!

Much love!

 

[ewq1938]

Logically if someone is resurrected only to be instantly damned, why bother resurrecting them if the judgement has already been made.

Because they have to die a second time known as the second death.

 

[doxley]

That interpretation is subject to the context. So if you do not believe that the Great White Throne Judgment is for damnation, you don't really believe God. The KJV used the correct word, since that is exactly what Christ meant.

Imagine a child, born into horrendously abusive family, she is locked in a room all of her life, no computer, barely any food. Just abuse and torture. Eventually in early adulthood she is killed. Now of course this is hypothetical but I’m trying to suggest one of many ways a person could not be exposed to Jesus. There are many many more. Just use your imagination.

Would you look her in the eye and tell her, hard luck, wrong time, wrong place, your damned? Would a loving father do that?

 

[doxley]

Because they have to die a second time known as the second death.

The first death is because of the wages of Sin that Adam caused. The second death is after the GWT judgment and is final.

 

[Timtofly]

Because they have to die a second time known as the second death.

Spiritual separation from God. The first death is physical separation.

 

[ewq1938]

Spiritual separation from God. The first death is physical separation.

The first death is the death of the body. The soul/spirit leave that body.
The second death is when soul, spirit and body are dead.

 

[doxley]

The KJV used the correct word, since that is exactly what Christ meant.

I also think that people who will only read the KJV have a strange sense about them. It's as though they are saying the translators themselves were prophets. It doesn't make sense to me, particularly now, when we have the ability to study how a thing was translated.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Rev 20:5 has a question mark over it. It wasn’t always present in original manuscripts and some have put it in parenthesis. It is suspected that it may have been added by the first Catholics who wanted people to believe the millennium started when Christ was risen.

Greetings, Doxley.

I'm not really involved in this thread, but in scanning it the above statement made me curious. Who puts this verse in parenthesis? It is present in every known MSS so far as I can tell.

God bless, and welcome to the forum.

 

[doxley]

Greetings, Doxley.

I'm not really involved in this thread, but in scanning it the above statement made me curious. Who puts this verse in parenthesis? It is present in every known MSS so far as I can tell.

God bless, and welcome to the forum.

Hello Hidden, If you look at the following link you will see quite a few that have it in parenthesis. What Does Revelation 20:5 Mean? "The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished."

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hello Hidden, If you look at the following link you will see quite a few that have it in parenthesis. What Does Revelation 20:5 Mean? "The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished."

I'm still not sure I follow you. Your link is just a comparative translation page.

Is there something else I was supposed to be clicking on?

 

[doxley]

I'm still not sure I follow you. Your link is just a comparative translation page.

Is there something else I was supposed to be clicking on?

Oh sorry, I thought you just wanted to see some bible translations that had put the quote in parenthesis. I discovered the translation issue after deliberating for a long while over this verse. Of course not everyone agrees - that in of itself would be a miracle. I didn't keep any research on it, not being a professional scholar. I just know that I learned there were some questions over it as some early translations didn't have it - don't ask me which. The consensus was that the first Catholics believed they were living in the millennium, so the verse sort of explained why the resurrection of the dead hadn't happened yet. I can see if I can find some of the research but it should be out there on the net if you ask the right questions.
Hope that helps
God Bless.

 

[doxley]

Hidden, I did a quick search and found this if it helps:

"
D.D. Whedon writes in his ‘Commentary on the New Testament’ about Revelation 20:5a:
“There is a suspicious number of variations in copies containing the sentence. There are three variations in the Greek of the words but the rest; three variations of the word for lived; two for until… The sentence, like an interpolation, interrupts the current of the style. It breaks in between the next word, this, and the antecedent to which its affirmation refers. The sentence reads like an explanatory note by some copyist, which has been wrought into the text, and that in a very awkward position… no sound biblical scholar will now consider it worthy reliance…”



Rev 20: 5.a - (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
When we search the earliest manuscripts, we arrive at below findings:

• The sentence 5.a is not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, including the Sinaitic and Syriac.
  
  
• About 40% of the 200 available manuscripts of Revelation do not have 5.a.
  
  
• 50% of the earliest manuscripts from 4th-13th centuries do not have it.
  
  
• Going back further in time, the earliest manuscript available for Revelation is the Revelation commentary by Victorinus of Pettau (from 300 AD). And that commentary's manuscripts do not have 5.a.
  
  
• Even in the manuscripts where 5.a is found, it is present in highly inconsistent forms
  
  1. In some scripts, it’s there only in the margins and not as part of the text
     
     
  2. Some have it starting with a ‘But’ whereas others prefix it with an ‘And’
     
     
  3. Some manuscripts that came much later have the ‘again’ whereas others do not
     
• The Anchor Bible describes the manuscripts’ evidence against 5.a.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hidden, I did a quick search and found this if it helps:

"
D.D. Whedon writes in his ‘Commentary on the New Testament’ about Revelation 20:5a:
“There is a suspicious number of variations in copies containing the sentence. There are three variations in the Greek of the words but the rest; three variations of the word for lived; two for until… The sentence, like an interpolation, interrupts the current of the style. It breaks in between the next word, this, and the antecedent to which its affirmation refers. The sentence reads like an explanatory note by some copyist, which has been wrought into the text, and that in a very awkward position… no sound biblical scholar will now consider it worthy reliance…”

Rev 20: 5.a - (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
When we search the earliest manuscripts, we arrive at below findings:

• The sentence 5.a is not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, including the Sinaitic and Syriac.
  
  
• About 40% of the 200 available manuscripts of Revelation do not have 5.a.
  
  
• 50% of the earliest manuscripts from 4th-13th centuries do not have it.
  
  
• Going back further in time, the earliest manuscript available for Revelation is the Revelation commentary by Victorinus of Pettau (from 300 AD). And that commentary's manuscripts do not have 5.a.
  
  
• Even in the manuscripts where 5.a is found, it is present in highly inconsistent forms
  1. In some scripts, it’s there only in the margins and not as part of the text
     
     
  2. Some have it starting with a ‘But’ whereas others prefix it with an ‘And’
     
     
  3. Some manuscripts that came much later have the ‘again’ whereas others do not
• The Anchor Bible describes the manuscripts’ evidence against 5.a.

Ok, this is helpful. I'm gonna have to go back through and verify the above when I have some time, but it's interesting.

Thank you for this post.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Hidden, I did a quick search and found this if it helps:

"
D.D. Whedon writes in his ‘Commentary on the New Testament’ about Revelation 20:5a:
“There is a suspicious number of variations in copies containing the sentence. There are three variations in the Greek of the words but the rest; three variations of the word for lived; two for until… The sentence, like an interpolation, interrupts the current of the style. It breaks in between the next word, this, and the antecedent to which its affirmation refers. The sentence reads like an explanatory note by some copyist, which has been wrought into the text, and that in a very awkward position… no sound biblical scholar will now consider it worthy reliance…”



Rev 20: 5.a - (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)
When we search the earliest manuscripts, we arrive at below findings:

• The sentence 5.a is not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, including the Sinaitic and Syriac.
  
  
• About 40% of the 200 available manuscripts of Revelation do not have 5.a.
  
  
• 50% of the earliest manuscripts from 4th-13th centuries do not have it.
  
  
• Going back further in time, the earliest manuscript available for Revelation is the Revelation commentary by Victorinus of Pettau (from 300 AD). And that commentary's manuscripts do not have 5.a.
  
  
• Even in the manuscripts where 5.a is found, it is present in highly inconsistent forms
  1. In some scripts, it’s there only in the margins and not as part of the text
     
     
  2. Some have it starting with a ‘But’ whereas others prefix it with an ‘And’
     
     
  3. Some manuscripts that came much later have the ‘again’ whereas others do not
• The Anchor Bible describes the manuscripts’ evidence against 5.a.

Mmm…even if so, the following verse says, this is the first resurrection. And it says death has no more power over those in that first resurrection. So…is it important?

 

[doxley]

Mmm…even if so, the following verse says, this is the first resurrection. And it says death has no more power over those in that first resurrection. So…is it important?

Yes, I think so because it makes it look like the 2nd resurrection happens at the end of the millennium, whereas many think the 2nd resurrection happens at the beginning, because the millennium is about mankind having a fair chance to learn about God. They are governed/taught by those who were part of the first resurrection (hopefully us if Jesus deems us worthy).

 

[Bob Carabbio]

All eschatological views are correct?

"Eschatology" is nothing but another word for "Rank Speculation".

All God's Chilluns gots opinions/theories/beliefs/theologies. But the bottom line is that when God gets set to wind down the age, and go into final judgement, none of our "Eschatology will mean SPIT, and he'll do it exactly how He planned it for the beginning, The Visible Church will be in the state that He wants it to be, and Jesus will catch away His Own according to the plan, and all our various "end time Theologies" won't matter a bit.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Welcome to Walmart. Get your stuff and get out!

 

[bbyrd009]

lol

Mmm…even if so, the following verse says, this is the first resurrection. And it says death has no more power over those in that first resurrection. So…is it important?

in the context of “the revelation of Christ” i bet it is
find some way for that to all be happening (somewhere) today imo