OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[enoob57]

You didn't get my point.  The topic (but this was a long time ago) was the perfection of creation before the fall.  You say it was "as good as it gets"....which of course means "as good as it gets" = the possibility but not inevitability of sin, since that was the actual state of creation.

God pronounced good upon all that He created even satan... the rebellion

was of lie and has no substance as God fills the eternities with His Perfect

Will and that is why sin folds in upon itself being without substance of life

that is only found in God. With God in His Perfect Unity one Word 'Good' and no

other resource of consideration is possible. There isn't degrees of good with

Him as every Word has the backing of eternal outcome and nothing can swerve it

from that outcome!

 

I see no way for you out of the despairing conclusion that sin will still be possible in the new heaven.  Either sin won't be possible, in which case we have an obvious contrast between the first creation and the New creation, or it will be, in which case we have an inevitable cycle to look forward to.

Sin will be put away in the everlasting torment of God's wrath... we will be in

perfect image of God and exist in the sameness of presence as He. We will be as

He in choice of what 'IS' good and it will be only that essence in the unified will

of oneness= there simply will only be that which 'IS' unbounded in every aspect of

Being extending now beyond even what anyone could imagine!

 

My point above about about 1 Cor was that Paul does not see the promise of the resurrected body as a promise made only after man's fall.  He implies that the resurrected body was ALWAYS a part of God's plan; and thus "perfection" or a higher state of excellence was intended all along.

There is no authority in God's Word to think this way... only philosophical externals

that are worthless if they are not born from said Word! There are not degrees of

perfection - there is only that which is perfect and that which is flawed...

 

This theme (of further development) runs right through all of scripture to the very end.  The author of Genesis 1 and 2 depicts creation as a temple: Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world, i.e. 3 sections corresponding to the 3 sections of the temple.  Throughout Scripture we have glimpses of the future in which all the world be something of a holy of holies.  This reaches its climax in Revelation where the dimensions of the New Jerusalem are perfectly symmetrical---i.e. the same dimensions of the holy of holies.  It is not an unpardonable stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve, as God's images, were given responsibilities correspondning to God as Creator.  It has been suggested by some scholars that their role was to extend the garden of Eden throughout all the earth.  In other words, make the world a holy of holies.

 

As for the question of "keeping and gaurding", these are not only agricultural terms.  They are used of the priestly roles which included gaurding the temple against unclean things.  In Genesis the appearance of these terms foreshadows the coming serpent.  Again, there is a sense of some duty that has not yet, but must, be completed by Adam and Eve.

 

It is not exegetical nonsense.  You are not the only one with training.  This is backed up by very good scholars.

Because the foundation of this thought is built on purposed sin in God's necessity of use to

bringing about His Will Be Done. I can emphatically say that the substance of the whole of

this thought is in error... due to this alone

Ezek 28:14-16

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:

thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down

in the midst of the stones of fire.15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways

from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of

thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee

as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O

covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

KJV

John 8:44

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye

will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the

truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he

speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

KJV

Eph 4:27

27 Neither give place to the devil.

KJV

This is the Scriptual bounds of reason in all this satan was that which

brought about the idea that there could be another God -The Lie-

and in this error he birthed lies and now the whole of this place is

filled with them. The only recourse is to establish the obedience to God

by giving no place to him in all That God 'IS' and has created! You in

your reason has given him place by purpose of God yet we as the angels

should respond to this thought 'The Lord has rebuked satan'... Love, Steven

[enoob57]

The fact is that we cannot know what God did in the eternal past before the earth was formed.  The Bible doesn't provide us with that information.  .

There is one mention of structure In the Holy Councils of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as we were thought of in Their purpose

before all was brought into being! For me it brings the magnitude of His Eternal Love for us and 'IS' perfectly displayed

at the cross... Love, Steven

[enoob57]

In John 1:1, which I have already referenced numerous times,  "In the beginning".  This Greek phrase means, the very first order, first in place, time, order.  We see in the verse that "in the beginning" was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.  He was with G-d "in the beginning".  Through him all things were made.

 

Now go to Ge. 1:1.  "In the beginning".  The Hebrew phrase, means the same thing...the very first order, first in time, place, order.  We see in this verse G-d created the heavens and the earth.  This is not an introductory phrase to what follows.  It is a statement that He created from the beginning.  The beginning was the Word.  He created the heavens.  The heavens are His abode, the celestial bodies and the sky.

 

Now go to He. 1:10  "In the beginning" - the same phrase.  "In the beginning, O L-rd, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."  By the way, "foundations of the earth" is the building block.  You must lay a foundation before you can build on it.

 

G-d has been creating, since "in the beginning.  He began by laying the foundations of the earth.  If you think He has only been creating the heavens and the earth over the last 10,000 years, then we have to conclude G-d is equally as young.  Definitely not so.  He is the Ancient of Days - The Ancient of All Eternity.

In the beginning,  (Heb. B'reishis) simply means at the first.  The notion that God has only been around since He began creating is simply not true.   There is no way anyone can argue that based, "in the beginning" that it means that God began creating millions or billions of years ago.  That is simply a stretch and a leap in logic that is unwarranted. 

 

The fact is that we cannot know what God did in the eternal past before the earth was formed.  The Bible doesn't provide us with that information.   Trying to fill in the gaps with ridiculous assumptions that God was creating other worlds or spent the entire dateless past creating our earth or whatever is a fool's errand.  It is a pointless endeavor that leads nowhere.  It is just speculation. 

 

You need to stop letting your theology drive your interpretation.   You need to stop assuming what you are trying prove.  It only leads a person in circles.

I disagree with you again Shiloh. I think shar has stated this position quite well with authority to support it.

It's obvious you do not agree and have stated such. Why can't you agree to disagree and let the people reading decide for themselves who they believe to be right or wrong? After all, our place is merely to plant the seeds. If you believe your position is God inspired, trust God to give the increase.

Jude 3-5

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,

it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly

contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are

certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this

condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness,

and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 I will therefore put

you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the

people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

KJV

Simple we are to war with error using The Word of God...

When that which is not of His Word is given as His Word

we are to give back His Word as given and to make a place

of no excuse for them to be where they are except to know-

ingly embrace the error as it suits their will to do so!

Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

In John 1:1, which I have already referenced numerous times,  "In the beginning".  This Greek phrase means, the very first order, first in place, time, order.  We see in the verse that "in the beginning" was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.  He was with G-d "in the beginning".  Through him all things were made.

 

Now go to Ge. 1:1.  "In the beginning".  The Hebrew phrase, means the same thing...the very first order, first in time, place, order.  We see in this verse G-d created the heavens and the earth.  This is not an introductory phrase to what follows.  It is a statement that He created from the beginning.  The beginning was the Word.  He created the heavens.  The heavens are His abode, the celestial bodies and the sky.

 

Now go to He. 1:10  "In the beginning" - the same phrase.  "In the beginning, O L-rd, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."  By the way, "foundations of the earth" is the building block.  You must lay a foundation before you can build on it.

 

G-d has been creating, since "in the beginning.  He began by laying the foundations of the earth.  If you think He has only been creating the heavens and the earth over the last 10,000 years, then we have to conclude G-d is equally as young.  Definitely not so.  He is the Ancient of Days - The Ancient of All Eternity.

In the beginning,  (Heb. B'reishis) simply means at the first.  The notion that God has only been around since He began creating is simply not true.   There is no way anyone can argue that based, "in the beginning" that it means that God began creating millions or billions of years ago.  That is simply a stretch and a leap in logic that is unwarranted. 

 

The fact is that we cannot know what God did in the eternal past before the earth was formed.  The Bible doesn't provide us with that information.   Trying to fill in the gaps with ridiculous assumptions that God was creating other worlds or spent the entire dateless past creating our earth or whatever is a fool's errand.  It is a pointless endeavor that leads nowhere.  It is just speculation. 

 

You need to stop letting your theology drive your interpretation.   You need to stop assuming what you are trying prove.  It only leads a person in circles.

I disagree with you again Shiloh. I think shar has stated this position quite well with authority to support it.

 

Anybody can string verses together like lights on a Christmas tree and make the Bible say anything they want.   The argument that God has been creating since the beginning has no basis in fact and is not actually stated in Scripture.  You will cliing to anyone who even looks like the support your pre-adamite fairytales. 

 

It's obvious you do not agree and have stated such. Why can't you agree to disagree and let the people reading decide for themselves who they believe to be right or wrong? After all, our place is merely to plant the seeds. If you believe your position is God inspired, trust God to give the increase

 

I never said my position is "God inspired."   I don't plan on letting the pre-adamite "seeds" being planted to take root, as it is false doctrine and does not reflect an authentic biblical worldview.

[Sheniy]

Always a blessing to see your avatar and your name being posted,

 

This made my day! Thank you.

 

[a-seeker]

 

You didn't get my point.  The topic (but this was a long time ago) was the perfection of creation before the fall.  You say it was "as good as it gets"....which of course means "as good as it gets" = the possibility but not inevitability of sin, since that was the actual state of creation.

God pronounced good upon all that He created even satan... the rebellion

was of lie and has no substance as God fills the eternities with His Perfect

Will and that is why sin folds in upon itself being without substance of life

that is only found in God. With God in His Perfect Unity one Word 'Good' and no

other resource of consideration is possible. There isn't degrees of good with

Him as every Word has the backing of eternal outcome and nothing can swerve it

from that outcome!

No, there are not degrees of "good"; but there are of fulfillment. The Law was good; it was not fulfilled until Jesus. "Childrenhood" is good; but we want our children to grow up.

Creation was declared good; but Man was given a role of bringing to completion.

Man as we are is good; but the resurrected body is further a development of that goodness.

I see no way for you out of the despairing conclusion that sin will still be possible in the new heaven.  Either sin won't be possible, in which case we have an obvious contrast between the first creation and the New creation, or it will be, in which case we have an inevitable cycle to look forward to.

Sin will be put away in the everlasting torment of God's wrath... we will be in

perfect image of God and exist in the sameness of presence as He. We will be as

He in choice of what 'IS' good and it will be only that essence in the unified will

of oneness= there simply will only be that which 'IS' unbounded in every aspect of

Being extending now beyond even what anyone could imagine!

 

Again, sin was possible in the Old Creation; it will not be possible in the new. Their is an obvious and enormous contrast between the two. I would call that, if not a degree of "goodness", certainly a fulfillment.

 

My point above about about 1 Cor was that Paul does not see the promise of the resurrected body as a promise made only after man's fall.  He implies that the resurrected body was ALWAYS a part of God's plan; and thus "perfection" or a higher state of excellence was intended all along.

There is no authority in God's Word to think this way... only philosophical externals

that are worthless if they are not born from said Word! There are not degrees of

perfection - there is only that which is perfect and that which is flawed...

I just referenced Scripture. Do some exegesis of the texts. 

This theme (of further development) runs right through all of scripture to the very end.  The author of Genesis 1 and 2 depicts creation as a temple: Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world, i.e. 3 sections corresponding to the 3 sections of the temple.  Throughout Scripture we have glimpses of the future in which all the world be something of a holy of holies.  This reaches its climax in Revelation where the dimensions of the New Jerusalem are perfectly symmetrical---i.e. the same dimensions of the holy of holies.  It is not an unpardonable stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve, as God's images, were given responsibilities correspondning to God as Creator.  It has been suggested by some scholars that their role was to extend the garden of Eden throughout all the earth.  In other words, make the world a holy of holies.

 

As for the question of "keeping and gaurding", these are not only agricultural terms.  They are used of the priestly roles which included gaurding the temple against unclean things.  In Genesis the appearance of these terms foreshadows the coming serpent.  Again, there is a sense of some duty that has not yet, but must, be completed by Adam and Eve.

 

It is not exegetical nonsense.  You are not the only one with training.  This is backed up by very good scholars.

Because the foundation of this thought is built on purposed sin in God's necessity of use to

bringing about His Will Be Done. I can emphatically say that the substance of the whole of

this thought is in error... due to this alone

None of this follows or makes sense. But that may only be your rhetorical style

Ezek 28:14-16

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:

thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down

in the midst of the stones of fire.15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways

from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of

thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee

as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O

covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

KJV

John 8:44

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye

will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the

truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he

speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

KJV

Eph 4:27

27 Neither give place to the devil.

KJV

This is the Scriptual bounds of reason in all this satan was that which

brought about the idea that there could be another God -The Lie-

and in this error he birthed lies and now the whole of this place is

filled with them. The only recourse is to establish the obedience to God

by giving no place to him in all That God 'IS' and has created! You in

your reason has given him place by purpose of God yet we as the angels

should respond to this thought 'The Lord has rebuked satan'... Love, Steven

Edited February 10, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Guest shiloh357]

This theme (of further development) runs right through all of scripture to the very end.  The author of Genesis 1 and 2 depicts creation as a temple: Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world, i.e. 3 sections corresponding to the 3 sections of the temple.

 

You seem to be applying allegory, a very subjective and unreliable method of exegesis.

 

 

Throughout Scripture we have glimpses of the future in which all the world be something of a holy of holies. 

 

No we don't.  That is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.

 

 

This reaches its climax in Revelation where the dimensions of the New Jerusalem are perfectly symmetrical---i.e. the same dimensions of the holy of holies.  It is not an unpardonable stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve, as God's images, were given responsibilities correspondning to God as Creator.  It has been suggested by some scholars that their role was to extend the garden of Eden throughout all the earth.  In other words, make the world a holy of holies.

 

Really, and which scholars are you referring to?

 

 

As for the question of "keeping and gaurding", these are not only agricultural terms.  They are used of the priestly roles which included gaurding the temple against unclean things.  In Genesis the appearance of these terms foreshadows the coming serpent.  Again, there is a sense of some duty that has not yet, but must, be completed by Adam and Eve.

 

That is entirely confectural in nature.  You are adding values to the text that are simply not there.

 

It is not exegetical nonsense.  You are not the only one with training.  This is backed up by very good scholars.

 

In the first place, it isn't even exegesis.  It is an attempt to impose a metaphorical or allegorical quality to the text.  That is not exegesis by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

There are scholars and there are scholars.

[a-seeker]

The fact is that we cannot know what God did in the eternal past before the earth was formed.  The Bible doesn't provide us with that information.  .

There is one mention of structure In the Holy Councils of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as we were thought of in Their purpose

before all was brought into being! For me it brings the magnitude of His Eternal Love for us and 'IS' perfectly displayed

at the cross... Love, Steven

I am not sure what we mean by the eternal past. Eternality is not a duration of time; it is timeless. God was never "waiting" to create. From our perspective (being bound by time and space) was must take as such, and Scripture, for the same reason, must use language that might suggest that. But these are concessions to our finite minds.

Perhaps I am missing something here; but I have seen this subject (what was God doing in the timeless past) before.

clb

[a-seeker]

 

This theme (of further development) runs right through all of scripture to the very end.  The author of Genesis 1 and 2 depicts creation as a temple: Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world, i.e. 3 sections corresponding to the 3 sections of the temple.

 

You seem to be applying allegory, a very subjective and unreliable method of exegesis.

 

 

Throughout Scripture we have glimpses of the future in which all the world be something of a holy of holies. 

 

No we don't.  That is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.

 

 

This reaches its climax in Revelation where the dimensions of the New Jerusalem are perfectly symmetrical---i.e. the same dimensions of the holy of holies.  It is not an unpardonable stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve, as God's images, were given responsibilities correspondning to God as Creator.  It has been suggested by some scholars that their role was to extend the garden of Eden throughout all the earth.  In other words, make the world a holy of holies.

 

Really, and which scholars are you referring to?

 

 

As for the question of "keeping and gaurding", these are not only agricultural terms.  They are used of the priestly roles which included gaurding the temple against unclean things.  In Genesis the appearance of these terms foreshadows the coming serpent.  Again, there is a sense of some duty that has not yet, but must, be completed by Adam and Eve.

 

That is entirely confectural in nature.  You are adding values to the text that are simply not there.

 

It is not exegetical nonsense.  You are not the only one with training.  This is backed up by very good scholars.

 

In the first place, it isn't even exegesis.  It is an attempt to impose a metaphorical or allegorical quality to the text.  That is not exegesis by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

There are scholars and there are scholars.

 

And then there are people who aren't scholars at all

[a-seeker]

 

 

This theme (of further development) runs right through all of scripture to the very end.  The author of Genesis 1 and 2 depicts creation as a temple: Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world, i.e. 3 sections corresponding to the 3 sections of the temple.

 

You seem to be applying allegory, a very subjective and unreliable method of exegesis.

 

 

Throughout Scripture we have glimpses of the future in which all the world be something of a holy of holies. 

 

No we don't.  That is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.

 

 

This reaches its climax in Revelation where the dimensions of the New Jerusalem are perfectly symmetrical---i.e. the same dimensions of the holy of holies.  It is not an unpardonable stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve, as God's images, were given responsibilities correspondning to God as Creator.  It has been suggested by some scholars that their role was to extend the garden of Eden throughout all the earth.  In other words, make the world a holy of holies.

 

Really, and which scholars are you referring to?

 

 

As for the question of "keeping and gaurding", these are not only agricultural terms.  They are used of the priestly roles which included gaurding the temple against unclean things.  In Genesis the appearance of these terms foreshadows the coming serpent.  Again, there is a sense of some duty that has not yet, but must, be completed by Adam and Eve.

 

That is entirely confectural in nature.  You are adding values to the text that are simply not there.

 

It is not exegetical nonsense.  You are not the only one with training.  This is backed up by very good scholars.

 

In the first place, it isn't even exegesis.  It is an attempt to impose a metaphorical or allegorical quality to the text.  That is not exegesis by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

There are scholars and there are scholars.

 

And then there are people who aren't scholars at all

 

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture. I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is).  But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

clb