No. The Apocalypse written in the scroll has noting to do with the Lamb's Book of Life. "The Book of Life" contains the names of all those who are in the Ark of our salvation, namely Jesus. We don't know all the names in the book, but God does.
And this happened at the cross?
Yeah, it's sometimes hard for us (including myself here) to recognize when things are not written in chronological order because we all have a tendency to read things that way and assume that is how things were written. But scripture is not the same as a news article that reports on something that happened in chronological order from beginning to end. Scripture is not always literal and not always written in a straightforward, chronological way. So, we need to always keep that in mind. That's why we need spiritual discernment to understand it (1 Cor 2:9-16).Actually that makes a lot of sense. It's another one of the hundreds if not thousands of examples of "Markan Sandwiches" I've seen in scripture, I just never noticed that this is also one of them. I read it that way after reading your reply, and it makes total sense.
Thank you
You base that belief on Isaiah 65? Maybe you should actually read Isaiah 65 more carefully then.
A "first resurrection" implies a second. In 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 Paul indicated that Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection (see Acts 26:23, Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 as well) and next in order is the mass bodily resurrection of those who are in Christ at His second coming. So, the mass resurrection at His second coming is actually the second resurrection rather than the first.
The book of Daniel.
Paul was being symbolic. What is literal about that phrase? Paul also said that to be absent from this tent (corruption) is to be present in a building (permanent incorruption). That is Paul pointing out the soul does not taste death, neither does the flesh, then.
I did. You claim it does not apply. You have applied the same Scripture to your own theology. Not much more can be said.
Verse 12 isn't really relevant to the GWTJ. It's a case of the writer realizing that he didn't say anything about the fate of the first 3 beasts and he knew his readers would probably be wondering about that, so he put that parenthetical statement in there. Do you have some kind of problem with the idea of parenthetical verses or passages being in scripture? It's not as if that's the only place in scripture where there is a parenthetical statement. Revelation 20:5 is another example.
Yes, and I think that is because he is more objective than you.
So, you think there will be 2 different judgments when the books are opened then? How does that make any sense? Why would that happen? One judgment isn't enough? Scripture does not teach multiple judgment days, David. Until you recognize and accept that, you're just not going to get it.
Normally martyrs are killed by humans with false doctrines, because they have broken the dogmatic teachings of said false doctrines.
Isaiah 65 is not about Revelation 21. That is why it is future, and the 1000 year reign of Christ.
That is one view of what "first" can describe. My interpretation would include all views, not just narrow it down to one, and stake a dogmatic claim.
Isaiah 65:17-25 is about the new heavens and new earth and so is Revelation 21.
My interpretation takes "the first resurrection" to be what other scripture refers to as the first resurrection. So, I'm interpreting scripture with scripture. You are interpreting Revelation 20 in isolation from other scripture instead of allowing other scripture to interpret it for you. That's your problem that you share with all Premils.
I don't know. I was just answering your question. You asked "What other book would be sealed up other than the Lamb's book of life?". The book of Daniel was sealed up, right? So, that is an answer to your question. Whether the seals of the book of Revelation are directly related to unsealing the book of Daniel, I'm not sure. Maybe.
The Flood of Noah was not a judgment day? Sodom and Gomorrah was not a judgment day? The thrones in Revelation 20:4 was not a judgment day? Even the day Adam disobeyed was a judgment day. The GWT is not even in time or creation. It is outside of creation. That is the only fact that sets it apart. It is after the "last day" though.
No, not in the sense that I'm talking about. I'm talking in terms of the books being opened and people standing before the throne to be judged. God has set one day in the future when that will happen.
No, Revelation 20:4 is not referring to a judgment day where people are being judged. It is not until after the thousand years that people stand before the throne to be judged, as recorded in Revelation 20:11-15.
