Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122
Results 316 to 328 of 328

Thread: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

  1. #316
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I concur that in some contexts, the sea represents the peoples of the earth or kingdoms of the earth. However, speaking of "context" it makes no sense to claim that the *sea* in Rev 20:13 is anything but literal.

    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    If the sea above denotes the place of the deadaccording to you, why did the same verse say that "death and hell delivered up those in them? You know, it's OK to concede sometimes that you're wrong rather than employ your literary skill to convince the gullible that a bad interpretation is true.
    The sea gave up the dead which were in it shows that the sea was A place of the dead. death and hell also delivered up the dead denoting them as also places of the dead.
    IOW there are THREE places denoted as the place of the dead. The sea is a PHYSICAL location where people died in storms etc and so are not put in holes in the ground, so it is used for the dead as a stand in. Hades is the Greek, and Sheol the Hebrew, and Saxon is hell, which all mean a hole in the ground, which is a PHYSICAL location, but used to mean the place where the dead go. Death is then mentioned for anyone who dies in unknown ways, perhaps burnt to death etc.
    So I am not sure what I am expected to say I am wrong about.
    It is very clear in Rev 20:13 the sea is not a literal place anymore than death is a literal place or hades is a literal place.

    It may well be the dead sea or it may not be - it's speculative. But what cannot be refuted is that the sea in Rev 20:13 is literal and it's no more in Rev 21:1. As I pointed out, there's no way you can logically make the sea of v-13 people or places of the earth when death and hell are also mentioned in the same context as delivering the dead in them.
    Not really speculative as it flows east from Jerusalem, and places are stated which are around the Dead Sea.
    The sea in Rev 20:13 is very clearly NOT literal, and some sort of sea is no more in Rev 21:1.
    However as Rev 21:1 refers to the time when Jesus returns as this is when the NJ comes down out of heaven (a chronology problem you still have) then clearly there is a sea (multiples of them) during the time of the MK and the NJ.

  2. #317
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The sea gave up the dead which were in it shows that the sea was A place of the dead. death and hell also delivered up the dead denoting them as also places of the dead.
    IOW there are THREE places denoted as the place of the dead. The sea is a PHYSICAL location where people died in storms etc and so are not put in holes in the ground, so it is used for the dead as a stand in. Hades is the Greek, and Sheol the Hebrew, and Saxon is hell, which all mean a hole in the ground, which is a PHYSICAL location, but used to mean the place where the dead go. Death is then mentioned for anyone who dies in unknown ways, perhaps burnt to death etc.
    So I am not sure what I am expected to say I am wrong about.
    It is very clear in Rev 20:13 the sea is not a literal place anymore than death is a literal place or hades is a literal place.
    You have just confirmed that the sea cited in Rev 20:13 refers to those that died in the waters, although you called it "A place of the dead". You may deny as much as you like, but no one but you believes that the sea in v-13 is not the physical sea. And the likes of those held by the sea include Osama bin Laden, etc.

    Not really speculative as it flows east from Jerusalem, and places are stated which are around the Dead Sea.
    The sea in Rev 20:13 is very clearly NOT literal, and some sort of sea is no more in Rev 21:1.
    However as Rev 21:1 refers to the time when Jesus returns as this is when the NJ comes down out of heaven (a chronology problem you still have) then clearly there is a sea (multiples of them) during the time of the MK and the NJ.
    Obviously, you have a problem keeping in touch with what I'm saying. I have been consistent that the sea will remain throughout the MK but will cease to exist after the NHNE comes into effect after the MK is over.

  3. #318
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    You have just confirmed that the sea cited in Rev 20:13 refers to those that died in the waters, although you called it "A place of the dead". You may deny as much as you like, but no one but you believes that the sea in v-13 is not the physical sea. And the likes of those held by the sea include Osama bin Laden, etc.
    It is a place of the dead, just as Hades is a place of the dead, and just as Death is a place of the dead. We KNWO this without a single DOUBT because this is where the dead souls are coming from.
    It is ASSOCIATED with the PHYSICAL location, just as Hades is ASSOCIATED with the earth ( a hole in the ground).
    Yet NOBODY thinks Hades is LITERALLY the PHYSICAL earth
    So IF you hold that the sea in Rev 20:13 is the LITERAL sea must also think Hades is the LITERAL earth, and that therefore the literal earth is cast into the LoF.

    Obviously, you have a problem keeping in touch with what I'm saying. I have been consistent that the sea will remain throughout the MK but will cease to exist after the NHNE comes into effect after the MK is over.
    I have kept in touch with your claim, but the point is that he River in Ezekiel 47 is the SAME river as in Rev 22, just as their is ONLY ONE NHNE.
    You do mental gymnastics ignoring that Rev 21:2 follows Rev 21:1, and others do the same with Isaiah 65 and 66.
    The simple and clear meaning is that the NJ comes down into the NHNE. It is the START of the one following the START of the other. The NHNE starts and God brings the NJ down into it, as His base of operations, to renew and restore the devastated earth.

  4. #319
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It is a place of the dead, just as Hades is a place of the dead, and just as Death is a place of the dead. We KNWO this without a single DOUBT because this is where the dead souls are coming from.
    It is ASSOCIATED with the PHYSICAL location, just as Hades is ASSOCIATED with the earth ( a hole in the ground).
    Yet NOBODY thinks Hades is LITERALLY the PHYSICAL earth
    So IF you hold that the sea in Rev 20:13 is the LITERAL sea must also think Hades is the LITERAL earth, and that therefore the literal earth is cast into the LoF.
    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    1. The Sea [physical] is a place of the dead. No argument here. However, does it negate its physical characteristic? I don't think so!
    2. Notice that "hell" in the text refers to the grave, ie, a physical hole in the ground.
    3. Since no dead rests in the air - the only places they are held are (1) in the ground/hell (2) the water/sea.

    Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

    To ensure there's no ambiguity that "hell" in v-13 denote the physical grave, *hell* in v-14 answers your question. IOW, v-14 denotes 'hell' in a spiritual/figurative sense thereby establishing a clear contrast in meaning contextually in its uses in verses 13 and 14. If you still disagree and without giving me the recapitulation b**s, how do you explain the use of 'hell' in differing contexts in these verses? Do you still believe they have the same meaning?

    You can deny scripture as much as you please - it won't change the TRUTH.

    I have kept in touch with your claim, but the point is that he River in Ezekiel 47 is the SAME river as in Rev 22, just as their is ONLY ONE NHNE.
    You do mental gymnastics ignoring that Rev 21:2 follows Rev 21:1, and others do the same with Isaiah 65 and 66.
    The simple and clear meaning is that the NJ comes down into the NHNE. It is the START of the one following the START of the other. The NHNE starts and God brings the NJ down into it, as His base of operations, to renew and restore the devastated earth.
    I see the NHNE as the replacement of the burnt up and varnished old one. Secondly, the NHNE doesn't 'grow' to cover the earth as you have maintained. We must agree to disagree on this one.

  5. #320
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,559

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    1. The Sea [physical] is a place of the dead. No argument here. However, does it negate its physical characteristic? I don't think so!
    2. Notice that "hell" in the text refers to the grave, ie, a physical hole in the ground.
    3. Since no dead rests in the air - the only places they are held are (1) in the ground/hell (2) the water/sea.

    Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

    To ensure there's no ambiguity that "hell" in v-13 denote the physical grave, *hell* in v-14 answers your question. IOW, v-14 denotes 'hell' in a spiritual/figurative sense thereby establishing a clear contrast in meaning contextually in its uses in verses 13 and 14. If you still disagree and without giving me the recapitulation b**s, how do you explain the use of 'hell' in differing contexts in these verses? Do you still believe they have the same meaning?

    You can deny scripture as much as you please - it won't change the TRUTH.



    I see the NHNE as the replacement of the burnt up and varnished old one. Secondly, the NHNE doesn't 'grow' to cover the earth as you have maintained. We must agree to disagree on this one.


    Exactly.

    John doesn't present a NE that takes a thousand years to fill, outgrowing from Jerusalem around the globe.

    John tells us that when the last trumpet sounds, it is 'the time of the dead' that they are judged and rewarded; and it is the time the entire world and all kingdoms become Christ's Kingdom.

    Revelation 10-11 "there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."

  6. #321
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Exactly.

    John doesn't present a NE that takes a thousand years to fill, outgrowing from Jerusalem around the globe.

    John tells us that when the last trumpet sounds, it is 'the time of the dead' that they are judged and rewarded; and it is the time the entire world and all kingdoms become Christ's Kingdom.

    Revelation 10-11 "there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."
    Thanks for the supporting scriptures.

  7. #322
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
    1. The Sea [physical] is a place of the dead. No argument here. However, does it negate its physical characteristic? I don't think so!
    2. Notice that "hell" in the text refers to the grave, ie, a physical hole in the ground.
    3. Since no dead rests in the air - the only places they are held are (1) in the ground/hell (2) the water/sea.
    1. The sea is indeed a physical place, but in this verse it is NOT being used as a physical place anymore than hades is being used as a physical place, or death is a physical place. IN ALL 3 places the PHYSICAL is a holder for a place beyond where the dead body may physically have died, and is a stand in for the spiritual reality.
    2. Hades is not a physical hole in the ground, and the Greek used here is Hades. The KJV translated as hell, but a hole isn't the real meaning, anymore than hades is a real hole.
    3. Actually there is a third mentioned which is death - which may be for those burnt up in fire, or for those where it is unknown where the body is/was.

    None of the three locations is a PHYSICAL place you can go to to find a dead soul. They ALL are a denotation of a place used in the place of the actual location of the soul.

    Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
    To ensure there's no ambiguity that "hell" in v-13 denote the physical grave, *hell* in v-14 answers your question. IOW, v-14 denotes 'hell' in a spiritual/figurative sense thereby establishing a clear contrast in meaning contextually in its uses in verses 13 and 14. If you still disagree and without giving me the recapitulation b**s, how do you explain the use of 'hell' in differing contexts in these verses? Do you still believe they have the same meaning?
    Same word used in verse 14 as 13 for hades.
    If verse 13 is the PHYSICAL ground, then verse 14 would also mean it to be CONSISTENT within the CONTEXT.
    Having a different meaning of a word from one context to another is possible, but WITHIN the SAME context means you have no means of being sure of meaning.
    There is NO contrast between verse 13 and 14.
    Verse 14 is NOT a physical location and so NEITHER is verse 13.
    It is NOT a differing CONTEXT, for the CONTEXT is the SAME.

    You can deny scripture as much as you please - it won't change the TRUTH.
    Certainly, which is why I NEVER deny scripture.

    I see the NHNE as the replacement of the burnt up and varnished old one. Secondly, the NHNE doesn't 'grow' to cover the earth as you have maintained. We must agree to disagree on this one.
    What is the NHNE?
    Is it a place with NO reference to the one who has made it?
    Are you really arguing that the NHNE has no connection with Jesus, and that Jesus does NOT rule over it?
    The old one is indeed gone, just like the old creation that you were is gone!

  8. #323
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Exactly.
    John doesn't present a NE that takes a thousand years to fill, outgrowing from Jerusalem around the globe.
    John tells us that when the last trumpet sounds, it is 'the time of the dead' that they are judged and rewarded; and it is the time the entire world and all kingdoms become Christ's Kingdom.
    Revelation 10-11 "there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."
    This states the MYSTERY is finished.
    We find when the 7th trumpet is blown that Jesus is crowned as Lord as so the MYSTERY is indeed 100% finished. Is it in the second this declaration occurs that everything happens? Of course NOT!
    In fact what happens when the 7th trumpet is blown is that Satan is cast out of heaven.
    Moreover there is 42 months of the beast's reign.

    Now even if you don't accept this as being correct, there is still a time for Jesus to descend fro heaven, for us to be raptured to Him, for Armageddon to happen (and of course somewhere in this you have to have 7 vials) and then for Him to come to judge.
    IOW there is a process a duration of time whilst God does what He chooses to do.

    Notice it states His wrath is come, and this refers to the 7 vials which have yet to be poured.
    It states the dead are to be judged, but there is no requirement for the dead to be judged in that moment, but rather that this will happen due to this change of Jesus having been crowned.

    It takes but a moment for the NE, and yet it is a process lasting 1,000 years.
    It takes but a moment for us to be new creations, but it takes a lifetime (and beyond) for us to be transformed, a process we are going through.

  9. #324
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    1. The sea is indeed a physical place, but in this verse it is NOT being used as a physical place anymore than hades is being used as a physical place, or death is a physical place. IN ALL 3 places the PHYSICAL is a holder for a place beyond where the dead body may physically have died, and is a stand in for the spiritual reality.
    2. Hades is not a physical hole in the ground, and the Greek used here is Hades. The KJV translated as hell, but a hole isn't the real meaning, anymore than hades is a real hole.
    3. Actually there is a third mentioned which is death - which may be for those burnt up in fire, or for those where it is unknown where the body is/was.

    None of the three locations is a PHYSICAL place you can go to to find a dead soul. They ALL are a denotation of a place used in the place of the actual location of the soul.

    Same word used in verse 14 as 13 for hades.

    If verse 13 is the PHYSICAL ground, then verse 14 would also mean it to be CONSISTENT within the CONTEXT.
    Having a different meaning of a word from one context to another is possible, but WITHIN the SAME context means you have no means of being sure of meaning.
    There is NO contrast between verse 13 and 14.
    Verse 14 is NOT a physical location and so NEITHER is verse 13.
    It is NOT a differing CONTEXT, for the CONTEXT is the SAME.

    Certainly, which is why I NEVER deny scripture.
    Never capable of conceding that you're wrong, you are simply arguing just for the hell of it right now. I have presented a simple exegesis that everyone can understand. Having explained that the physical sea released the dead in it, I also showed how the physical grave/hell did the same also in v-13. This is contrasted with the figurative death/hell in v-14.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    What is the NHNE?
    Is it a place with NO reference to the one who has made it?
    Are you really arguing that the NHNE has no connection with Jesus, and that Jesus does NOT rule over it?
    The old one is indeed gone, just like the old creation that you were is gone!
    I don't understand the relevance of your questions to be honest since there is nothing created that has no connection to Jesus. But claiming that the NHNE grows to cover the areas covered by the vanished old one is a bit too much of a fable for me.

  10. #325
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Never capable of conceding that you're wrong, you are simply arguing just for the hell of it right now. I have presented a simple exegesis that everyone can understand. Having explained that the physical sea released the dead in it, I also showed how the physical grave/hell did the same also in v-13. This is contrasted with the figurative death/hell in v-14.
    How on "earth" can you say that verse 13 the sea and hades are physical, then claim in verse 14 it isn't.
    They are clearly referring to the SAME place, which therefore means IF hades is figurative in verse 14 then it is figurative in verse 13, which is clearly what it is.
    I can concede I am wrong, when someone puts something which shows I am wrong.
    Not arguing for the "hell" of it at all.
    I really do not understand how anyone can claim that the place where dead souls are is a PHYSICAL place.
    Can we really go to the sea and "see" some dead souls floating around? Are they in jelly fish?
    Clearly the sea in verse 13 is NOT a PHYSICAL place but a figurative usage, based upon the known physical reality, just as hades is used.

    I don't understand the relevance of your questions to be honest since there is nothing created that has no connection to Jesus. But claiming that the NHNE grows to cover the areas covered by the vanished old one is a bit too much of a fable for me.
    Is it a fable that you are a new creation? Is it a fable that you are being transformed? Is it a fable that the mindset of the old you still has a hold on you?
    What is a fable is that the NHNE happens in a FLASH, yet God took 6 days to make the first earth.
    The purpose of the MK is mainly for the restoration of the world, which we as humans have harmed and not taken care of as we should.

  11. #326
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    How on "earth" can you say that verse 13 the sea and hades are physical, then claim in verse 14 it isn't.
    They are clearly referring to the SAME place, which therefore means IF hades is figurative in verse 14 then it is figurative in verse 13, which is clearly what it is.
    I can concede I am wrong, when someone puts something which shows I am wrong.
    Not arguing for the "hell" of it at all.
    I really do not understand how anyone can claim that the place where dead souls are is a PHYSICAL place.
    Can we really go to the sea and "see" some dead souls floating around? Are they in jelly fish?
    Clearly the sea in verse 13 is NOT a PHYSICAL place but a figurative usage, based upon the known physical reality, just as hades is used.
    You are just repeating your denial that the sea in v-13 is not literal. The sea is not mentioned in v-14. To support your claim, it makes sense that you deny that the sea is physical. Nobody said the "dead souls" are floating in the sea just as that is also not the case with the physical grave/hole in the earth. But of course, you know this. I see no need to pursue this further - you believe what you believe and me, too.

    Is it a fable that you are a new creation? Is it a fable that you are being transformed? Is it a fable that the mindset of the old you still has a hold on you?
    What is a fable is that the NHNE happens in a FLASH, yet God took 6 days to make the first earth.
    The purpose of the MK is mainly for the restoration of the world, which we as humans have harmed and not taken care of as we should.
    I would have believed your version if the scriptures said that the old heaven and earth will take a long to time to be destroyed. Unfortunately for you, it says they will be destroyed in an instant. And since there won't be a vacuum, the NHNE will also replace the old in an instant. Anything else is fantasy, brother.

  12. #327
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    You are just repeating your denial that the sea in v-13 is not literal. The sea is not mentioned in v-14. To support your claim, it makes sense that you deny that the sea is physical. Nobody said the "dead souls" are floating in the sea just as that is also not the case with the physical grave/hole in the earth. But of course, you know this. I see no need to pursue this further - you believe what you believe and me, too.
    Huh? Your argument supports EXACTLY what I am contending. Hades which IS in verse 14 is NOT a PHYSICAL place. Further it is NOT a PHYSICAL place in verse 13 either. As "dead souls" do NOT float around the PHYSICAL sea, yet the "sea" is where these souls are coming from it demonstrates CONTEXTUALLY that the sea is NOT a PHYSICAL sea in verse 13.

    I would have believed your version if the scriptures said that the old heaven and earth will take a long to time to be destroyed. Unfortunately for you, it says they will be destroyed in an instant. And since there won't be a vacuum, the NHNE will also replace the old in an instant. Anything else is fantasy, brother.
    To destroy something is a lot quicker than building it.
    However the earth is to be RENEWED, which also takes more time than wrecking it.
    I also noted that the NHNE does come in an instant, just as you are a NEW creation in an instant, but then you spend years having your life transformed and your mind renewed, changing (hopefully) from glory to glory.

  13. #328
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,180
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Huh? Your argument supports EXACTLY what I am contending. Hades which IS in verse 14 is NOT a PHYSICAL place. Further it is NOT a PHYSICAL place in verse 13 either. As "dead souls" do NOT float around the PHYSICAL sea, yet the "sea" is where these souls are coming from it demonstrates CONTEXTUALLY that the sea is NOT a PHYSICAL sea in verse 13.
    So if a statement that those in a prison facility are said to be released, it means the correctional facility if not physical, but figurative in your view?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    To destroy something is a lot quicker than building it.
    However the earth is to be RENEWED, which also takes more time than wrecking it.
    I also noted that the NHNE does come in an instant, just as you are a NEW creation in an instant, but then you spend years having your life transformed and your mind renewed, changing (hopefully) from glory to glory.
    You just don't get it, do you? You're hell-bent on pursuing this tottering interpretation that you don't realise how ludicrous it is.

    a - there is nothing in scripture (other than your imagination) that says the NHNE won't be instant.
    b - your choice of analogy in the spiritual newness of a believer and the replacement of the old earth with the new is pretty poor. While heaven and earth are physical, the transforming mindset of the believer is spiritual. Sure you see how incompatible they are?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How literal are you?
    By DavidC in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: Aug 1st 2017, 09:00 PM
  2. A literal temple of God?
    By The Lion and his lamb in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: Apr 14th 2015, 06:32 PM
  3. Replies: 143
    Last Post: Jul 6th 2010, 07:46 PM
  4. how literal....
    By ilovemetal in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Aug 1st 2009, 05:37 PM
  5. Discussion A Literal Temple?
    By ZAB in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: May 26th 2009, 11:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •