What the new earth tells us about earth pre fall

[~candice~]

OK, I'll stick my neck out. I know I've said this before, and people have rejected the notion. But I'll say it again anyway.

I view Gen. 1-2 as a prophetic look at history the way Rev. is a prophetic look at the future.

OK, I'm chewing on this. Do you think it is only prophetic history, or is it also historical-literal?

I think there are heaps of posts on the issues we have if Adam is not literal, or if death were pre fall, does the prophetic history viewpoint deal with this at all?

GBU sis

[nebula]

OK, I'm chewing on this. Do you think it is only prophetic history, or is it also historical-literal?

I don't know.

[~candice~]

OK, I'm chewing on this. Do you think it is only prophetic history, or is it also historical-literal?

I don't know.

Neb I have no doubt whatsoever that you have genuine faith in Christ. I think it's great we are at a place we can say "I don't know" and still remain confident in our faith. That said, how does not knowing the literary type of Genesis affect your understanding of doctrine found in Genesis (and Revelation)?

[nebula]

Neb I have no doubt whatsoever that you have genuine faith in Christ. I think it's great we are at a place we can say "I don't know" and still remain confident in our faith. That said, how does not knowing the literary type of Genesis affect your understanding of doctrine found in Genesis (and Revelation)?

It doesn't.

I understand doctrine based on what is written and how it is written.

Trying to sort out how prophecy translates into "what is seen" takes away from the theological message. The best study on Revelation I have heard was when the study leaders looked at what was written from the perspective of, "What is God saying through this?" rather than the, "Who is the Beast?" etc approach.

I often wonder what we can glean from Daniel's visions of the He-goat and the Ram, etc. from a theological standpoint rather than a historical standpoint. Yet I've only heard people interpreting it from the historical standpoint. Or have you hear theology generated or explained from Daniel's visions?

So I get more out of reading Genesis 1-2 from a theological standpoint than I do out of reading it from an historical standpoint.

Make sense?

[~candice~]

Yes, it makes sense Neb, but as a science minded person I wonder how you deal with the desire for seamless coherence?Gen 1-3 tells a story that integrates with the rest of the text, it isn't standalone, so how you interpret it has to gel with the rest of it. This aspect is why I simply had to give away my view on creation a few years back, it was impossible to reconcile with the rest of the bible to form a cohesive understanding.

About Revelation, I asked that in here once and my thread got no hits, LOL. I asked what we can glean from Revelation if we read it to see what it says about God than reading to form a timeline. Can you share what you glean from reading Revelation that way?

[~candice~]

D-9 of course my perspective is predicated on including Revelation in the Canon. If we do not agree on this premise then I suppose we would struggle to agree on anything requiring that premise.

I agree that much of Revelation is symbolic. But the reality is that those Christians who read it as inspired literature still come away with a solid idea of no death in heaven. I just don't see how this marries up.

Are you suggesting then, if TE is right, that heaven would be a restoration to the perfect balance that evolution provided?

[nebula]

Yes, it makes sense Neb, but as a science minded person I wonder how you deal with the desire for seamless coherence? Gen 1-3 tells a story that integrates with the rest of the text, it isn't standalone, so how you interpret it has to gel with the rest of it. This aspect is why I simply had to give away my view on creation a few years back, it was impossible to reconcile with the rest of the bible to form a cohesive understanding.

I put it all in the "Mystery box", and accept that I don't understand. When I'm talking science I will describe the science - though with a twist. I say, "It is believed..." for example, rather than, "It is...." And when I talk theology I will describe the theology. How the two mix, I don't know, and I won't settle on an explanation until I can see the pieces actually fitting together.

Science often functions with mysteries.

About Revelation, I asked that in here once and my thread got no hits, LOL. I asked what we can glean from Revelation if we read it to see what it says about God than reading to form a timeline. Can you share what you glean from reading Revelation that way?

I'll have to get back to that.

[~candice~]

It's a thought in progress D-9.

I see the absence of death in heaven as an indication that death is not good. You are right that other portions of scripture assert this. I also believe that this particular aspect of heaven [no death] is one of the original aspects of earth pre fall. Not all aspects of heaven are found in the pre fall earth, but the lack of death I believe is found in both. I think Rev boosts this assertion, but I won't be dogmatic about it. I'm still chewing over the idea myself. Since TE requires death pre fall, I see the reinforcement about death in Revelation (concerning heaven) to be further evidence against TE being a correct interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

It's a thought in progress D-9.

I see the absence of death in heaven as an indication that death is not good. You are right that other portions of scripture assert this. I also believe that this particular aspect of heaven [no death] is one of the original aspects of earth pre fall. Not all aspects of heaven are found in the pre fall earth, but the lack of death I believe is found in both. I think Rev boosts this assertion, but I won't be dogmatic about it. I'm still chewing over the idea myself. Since TE requires death pre fall, I see the reinforcement about death in Revelation (concerning heaven) to be further evidence against TE being a correct interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

Even if I admit not to know much about scripture, I can safely say that heaven will be different from the garden. Adam and Eve were supposed to have children in the garden, even if they had not eaten that fruit. It is also logical to assume that this will not be the case in heaven. If you were still able to have children in heaven, you must guarantee that an equal number of men and women, willing to have children, are saved, to avoid extra-marital unions. Together with other theological problems.

viole, that's not a theological problem.

I do agree with something you're saying here though, namely that people are different.

Read the Bible cover to cover and what you have is a story that has a definitive Beginning, progression, and Conclusion that actually encompasses everything temporal. The big difference between Creation and the re-creation of the new heavens and new earth is that people have changed as a result of the fall and as a result of God’s invitations for His fallen creation to willingly come back and receive His reparation for the damage we elected against ourselves and His creation.

What amazes me is that in the beginning, God created people in innocence, we wanted for nothing and had a wonderful relationship with God that was conditional on choosing to remain in obedience – we disobeyed and elected death instead, but God is such a loving and compassionate Father that instead of allowing us to just take the consequences of our actions, He assumed the consequences on Himself on the cross to restore us from the curse of sin and death, and will ultimately come back and renew all things except those elected by faith in grace, since we're not simply renewed but also rewarded.

And Candice, this is what I think is the major difference between pre fall and post revelation: that we no longer are in a contingent position, meaning that we chose God when we saw through a glass yet darkly. Adam and Eve fell even though they walked with God without the blinders of sin and the tares of the fallen world, whereas we stand with Jesus and choose to follow God, even while we see through a glass darkly and grapple with this present darkness.

So, even though sin entered the world through man, and all share in that responsibility because all have sinned, those who persevere God washes clean with His Son’s blood and raises them up higher than at the beginning in the garden.

So, God’s kindness is such that even though we sinned, God seems to have used sin to occasion greater blessing for those who would accept it, which we’ll see in New Jerusalem “Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” (Romans 8:17).

As for the question of whether or not it should be taken literally, the Bible is very clear about when it employs metaphors, including in Revelation. Just look at Chapter 1, it tells you exactly what the stars and lampstands signify. The reader isn’t left to wonder what they might mean, the text makes it totally plain. The cases where it isn’t spelled out directly in Revelation, it’s spelled out elsewhere, such as the woman clothed in the sun, moon and the stars, just like in Joseph’s dream in Genesis, the horns signifying kings, the treatment of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel, etc.

Familiarity with the OT texts spells out the meaning of most of the metaphoric references in Revelation unmistakably, and provides the literal context for much of the passages as well. Only if Revelation is taken on its own, and not in the appropriate context of the fulfillment of many other prophetic writings, does it appear to be veiled in ambiguous symbolism that may or may not be literal.

The literal events in Revelation are spelled out repeatedly throughout the OT, and death is going to be done away with outright.

[~candice~]

Thank you OESD that was a wonderful post. Yes there clearly will be differences, my mind was only focussed on 'death' when I posted this thread.