> General Discussions
Two resurrections; when do they take place?
Evan600:
This is a question that I have been pondering for a minute now. The question that I have, comes from Rev. 20.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
The question being; what are the Elect ruling over for a 1000 years? If the rest of the dead do not live until AFTER the 1000 years, what, or who are they ruling?
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
We can see also that at the end of the 1000 years, Satan is released. This is AFTER the thousand years. What is going on during this 1000 years?
I always thought that the 1000 year reign was judgment day. For a day is like a thousand years, etc. Now, I have to wonder.
If the rest of the dead(everyone that is not God's very Elect) are not raised until AFTER the 1000 years, what is the 1000 years?
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Continuing on in the same chapter, we see that after the dead were raised, this is the Great White Throne. This is where the dead are judged. Is this speaking spiritually of something else that is considered "dead?" If they are raised at the time of this judgment, they wouldn't be "dead," would they?
I'll be honest here. I am quite thrown off by this whole resurrection/judgment thing. Not to mention that Paul only talks about one resurrection that I can think of.
Anyone have a link, or an exposition on this somewhere? Maybe from Ray? If not, I would appreciate some conversation on understanding this.
In Christ,
Jason
skydreamers:
Hi Jason,
It seems there is some evidence that "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" may be spurious.
These words are missing in the earliest Greek manuscripts—Codex Sinaitic and Codex Alexandrine. (The Codex Vatican #1209 does not contain the Book of Revelation.) These words are also missing in the earliest Syriac and Aramaic manuscripts.
If these words are not inspired by God then it changes how we view the first and second resurrections. They could potentially happen at the same time, or on the same day. This would seem to make more sense, since then the Elect, along with Christ, would be judging the "nations" (the rest of humanity) and bringing them to complete healing and salvation. I tend to think the White Throne Judgment, The Lake of Fire and the Thousand Years could all be referring to the same thing???
I seem to be the queen of sending you to other links (lol) but here is yet another thread that discusses a similar theme which I also followed with great interest:
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2749.msg20353.html#msg20353
May God reveal his blessed truths to us all regarding these matters, if it be His will.
Peace,
Diana
Evan600:
Diana,
I thought that's what I read on another page that you replied on.
Can you tell me where you got that information about those verses not being in the original?
thanks,
Jason
skydreamers:
Hey Jason,
At this site they list all the texts that are not found in early manuscripts and Rev 20:5 is listed among them:
http://www.bibletoday.com/htstb/spurious.htm
I've tried to research this and there's lots of sites and info out there; it can get confusing and overwhelming as to what's been changed or added from the original manuscripts. Perhaps it is all part of God's plan to blind the majority. But it does seem, in light of the truths learned here at bibletruths, that this particular text could very well be spurious. Time will tell.
God bless in your studies,
Peace,
Diana
Evan600:
--- Quote from: skydreamers on April 27, 2007, 01:20:43 AM ---Hey Jason,
At this site they list all the texts that are not found in early manuscripts and Rev 20:5 is listed among them:
http://www.bibletoday.com/htstb/spurious.htm
I've tried to research this and there's lots of sites and info out there; it can get confusing and overwhelming as to what's been changed or added from the original manuscripts. Perhaps it is all part of God's plan to blind the majority. But it does seem, in light of the truths learned here at bibletruths, that this particular text could very well be spurious. Time will tell.
God bless in your studies,
Peace,
Diana
--- End quote ---
Thanks Diana!
I will look into this. I printed it out, and was looking it over. I think that I've heard of this before. I know for sure that the King James manuscripts are different than the NASB. I was always told that the NASB had the "more accurate" earlier manuscripts. What is going on???? ???
Can someone say faith test???? Indeed I could see how something like this would cause growth in an individual!
In Christ,
Jason
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version