Are the Earliest Manuscripts the Best?

[KJV1611]

I looked up the Hebrew so I could see, it literally means many, a great number, a large number etc etc. in no possible interpretation could it be used to mean all

it appears to point to two resurrections. Not sure how else you could interpret it.

The Resurrection HAPPENED on the LAST DAY. There aren't two resurrections, there is one resurrection where those that have done good are raised to eternal life, those that have not done good are raised eternal contempt.... both are The Resurrection that happened at the resurrection of Christ. The LAST DAY in the grave.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

many will awake these (those who were saved or rescued) to everlasting life

When I read that using proper grammar, I read that as the group in parenthesis are "many will awake". Parenthesis go AFTER a statement to bring clarity, not before it.

whatever, it is quite clear what I said. i Am sick of trying to explain things to you, as Another user said, you can’t hear anything that goes against your view

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The Resurrection HAPPENED on the LAST DAY. There aren't two resurrections, there is one resurrection where those that have done good are raised to eternal life, those that have not done good are raised eternal contempt.... both are The Resurrection that happened at the resurrection of Christ. The LAST DAY in the grave.

It says many, not all

don’t tell me what you think it says, explain why it says many, otherwise we just have your view,

you did not explain why it said many not all

 

[Magenta]

I know how to read the English language.

You read without comprehension, rendering your ability to read null and void.

 

[Sipsey]

You read without comprehension, rendering your ability to read null and void.[/QUOTE]

Obtusification, is a word that comes to mind. (It’s a newly invented word just for the OP) It is akin to the predilection of a stubborn mule.

 

[KJV1611]

It says many, not all

don’t tell me what you think it says, explain why it says many, otherwise we just have your view,

you did not explain why it said many not all

It says many because the resurrection has nothing to do with raising dead bodies.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It says many because the resurrection has nothing to do with raising dead bodies.

Nice theory, but that’s all it is

back to the topic.

the NASB says the same thing the KJV says, it does not suggest two groups will be raised at different times.

next

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You read without comprehension, rendering your ability to read null and void.

Sadly I used to read this way, I call it reading with blinders, you see things through the filter of your belief system.

 

[SoulWeaver]

Sadly I used to read this way, I call it reading with blinders, you see things through the filter of your belief system.

If people understood they are doing it, they wouldn't have done it.
I think everybody does this, even the things seen with physical eyes are an educated guess. It's science.

 

[KJV1611]

Nice theory, but that’s all it is

back to the topic.

the NASB says the same thing the KJV says, it does not suggest two groups will be raised at different times.

next

It's not a theory, it comes from 1 Corinthians. IT is our soul.

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[KJV1611]

If people understood they are doing it, they wouldn't have done it.
I think everybody does this, even the things seen with physical eyes are an educated guess. It's science.

The other side is accusing me of doing exactly what they are doing. People are here arguing about the resurrection that don't even know what the resurrection is.

And they don't know what the resurrection is because they can't read objectively. SMH

 

[SoulWeaver]

The other side is accusing me of doing exactly what they are doing. People are here arguing about the resurrection that don't even know what the resurrection is.

And they don't know what the resurrection is because they can't read objectively. SMH

Like I said, literally everyone's doing this, and whenever we do it, we are not aware of it. So it's kind of pointless to bring it up...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If people understood they are doing it, they wouldn't have done it.
I think everybody does this, even the things seen with physical eyes are an educated guess. It's science.

Yeah I used to think if everyone could read and understand the origional text as written many of the arguments would be gone, but I see that probably would not be the case, people still read through blinders

then again the pharisee saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead and still rejected him

 

[Magenta]

If people understood they are doing it, they wouldn't have done it.
I think everybody does this, even the things seen with physical eyes are an educated guess. It's science.

There is a difference between not being able to see something, and butchering and bastardizing the text so you can then claim what is written is in error, when it is what the other repeatedly has added, that is in error.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Like I said, literally everyone's doing this, and whenever we do it, we are not aware of it. So it's kind of pointless to bring it up...

Yet we understand what the ressurection is, it is his view we do not, he does this a lot. In this topic and other topics.

he reads us like he does scripture so he can’t see or hear what we are saying, he does this far to,any times for it to just be a coincidence

 

[KJV1611]

There is a difference between not being able to see something, and butchering and bastardizing the text and then claiming what is written is in error, when it is what the other repeatedly has added, that is in error.

I wish YOU would stop butchering and bastardizing the text. Let the text say what it says according to the GRAMMAR!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I wish YOU would stop butchering and bastardizing the text. Let the text say what it says according to the GRAMMAR!

We are

your the one bastardizing the text, the NASB does not say what you claim it does, no matter how hard you butcher it it will never say what you claim it is saying

 

[SoulWeaver]

Is the beast and the false prophet going to be tormented forever (all of eternity future) or not?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I know it's an old post, but kind of sharing for everybody.

Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity? (tentmaker.org)

Most instructive read. And I dare say I do have some linguistic background, he's explaining the whole thing really well (imo)...

 

[KJV1611]

We are

your the one bastardizing the text, the NASB does not say what you claim it does, no matter how hard you butcher it it will never say what you claim it is saying

I don't have any bias, I could care less how the resurrection goes. You can't change the subject of a verse just because it doesn't line of with what a person thinks the resurrection is.

The subject of that verse is those who arise, I can't help, it is what it is.

 

[KJV1611]

I know it's an old post, but kind of sharing for everybody.

Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity? (tentmaker.org)

Most instructive read. And I dare say I do have some linguistic background, he's explaining the whole thing really well (imo)...

I will check it out thanks.