The Bible specifies that every person who dies will at some point be resurrected. It also specifies that some will go to everlasting happiness and others to everlasting torment, depending on their conduct and whether they have the humility to accept Christ.
The bible says thousands of things, many of them contradictory. It's a myth. It's religion, nonsense, really, in most ways. Some wisdom there, but still basically a fantasy to help people deal with death.
At least that is what it is to an atheist like me. Or as a cryonicist, I can see it as a tool to help bring cryonics signups.
Now, there are two aspects here. One is that those who are resurrected will be judged afterwards and sent to either everlasting reward or everlasting torment. This is where two moral assumptions come into play. The first is that lack of humility (or some other essential quality) would be the only reason to reject Christ. The other is that the lack of said quality is sufficient to justify eternal torment. Personally I find both of these premises to be highly questionable, and I think anyone who say down and thought about it from an objective standpoint would think so too.
The second (and more relavent) aspect is the biblical statement that this resurrection (and/or afterlife) will be applied equally to all humans, regardless of their final disposition being cremation, or burial, eaten by beasts, etc. This is a highly central belief, and one that cryonics does not even attempt to match. Cryonics only hopes to bring back those who have had adequate cryopreservation soon enough after death. While these are a little fuzzy in definition because we don't know everything about future technology, there are some definite theoretical limits to it.
If you want to talk about a potential future resurrection via technology,
My objective is to use the bible to get american christians to sign up for cryonics. Why are you bringing in all this other stuff?
The important thing to consider here is that cryopreservation is an incredibly different sort of technology than the virtual time travel mentioned above.
so...? What was your point with respect to what I wrote?