A simple question

[GenemZ]

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Without science, we wouldn't know that the earth orbits the sun, that effects of gravity upon the earth, the physical laws of the universe, etc. Has sciene "changed" the interpretation of the Scriptures in regard to these issues? Of course not. Why? Because the Scriptures are not meant to give us exact descriptions of the universe in which we live. THey are theological literature that represents the tesimony of GOd's people to God's activity in the history of God's people. If it is purported to be anything else, one actually mishandled the Scriptures.

God showed them things that they did not possibly have had the frame of reference to explain..... yet, they it was written as it was shown to John. Yet, today we see what they could not explain. And, science has made it possible.

Revelation 11:8-10 niv
"Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth."

That was not according to their understanding of the world!

At the time that was written that was impossible to conceive of. God's two witnesses will be murdered and will lay in the street for three and a half days. During those three and a half days the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them, and will gaze over them.

Today we can easily explain it will be done by satellite TV.

That was not written according to their own understanding. They had no understanding of electronic communications. For the world to hear such news back then, it would take months, if not years, to spread around the known world. Yet, it says the whole world will watch them lay in the street as it happens. Most likely, it will be on CSPAN.

Grace and appreciation for what science does right, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Revelation 11:8-10 niv
"Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth."

That was not according to their understanding of the world!

Sure it was. You are not reading the text accurately.

At the time that was written that was impossible to conceive of. God's two witnesses will be murdered and will lay in the street for three and a half days. During those three and a half days the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them, and will gaze over them.

Look back at your text. It does say the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them--but does not specify 3 1/2 days. And it does not say they will gaze on their bodies.

What it says is that men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies. This is where the 3 1/2 days come in, the days in which they were refused burial.

Men from every people, tribe, language and nation were gathered in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost. Men from every people, tribe, language and nation were to be found in first century CE Rome any day of the week. John is not proposing anything which his readers would find beyond understanding.

 

[gluadys]

I thought this was all about a simple question? Yet we got 50 pages on complicated answers!

Just goes to show the simple question was not that simple.

That's often the way of things. It reminds me of the story of the child who asked his mother where he came from. Mother dropped what she was doing for this big moment and explained the story of how he was conceived and grew in her womb for nine months and then was born. The she asked if he understood or whether he had more questions.

I think I understand about babies, he replied, but I want to know where I came from. Billy came from Missouri and Jeff came from California. Where did I come from?

 

[vossler]

Most species appear suddenly in the fossil record because most of the time we have no fossils from a species at all. Fossilization is really, really rare in the first place, most fossils that have formed are not recoverable (too deeply buried in rock--fossil exploration is done at sites of erosion which have brought them near to the surface), and most recoverable fossils have not been recovered yet. I have heard estimates that the many many fossils that have been found represent barely 1% of those still to be found.

We will never have a complete fossil record. So asking for a fine-grained preservation of species-to-species transitions is just being obstinate. It is like saying that if I have documentation of my mother's birth and my great-grandmother's birth, but not of my grandmother's birth, I have no evidence that my great-grandmother and my mother are related.

As it happens, the reptile-mammal transition is one of the best documented transitions in the fossil record. Although there are no species-to-species transitions, there are a number of genus-to-genus transitions, and a nearly complete line of family-to-family transitions. The transitions are traced morphologically by changes in the shape and placement of bones and teeth (which also provide evidence of muscle attachements, diet, brain size, locomotion etc.) The link below gives an outline of the transitional species found so far. At the beginning there is a list of what the morphological differences are between ancient reptiles and modern mammals, so as you read through the descriptions you can be on alert for what changes to look for. I especially recommend careful reading of what is happening in the area of the jaw joint between the appearance of Cynognathus 240 mya and the appearance of Peramus 155 mya. Please explain to me why this is not evidence of transition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

I'm not looking for a complete fossil record, just some transitional forms that would begin to prove evolution. If this is obstinate then so be it, but if I'm even going to entertain something to be truth, especially when it directly contradicts the very Word of God, I think obstinance is good.

I went to the link you provided and my finite mind was immediately over-whelmed with information I couldn't begin to fully understand. Like I said before, I'm not a scientist and I don't care to pretend to be one either. So, unless someone can show evolution to be something that doesn't require a person to have a scientist next to them in order to interpret and understand it, it just isn't going to stick and that's probably for a good reason.

I am being very genuine. Creationists typically misunderstand/misrepresent disputes in the scientific community. For example, when you read creationist material on the Punctuated Equilibrium controversy, they give the impression that the very foundation of evolution was being called into question. Actually it was a tempest in the teapot about where evolution occurs and at what rate evolution occurs. Both the PE and neo-D camp were in full agreement that evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is sound in its basic principles.

Scientists who consider themselves to be Creationists have always had a dispute with Evolutionists that goes to the very core of everything. Why this has seemingly somehow has escaped your observation I can't explain. As you well know, they see things from two obviously completely different perspectives. One uses the Bible as his/her starting point while the other uses nature as theirs. Why is this a point of contention.

What science claims is that evolution happens. This has been established by direct observation and experiment and so is proven.

Since I'm not a scientist I'm in no position to challenge any of your assertions, at least from a scientific viewpoint. My challenge has never really been with scientific findings, although many of them don't smell right. My disagreement comes from the fact that evolution is somehow considered truth when it directly calls into question the ultimate truth, God's Word.

No, the time factor makes no difference as long as the evidence exists in the present. The only way time enters into it is that over a long stretch of time, evidence tends to disappear, so there is less of it to build a case on, and the case becomes less certain. But crucial evidence can disappear in just a week too. Consider how fast records can be erased from computer systems while hard copies are fed to shredders.

Forensic principles apply as long as evidence exists in the present, no matter what time period the original event is related to.

You said it yourself "...over a long stretch of time, evidence tends to disappear..." I'd say billions of years qualifies as a long stretch of time.

Sure, but it still does not give us knowledge about everything. Or maybe I missed that recipe for rhubarb and strawberry pie?

No, it may not give us knowledge about everything, but it does give us knowledge about everything that is important.

I have no problem with good biblically based hermeneutics, but I expect we would have many disagreements on applying them. As I see it, hermeneutics tells very much against a literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts.

In an earlier post you stated something to the effect that Pastors aren't qualified to speak about evolution. They most certainly are when it is concerning biblical hermeneutics. The vast majority of well respected pastors would agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I am honest. The answer is "no". That evolution took (and takes) place was determined through scientific investigation. Yes, science changed the interpretation of God's Word, and not for the first time either. It did not change God's Word, which, of course, is always consistent with truth.

You can claim that science changed the interpretation of God's Word, but when something goes from 6 days to billions of years I think we've stepped well beyond the point of interpretation and gone to change.

If this were not so, we would have to say that God's Word was not consistent with the earth in orbit around the sun, until this was shown by science to be the case. For the interpretation of scripture prior to that time was that it supported the concept of the sun orbiting a stationary earth. Are we taking liberties with the text because we changed our interpretation of scripture to match the facts of nature?

God's Word never declared that the sun was in orbit around the earth. Man, due to ignorance believed it, but not because Scripture told him that.

Changing an interpretation of scripture to agree with what we know to be true does not take us away from God's Word. It takes us closer to God's Word, for God's Word always aligns with the truth. Only our interpretations of God's Word can be fallible.

Not what "we" know to be true, but what "you" know to be true. Evolution doesn't take us closer to God and His Word, it pulls us away from His truth and to the knowledge or truth of man. God's Word aligns with the truth because it is the source thereof.

And evidently God's Word is not always clear because we do struggle to understand it.

And scripture is often ambiguous. Otherwise we would have no doctrinal disputes and no separate denominations, for we would all agree on such matters as how many sacraments there are, whether baptism must always be by immersion, how church government should be structured, and many more points.

It is true that we often struggle to understand it, but that doesn't make it ambiguous. What makes it a struggle is that the vast majority of us don't want to put in the time to sufficiently study and meditate on it effectively, in order to better understand and learn from it. Unfortunately, I too fall into that category. I pray that that too changes.

 

[vossler]

I thought this was all about a simple question? Yet we got 50 pages on complicated answers!

You mean you're not having fun yet. Unfortunately man is all too familiar with taking something simple, like Genesis, and making it oh so complicated.

I think this is as good a spot for me to check out of here and give glaudys the last word. I've said everything I intended to and nothing from this point forward will probably be of benefit to anyone. So with that, until next time, I bid you adieu.

May the Holy Spirit reign in all and bring us into a better understanding.

Praise the Lord.

Amen.

 

[GenemZ]

Sure it was. You are not reading the text accurately.



Look back at your text. It does say the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them--but does not specify 3 1/2 days. And it does not say they will gaze on their bodies.

What it says is that men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies. This is where the 3 1/2 days come in, the days in which they were refused burial.

Men from every people, tribe, language and nation were gathered in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost. Men from every people, tribe, language and nation were to be found in first century CE Rome any day of the week. John is not proposing anything which his readers would find beyond understanding.

Revelation 11:8-10 niv
"Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth."


The two prophets had what? "had tormented those who live on the earth." Not, just those in Jerusalem.

And. will only those in the city gloat?
The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them .

I have no problem with your interpretation, as far as you giving it. For its consistent with how you claimed the Genesis account of how Adam's body was formed is a lie.

Yet, if it were not on TV? And they were to be gazing at the bodies for those three days. If it depended on them being in the area and not switching on a TV? How in tarnation will they have time to exchange gifts, and be there at the same time? They will be sending each other gifts? How? By camel? Or, Fedex?

For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation . .

Every language? Every nation? How many Malaysians and and North Koreans will be in Jerusalem? How many Japanese? How many Nigerians? Mexicans? China?

I have been to Israel. They do get tourism. But, from every nation? Not even close. Only select nations are visitors. That passage states that every language and every nationality will see this. Unless its world news, it just will not happen.

But, thanks for showing me how you wish to interpret Scripture.

The Amplified Translation renders it thusly....

10And those who dwell on the earth will gloat and exult over them and rejoice exceedingly, taking their ease and sending presents [in congratulation] to one another, because these two prophets had been such a vexation and trouble and torment to all the dwellers on the earth.

And, I might add? ..... the word "nations," means Gentile nations.

"For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation . ."

Why would all the Gentile nations have an interest in Israel back then? Jerusalem was over run by Rome. Not all the nations visited Israel back then.

Indonesians? Cambodians? Mongolians? Sri Lankans? Taiwanese? Vietnamese? Laosians?

All in their languages?

"For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth."

We now interrupt this announcement to give you the latest update ......

Eyes wide open, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

Yes, science is good, I've never disputed that. All I've said is that we put science above Scripture, God's very Word. If Scripture says 6 days but science says billions of years, well then science must be right.

This is only necessary if the biblical texts were meant, by the original authors, to convery precise scientific information about the beginning of the universe. As such a presuppositional framework would be quite foreign to the writer's worldview, such an interpretation of Genesis appears to be nothing more than 20th and 21st century modernists interjecting their presuppositions upon the text.

Ahhh...yes, "our best observations" are suppose to supersede the very Word of God. I suppose they really could if I just suspended my presupposition that the Scriptures say what they claim to say.

Again, this is only a necessary conclusion if the Scriptures "claim" to say something scientific about the creation of the universe. However, I would disagree with such a conclusion and argue that the Genesis texts are thorougly theological, and are not intended to communicate in precise detail what happened, but are rather meant to communicate something about who accomplished the creation of all the universe.

Mmmmm...
That's an interesting position; what if we took that approach for the rest of Scripture also? I suppose you would also tell me that when attempting to 'interpret' passages in the Bible that speak of subjects such as fornification, adultery, homosexuality that my task would also be great in attempting to communicate this to someone. Even though the Words of the Bible may be clear and succinct on these matters, it is up to me to show them to be truth, to prove them in some manner. That I should substitute my own 'personal interpretation' because, well, I need to remember when these subjects were written about it was a different time and culture. Today, things are different, we've been enlightened, with so much more knowledge as to what they really mean.

This is not what I am saying at all. But even then, the bits which you have just mentioned are entirely different than the Genesis texts. You can't make gross generalizations between interpretive styles of historical, narrative, ethical, etc. texts--each requires different approaches and unique hermeneutical nuances.

 

[gluadys]

Revelation 11:8-10 niv
"Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth."


The two prophets had what? "had tormented those who live on the earth." Not, just those in Jerusalem.

Right, and they did that in the way prophets do, by preaching. How can prophets who are necessarily confined to one location at a time torment those who live on the earth? Two ways: by traveling themselves, and by having their message carried to other places by those who heard them, so that the message goes out to all the earth. The technology of the 1st century was fully adequate for that.

And. will only those in the city gloat?
The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them .

No. The text clearly says that the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over the death of the prophets. What it does not say is that the inhabitants of the earth will gaze on their bodies, or that the gloating will be confined to the 3 1/2 days that the bodies are left in the street.

And they were to be gazing at the bodies for those three days.

The text says only those in the city will actually gaze on their bodies.

If it depended on them being in the area and not switching on a TV? How in tarnation will they have time to exchange gifts, and be there at the same time? They will be sending each other gifts? How? By camel? Or, Fedex?

The text does not say the gift-giving will occur within the 3 1/2 days. The 3 1/2 days refers only to the time the people in the city will be gazing at the unburied bodies. It is not a limitation on the period of international gloating and gift-giving.

For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation . .

Every language? Every nation? How many Malaysians and and North Koreans will be in Jerusalem? How many Japanese? How many Nigerians? Mexicans? China?

The bible never references peoples unknown to the Israelites of the time. So the text should be interpreted to refer to all the nations and languages known to John --or more broadly to the peoples known to Mediterranean civilizations of the time.

I have been to Israel. They do get tourism. But, from every nation? Not even close. Only select nations are visitors.

No? I would expect they get visitors from every nation in which there is a Jewish and/or Christian community. Unless Israeli officials refuse to issue visas to some of these. How many nations have neither a Jewish nor a Christian community? Also, tourism is not the only reason a foreign national might be in the country.

That passage states that every language and every nationality will see this. Unless its world news, it just will not happen.

But, thanks for showing me how you wish to interpret Scripture.

The difference is that I am taking the text precisely as given. You are the one inserting your pre-suppositions into it e.g. that televison transmissions would be necessary to spread the word. The text does not require your modernistic pre-suppositions. So you are wrong to say that John's original readers would be puzzled about how these things could be. You may be puzzled, but they would not be.

The Amplified Translation renders it thusly....

10And those who dwell on the earth will gloat and exult over them and rejoice exceedingly, taking their ease and sending presents [in congratulation] to one another, because these two prophets had been such a vexation and trouble and torment to all the dwellers on the earth.

And, I might add? ..... the word "nations," means Gentile nations.

Still no mention of this activity being limited to 3 1/2 days. Nor of needing to actually gaze on the bodies in order to rejoice over the death of the prophets.

"For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation . ."

Why would all the Gentile nations have an interest in Israel back then? Jerusalem was over run by Rome. Not all the nations visited Israel back then.

People from the nations did. Jewish pilgrims from those nations count as people from those nations (as the Pentecost account demonstrates). Also the Roman armies were composed of people from all the nations of the Roman empire. And trading caravans came from all parts of the known world. And the known world of the time is the only world John is referring to.

"For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth."[/size][/i] [/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

The text has two different sentences with two different subjects and two different verbs. You are contending that both sentences refer to the same group of people. They don't. You are making an elementary error of grammar leading to a misintepretation of the text.

Speaking of elementary errors, have you figured out yet how you are wrong about tying the orbit of the earth to sunrise and sunset?

 

[GenemZ]

Right, and they did that in the way prophets do, by preaching. How can prophets who are necessarily confined to one location at a time torment those who live on the earth? Two ways: by traveling themselves, and by having their message carried to other places by those who heard them, so that the message goes out to all the earth. The technology of the 1st century was fully adequate for that.

And, Jesus is now sitting on his throne in Jerusalem? Did you bother to read the context of events? And, you can not torment someone like that unless its a direct confrontation. The three and a half day event would have not traveled as good news around the world as you described..... for you forgot to read what follows.

No. The text clearly says that the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over the death of the prophets. What it does not say is that the inhabitants of the earth will gaze on their bodies, or that the gloating will be confined to the 3 1/2 days that the bodies are left in the street.

They will have no reason to gloat if it happened slowly.... as you would have it.

The text says only those in the city will actually gaze on their bodies.

Not really.

The text does not say the gift-giving will occur within the 3 1/2 days. The 3 1/2 days refers only to the time the people in the city will be gazing at the unburied bodies. It is not a limitation on the period of international gloating and gift-giving.

Why should they give out gifts? The two will rise from the dead immediately after 3 and a half days! Right before their eyes! (I deliberately left the last part off just so you could hang yourself). And, you just did! They word would not have gotten around in such a fashion that they would send gifts if the word spread as you rationalized it to be. They would have no reason to send gifts. Gift giving would have to take place during the 3 days only. For these men raised from the dead and caused great dread when they did!

The bible never references peoples unknown to the Israelites of the time. So the text should be interpreted to refer to all the nations and languages known to John --or more broadly to the peoples known to Mediterranean civilizations of the time.

God has a prophet write what he does not understand at times. He just says it by faith. Later on its revealed to be so. The prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah 53, and Psalm 22, are fine examples.

No? I would expect they get visitors from every nation in which there is a Jewish and/or Christian community. Unless Israeli officials refuse to issue visas to some of these. How many nations have neither a Jewish nor a Christian community? Also, tourism is not the only reason a foreign national might be in the country.

The nations I mentioned do not visit that country. And, these two will be prophets, not politicians for all to hear under normal sits. Prophets were a religious matter. Not something that would draw in visiters from other nations who would be tormented by what they hear. A Muslim can blab about how Allah will judge you. Does that torment you? Nah! These men will have something to say that will effect all men's hearts because the Holy Spirit will be driving them crazy with conviction of guilt. All their rationalizations will be pushed to the wall when these men speak. No philospophy will feel comfortable in their presence. They will be tormented by what they hear.

The difference is that I am taking the text precisely as given. You are the one inserting your pre-suppositions into it e.g. that televison transmissions would be necessary to spread the word. The text does not require your modernistic pre-suppositions. So you are wrong to say that John's original readers would be puzzled about how these things could be. You may be puzzled, but they would not be.

I did not say puzzled. They simply could not know what it means. Just like when many read "tohu wa bohu" in Genesis 1:2, and only read it superficially.

Still no mention of this activity being limited to 3 1/2 days. Nor of needing to actually gaze on the bodies in order to rejoice over the death of the prophets.

Word would have spread that they had raised from the dead just as quickly! Why would they give gifts under those circumstances? Your scenario makes no sense for that reason.




Wishing you a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[Spiritualyalive]

It's posible that at the time of the death of the two prophets will be Christmas time and thats wht gifts are given.


Also I believe the prophets will have power to curse the nations, and bring plagues on them and thats why so many will hate them.

 

[gluadys]

Not really.

Yes, really.

Gift giving would have to take place during the 3 days only. For these men raised from the dead and caused great dread when they did!

No problem.
Day 1: prophets are killed. people in city gaze on bodies. city rejoices & sends out messages and gifts.

Day 3: prophets rise from the dead. city is in dread

Day 5: news and gifts from Jerusalem arrive in Alexandria. City rejoices and sends gifts to Jerusalem and other cities.

Day 8: news of prophets' resurrection arrives in Alexandria. city is in dread.

Three days of rejoicing in each city as first the good news, then the bad news reaches them.

The nations I mentioned do not visit that country.

Why would a Christian from Taiwan not visit Israel? For that matter, why would a Buddhist businessman from Taiwan not visit Israel?

I did not say puzzled. They simply could not know what it means.

Since there is no difficulty in understanding it, there is no reason to suppose they couldn't know the meaning.

 

[gluadys]

It's posible that at the time of the death of the two prophets will be Christmas time and thats wht gifts are given.

You are making stuff up. The text does not suggest that at all.
Nor would John think of that as not even Christians celebrated Christmas at the time John was writing. That came a few centuries later.

English Puritans considered Christmas to be a pagan festival and banned it in the days of Cromwell.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

You are making stuff up. The text does not suggest that at all.
Nor would John think of that as not even Christians celebrated Christmas at the time John was writing. That came a few centuries later.

? Making stuff up? What are you talking about now? John was writing what he seen hapening in the future. it's interly plausable that their death hapen around christmas time. I never said that christmas was a christian holiday though many claim it is. I totally believe is a pagan holiday. But how does that detract from my point?

English Puritans considered Christmas to be a pagan festival and banned it in the days of Cromwell.

I'm not in disagreement with them, so?

 

[gluadys]

? Making stuff up? What are you talking about now? John was writing what he seen hapening in the future. it's interly plausable that their death hapen around christmas time. I never said that christmas was a christian holiday though many claim it is. I totally believe is a pagan holiday. But how does that detract from my point?



I'm not in disagreement with them, so?

You don't have a point. You have a totally wild guess. Nothing in the text suggests it at all. You don't interpret scripture with wild guesses.

 

[GenemZ]

Why would a Christian from Taiwan not visit Israel? For that matter, why would a Buddhist businessman from Taiwan not visit Israel?

Because of the limits you put on it, would mean it would have had to have taken place a long time ago. The point that I am making reveals that it shows the whole world will view this event, and it will have to be via the likes of Satellite TV. Since this event has not yet taken place, obviously the whole world will see it like we see on TV today.

Since there is no difficulty in understanding it, there is no reason to suppose they couldn't know the meaning.

They could assume a meaning, sure. But, they could not assume the meaning.

For, when this happens (yet to be, in the future) the whole world will see what takes place. Just like we all watched the invasion of Iraq from TV. Just like we all watched the twin towers on 9/11. These two will be bigger news than that. For these two will have tormented the entire world with their words of truth which those of the world will be powerless to spin away.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Spiritualyalive]

Because of the limits you put on it, would mean it would have had to have taken place a long time ago. The point that I am making reveals that it shows the whole world will view this event, and it will have to be via the likes of Satellite TV. Since this event has not yet taken place, obviously the whole world will see it like we see on TV today.




They could assume a meaning, sure. But, they could not assume the meaning.

For, when this happens (yet to be, in the future) the whole world will see what takes place. Just like we all watched the invasion of Iraq from TV. Just like we all watched the twin towers on 9/11. These two will be bigger news than that. For these two will have tormented the entire world with their words of truth which those of the world will be powerless to spin away.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

GeneZ it will be more than words, they will have the power to do the same plagues as mosses.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

You don't have a point. You have a totally wild guess. Nothing in the text suggests it at all. You don't interpret scripture with wild guesses.

My point is still valid and a good guess.

 

[sawdust]

The text says only those in the city will actually gaze on their bodies.

For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.

How do you possibly get "only those in the city" will gaze on their bodies?

peace

 

[GenemZ]

GeneZ it will be more than words, they will have the power to do the same plagues as Moses.

Yes.... Matter of fact. Some believe it will be both Elijah, and Moses, as the two prophets. THey will torment all who hate the truth. And, any man tries to kill them fire will destroy them.

Other than that, they make a mean cappuccino


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.

How do you possibly get "only those in the city" will gaze on their bodies?

peace

Easy... it can be taken several ways. That's the way she wants to see it. Yet, in the future this will be major news. Hardly something that will be locked into being limited to just a few people in a city viewing.

We even just had live video of the police raid in England made against terrorists taken on video phones. I am sure the way we are to take it, will mean the whole world will be seeing it via satallite TV. But, if that's the way she wants to see? Let her.

Just a suggestion. Like? Who cares? What will be, will be.


Grace and peace, GeneZ