No sea

[Guest shiloh357]

Well, I disagree with that. We ask questions to provoke discussion, to understand the Word better, to glean insight from our fellow believers. Asking a question doesn't imply there is no clear solid answer to be given. It just means it is a topic I had not yet explored in depth.

Any answer to your initial question would be nothing but speculation and analogies are subjective and make the text servant to the reader. The Bible does not tell us WHY there are no seas in the New Earth. That subject is not dealt with in any other place in Scripture. So it is one of those things about which no definitive answer can be given.

There are topics for which I see clearly where another doesn't. There are topics where they see clearly and yet I don't.

Yes, but this topic is one for which NO ONE has any definitive answer because there simply is not enough data.

The problem I have with this, is that we don't want to frighten people away from biblical discussion.

I know that, but sometimes you have to be satisfied with the fact that there are parts of the Bible that are still a mystery and will remain so until God discloses what they mean.

The Bible is a system of progressive revelation. It has been that way from the beginning. Abraham had more light than Noah, Moses had more light than Abraham, Isaiah had more light than Moses, Paul had more light than Isaiah, etc.

We can't demand someone comes to the question table with a solution already in hand.

I am not suggesting that they should. I am suggesting that it is pointless to belabor something for which we simply don't have enough information to give an a definitive answer Sometimes we have to be satisfied with waiting until more light on some issues becomes available. Otherwise we end up trying to fill in the blanks with our own speculations that is NOT Bible study.

There must be a process by which someone is allowed to ask a question, and together determine from scripture whether an interpretation /analogy is biblical or not.

Yes, but you sort have to know when you have run up against a wall and can't go any further. The point is that you have nothing from Scripture to tell you WHY there are no seas and what, if any theological significance that holds.

Land may be symbolic of something in one part of the Bible, but that does NOT mean that the same symbolism is employed every time Land is mentioned. The Bible was written by over 40 different people from three different continents from various walks of life covering a span of some 1,400 years and there are different contexts and different messages and it is important to ferret out both the historical and immediate context in order to understand the over all subject matter not to mention the object the author has in view. It is not as simple as just trying to decide which analogy sounds like the right one.

[~candice~]

I guess what I don't understand is why the plethora of scriptures provided by Lekh, covering many books, which speak to the analogy of the sea and the gentile nations, does not apply here.

And I'm asking honestly, not trying to belabour the point.

Why is that analogy, which seems to come from scripture, not appropriate to be used here in order to bring meaning to that text?

And what do you do with the River of Life in Rev 22? Symbolic or physical-literal?

[Guest shiloh357]

I guess what I don't understand is why the plethora of scriptures provided by Lekh, covering many books, which speak to the analogy of the sea and the gentile nations, does not apply here.

What Lekh provided may apply to the passages described, but that does not mean that we are free to take an analogy in place and plug it in to other parts of the Bible. And by the way, what Lekh provided were not actual analogies. God may at times equate the waves of the sea with the "roar of the nations" but that does not mean you plug "nations" in to every verse that mentions in the seas/oceans. It just doesn't work that way.

I would also add that you would not treat any other work of literature this way. I don't know why the rules change where the Bible is concerned. Sometimes, even in the Bible, a rock is just a rock.

Why is that analogy, which seems to come from scripture, not appropriate to be used here in order to bring meaning to that text?

You look for the meaning of a given text within the text itself. There are rules of literary analysis and the Bible is a piece of literature that obeys the rules of literature.

And what do you do with the River of Life in Rev 22? Symbolic or physical-literal?

I don't know.

[~candice~]

It's all connected Shiloh. Forcing 'no sea' to be physical-literal implies that the 'River of life' MUST be symbolic.

So interpreting it the way you do has implications for the interpretation of other scriptures [as does any position, I guess].

[Hawkins]

My theory is that 'sea' symbolically represents Hades (and thus death). As a result, 'no more sea' symbolically represents 'no more death'.

More details about my 'theory';

To me, Hades is such a vast space which is 'air' in nature yet visually more or less like under-water sea. The part near the surface is gloomy (gloomy dungeons), when it goes deeper it is darker and thus can be called the Abyss.

To me, Baptism means we are going to be buried in Hades then cleansed and raised later on (resurrection). Moses led the Jews across the Red Sea to the promised Canaan, to save them from being enslaved. It implies that Jesus will lead both the Jews and Gentiles across the sea of Hades to the promised New Heaven and New Earth, to save them from being enslaved.

The name Moses means 'pull from water' or 'save from water'.

Noah's story means a spiritual ark is under the construction which will bring the saved (Christians as human minority = Noah's family) to prevent them from being buried under water. The ark will bring them to the New Heaven and New Earth.

Revelation 20:13

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.

Revelation 21:1

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Hawkins

[Guest shiloh357]

It's all connected Shiloh. Forcing 'no sea' to be physical-literal implies that the 'River of life' MUST be symbolic.

Where did I say "no sea" is physical-literal? I did not offer that. My position is that we will know what it all means when God illuminates us. When God reveals it, there is no longer any guess work needed.

So interpreting it the way you do has implications for the interpretation of other scriptures [as does any position, I guess].

I didn't offer an interpretation. My point was that there is not enough data on the subject to render a competent interpretation.

[EricH]

It's all connected Shiloh. Forcing 'no sea' to be physical-literal implies that the 'River of life' MUST be symbolic.

So interpreting it the way you do has implications for the interpretation of other scriptures [as does any position, I guess].

That would not be a fair statement. The sea symbolic or non symbolic nature of the sea has no direct impact on whether or not the river is symbolic or non symbolic.

[enoob57]

Mr. Hawkins how long have you believed in Christ?

[~candice~]

It's all connected Shiloh. Forcing 'no sea' to be physical-literal implies that the 'River of life' MUST be symbolic.

So interpreting it the way you do has implications for the interpretation of other scriptures [as does any position, I guess].

That would not be a fair statement. The sea symbolic or non symbolic nature of the sea has no direct impact on whether or not the river is symbolic or non symbolic.

Here is my understanding...

The greek word there for sea refers to any size body of water. How can there be a complete total absence of any physical-literal body of water, and yet the presence of a physical-literal river [the River of Life]? It doesn't make logical sense.

[~candice~]

It's all connected Shiloh. Forcing 'no sea' to be physical-literal implies that the 'River of life' MUST be symbolic.

Where did I say "no sea" is physical-literal? I did not offer that. My position is that we will know what it all means when God illuminates us. When God reveals it, there is no longer any guess work needed.

OK Shiloh - so what do you see as the significance of there being no sea on the new earth?

That's my point; I don't see that any signifigance, at least from a theological standpoint, is given. It is simply presented as fact. I guess that means there won't be rivers or other tributaries as there would be nothing for them them flow into.

I understood you to be talking physical-literal above. If I understood wrong, it was done innocently and I apologise.