OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Sheniy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I am new here ,and not of a protestant or American background,so my refences may be diffrent from yours.

 First of all ,I believe in an old earth ,but also in Creation by God, within a limited time . I also believe that the bible is God's Testament to His flock ,

before He finally judges us . It is not the only testament He has put out, since He created the 'world' but the LAST,and therefore the most important. 

 

If  we see the bible ,as saying everything God has ever had to say to us since time began ,we will never grow to be the great créations we were,

but like children ,who cannot let go of our true ,but basic exercise book .   I think God maybe preparing us for Heaven ,right here on earth ,by challenging us . If people lose their faith because there is an  'error in the bible' ,they don't have the gift of the 'Spirit' ,which cannot be doubted,  while All the Facts one can discuss without ever being sure . 

Hi organic!

 

Just curious, what else do you look to as God's word?   You mentioned the "gift of the Spirit".  Is your background pentacostal or something similar?

 

 

First ,I am horrified by the bad setting of the post ,please excuse,it is a new one,french style,and I must  get accustomed to the difference.

 

Dear Sheniy, 

 

 My background is originally Roman Catholic,but I study a lot ,and worked with people from India ,and other backgrounds.

 

My cousin is a missionary in India!  She sends me pictures all the time.  Beautiful people. 

 

I never would have guess Roman Catholic, though. Do you still consider yourself a Christian?

[Sheniy]

The Bible makes it very clear that physical death and decay in this world is the product of sin.   Jesus had to die physically in order to redeem us from death, and the effects of redemption are not limited to the spiritual sphere.  God is intimately involved in every area of the human experience, not just in the spirtiual.

 

The book of Revelation makes it clear that the results of redemption include the eradication of sin and both Physical and spiritual death.   So really to deny that sin didn't bring on physical death, sickness, disease and universal decay is to reject the testimony of Scripture.

Not sure what you were trying to argue here. I honestly don't see anything here I disagree with.

Death is the consequence of sin. Ok. Man sinned and spiritually died, God removed the Tree of Life (or removed man from the Garden), man began to revert back to his original state of dust (aka physical death). (This really makes sense if we include clb's Holy of Holies in the Garden idea. I wish he were here to give his thoughts on this)

Death isn't a thing to be created or destroyed. It is the absence of life.

Same as dark is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Death, dark, and cold are just names we give to describe the absence of something. They are not things in themselves, therefore can't be made or unmade. If you remove the source of light from a room, you have no light. Flick on the light and the darkness will flee. But you can't add a source of darkness to a lit room.  The lowest temperature possible, absolute zero (-273.15 degrees celcius) is the lack of all energy (heat). There is no source of cold.

Same goes for death. Remove the Source of Life, and you have no life.

When the Source of Life returns, we will all have new bodies, and death will be no more.

So could the 'tree of life' be the source of light and energy,(of God) and we must accept to 'tune' into it or we become

cold as death,like the reptiles ,which would not have existed in heaven.

 I don't know what the Tree of Life would be a source of other than life.

 

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

 

I am always amazed at reading threads like this how easily it is to lead people away from the truth.  Years ago I wondered how anyone could be duped in to following the anti-Christ, and how he could deceive even the very elect of God.   This thread shows me that it wouldn't be that hard at all.  People are hungry for someone, anyone to give them an excuse, any excuse they can cling to  that will justify rejecting the clear and present truth that is contained in God's word..

 

I will have to agree with Shiloh about death being both physical and spiritual.  The L-rd says that "the wages of sin is DEATH, but the Gift of G-d is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our L-rd.

 

Adam and Eve were made complete and perfect.  G-d does not make any thing void or lacking.  What He makes is good and perfect.

They were given free will and could choose to disobey.

They were allowed to eat from all in the garden, including the Tree of Life, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The Tree of Life could cause them to live forever.  However, when they ate of the forbidden tree, they sinned and their wages for that sin was Death.  Now, they would eventually physically die, (no longer access to the Tree of Life), and die spiritually - separation from G-d. 

We who believe in the L-rd, have passed from death to life, and have been given the gift of eternal life.  We are no longer separated from G-d, but we all will still physically die. We will then forever be with the L-rd and we will be granted the right to eat from the Tree of Life. See Rev. 22:14.

Good morning shar,

Let me get this straight-are You are saying that as long as adam was eating from the tree of life he would have eternal life. This implies he NEEDS to eat and continue to eat of that fruit in order to keep on living physically. Is this what you meant to say?

Thus, you said when he sinned, God took away his fruit which I guess means he is losing his source of nourishment to keep on physically living for eternity, and ultimately he died at the age of 930. Is this an accurate assessment of what you are saying?

My question is simply this? Are you saying man was not created with a promise for eternal life, but rather HAD to eat of the fruit in order to acquire eternal life? In other words, Adam did not have eternal life apart from eating the fruit?

I'm still somewhat fuzzy on this. Thanks. I hope my question isn't frustrating.

Spock

I don't think Heaven is a lace of stagnation,but a place,like garden,where there are cycles of growth. Perhaps just as a gardener

 

 or an agriculturalist needs to sow his seeds regularly,at the right time ,maybe we need to do something like that in heaven.

 

I can't imagine that we sit around all the time doing nothing.

I agree with you here (I think).  What do you mean by heaven being a place of stagnation? Where did you get that?

Edit: fixed quote boxes

Edited February 12, 2014 by Sheniy

[OldSchool2]

 

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted ...

 

No, good readers spot metaphors and then take them into account, but sometimes an apostle helps them out.

Galatians 4:21-26 -- King James Version (emphasis mine)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[Sheniy]

 

 

 

1. You've mentioned before that you're not an expert on the hebrew language. Can you please provide references for this interpretation?

Yes I can.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which is a standard reference for students of Hebrew has this to say about the word, "mut" (Heb. to die):

"The normative OT teaching about death is presented i Gen. 3:3 where God warns Adam and EVe that death is the result of rebellion against His commands. Since God's purpose for our first parents was never ending life, the introduction of death was an undresiralbe, but necessary result of disobedience. The physical corruption of the physical of the human body and the consequent suffering and pain brought about by the Fall were only the obvious symptoms of death. Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin. It originated with sin. A grand theme of the OT is God's holiness, which separates Him from all that is not in harmony with His character. Death, then in the OT means ulimate separation from God due to sin and sin is any rebellion or lack of conformity to His holy will. All men are then in a sense what the Hebrews call, "sons of death," that is, they deserve to die because they are sinners." (TWOT, vol. 1, p 497)

 

This really doesn't disagree with anything I've previously stated.

 

Uh, yeah it does. Your position is that physical death was not caused by the fall. In this context we have been talking about Adam's physical death and the source I cited above states that physical death is a direct result of the fall.

 

Hmm. I still don't see any conflict there. But I do see the confusion.

Let me explain.

Cause = n. events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something

result - n. a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon

             v. come about or follow as a consequence

 

What you just said (emphasis mine):

Your position is that physical death was not caused by the fall. In this context we have been talking about Adam's physical death and the source I cited above states that physical death is a direct result of the fall.

 

Quote from the text above (emphasis mine):

Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin.

 

Quote from me:

So, it is possible that physical death was a natural part of God's creation. Immortality was intended for us, given by the tree of life, then taken away at the fall of man (see verse below). Therefore, death is a consequence of the fall, but not necessarily caused by it.

My argument was that death is caused by the absence of life (Tree of Life and access to the Garden taken away). Death is also the result/consequence of sin.  I believe both statements are true.

Sorry if I didn't explain it well. I sort of developed this idea on the fly, so it might have shifted a bit in the process. If there's something I've said that doesn't match up, let me know. I will explain (or concede if I'm wrong).

 

 

I was expecting more of a breakdown of the phrase you quoted in Hebrew.

I can do that, but there are no Heberw parsing/grammar sources that directly address that particular phrase. It simply reads, "in dying you will die. It doesn't use the noun "death" (met) It uses the verb (mut) twice. Which is an interesting phraseology in Hebrew. "In the process of dying you will die," is connotation. You can believe me or not, but that is how it reads. It certainly makes room for physical death.

 

 

I believe you. Thank you. This is what I was looking for.

 

 

 

Btw, this looks like an excellent resource for studying the bible. I added it to my amazon wishlist. Would you recommend it?

If you are familiar with Hebrew and can use Driver Brown and Briggs Hebrew lexicon. If you are not familiar with the Hebrew alphabet and don't know the Hebrew word you are looking for, it will be difficult to use.

 

 

Hmm. I can't read or speak Hebrew, but I have studied it quite a bit.

Do you recommend this over the other one?

 

 

Not sure what you were trying to argue here. I honestly don't see anything here I disagree with.

The point I am arguing that we can see that Adam's physical death and our physical death is the direct result of sin. What are YOU trying to argue?

 

The same thing, apparently. lol 

I think we're getting off track here.  I'm going to back up a bit and see what the original discussion was.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted ...

 

No, good readers spot metaphors and then take them into account, but sometimes an apostle helps them out.

Galatians 4:21-26 -- King James Version (emphasis mine)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

 

Well a good reader knows the difference between  a metaphor and an allegory.   Paul, in that passage is using allegory, not a metephor.  So by your own standard, you evidently can't spot a metaphor and evidently don't know the difference.

 

There is NO metaphors being used at all anywhere in Genesis 1-3.   You cannot find  ONE metaphor anywhere in that text of Genesis because they are not there.  You need to come to grips with the reality that you are falsely assigning values to the text of Genesis.   It is an historical narrative and you need to buck up and accept facts.  You are simply wrong.

[Guest shiloh357]

Hmm. I still don't see any conflict there. But I do see the confusion.

Let me explain.

Cause = n. events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something

result - n. a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon

             v. come about or follow as a consequence

 

What you just said (emphasis mine):

Your position is that physical death was not caused by the fall. In this context we have been talking about Adam's physical death and the source I cited above states that physical death is a direct result of the fall.

 

Quote from the text above (emphasis mine):

Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin.

 

Quote from me:

So, it is possible that physical death was a natural part of God's creation. Immortality was intended for us, given by the tree of life, then taken away at the fall of man (see verse below). Therefore, death is a consequence of the fall, but not necessarily caused by it.

My argument was that death is caused by the absence of life (Tree of Life and access to the Garden taken away). Death is also the result/consequence of sin.  I believe both statements are true.

Sorry if I didn't explain it well. I sort of developed this idea on the fly, so it might have shifted a bit in the process. If there's something I've said that doesn't match up, let me know. I will explain (or concede if I'm wrong).

 

 

My position is that Adam's disobedience rsulted in His being separated from God which is why he died spiritually and that result of spiritual death is physical death ( I think that is what you are saying).

 

I don't think God engineered death into creation because the Bible doesn't give us that impression.   Death is not part of God's nature.   He is not a God of death, but of life.   God, throughout the Scriptures calls mankind to choose life, He calls man to receive eternal life.   Death is the very thing Jesus went to cross to conquer once and for all.  

 

It makes no sense to me for God, as some on this board are arguing, to create a world full of death, sickcness, disease and decay and called it "very good."   The position I am advocating is that there was NO death before the fall of Adam in the garden.  Sin is what brought about the decay of our planet.

 

I hope that clarifies for you where I am at. 

 

Hmm. I can't read or speak Hebrew, but I have studied it quite a bit.

Do you recommend this over the other one?

Yes, I do reccomend it over the BDB  only because it is way easier to read than the BDB if you don't know how to read Hebrew.  The BDB lexicon breaks every thing down by various, verb endings.   You would need to know what it means when  a word is a Qal, or Hiphil, or Niphal, or Piel, or Pual, or Hophil, or Hitpael, and so on. You would also need to know perfect vs. imperfect as well root words.  All of that affects how a word is used in the text of Scripture.  BDB does have some editions coded to the Strong's numbering system, but I am not sure how helpful it would be. 

 

Hope that helps.

[Guest]

 

True History

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Corinthians 15-21

 

Future History

 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15-22

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted ...

 

No, good readers spot metaphors and then take them into account, but sometimes an apostle helps them out.

Galatians 4:21-26 -- King James Version (emphasis mine)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

Well a good reader knows the difference between  a metaphor and an allegory.   Paul, in that passage is using allegory, not a metaphor ...

 

Duh! So that's why Paul used the word "allegory" in v. 24!

Congrats on once again majoring on a minor; you strained a gnat, but missed the fact that biblical allegory was used by an apostle.

And for the record, an allegory is an extended metaphor wherein a story illustrates an important attribute of the subject; metaphor and allegory are similar as both of them make comparisons; the difference between them is the depth of the comparison, but when it comes to the Bible, apparently some readers prefer more shallow waters.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted ...

 

No, good readers spot metaphors and then take them into account, but sometimes an apostle helps them out.

Galatians 4:21-26 -- King James Version (emphasis mine)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

Well a good reader knows the difference between  a metaphor and an allegory.   Paul, in that passage is using allegory, not a metaphor ...

 

Duh! So that's why Paul used the word "allegory" in v. 24!

Congrats on once again majoring on a minor; you strained a gnat, but missed the fact that biblical allegory was used by an apostle.

And for the record, an allegory is an extended metaphor wherein a story illustrates an important attribute of the subject; metaphor and allegory are similar as both of them make comparisons; the difference between them is the depth of the comparison, but when it comes to the Bible, apparently some readers prefer more shallow waters.

 

It doesn't take a good reader to see figurative devices when they are mentioned outright by the author.   The point here is that Paul told us he was using an allegory.  That Paul used an allegory doesn't mean that Genesis 1-3 is a parable.   If it were, the Bible would have told us so.  

 

You assign false values to the text by calling the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil a "magic tree."  It is  not a magic tree.  The tree wasn't what caused the problem.  The tree didn't change Adam.  It was Adam's disobedience that caused him to fall.   The tree had no "magic" properties in and of itself.   Adam's actions caused his demise, not the tree. 

 

Satan took on the form of a serpent, of some kind.  Given that Adam and Eve were living in a supernatural environment,  it is not unreasonable that the events listed are true and accruate history.

[a-seeker]

 

 

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

I'd be interested in seeing this, too.

 

So I think I misunderstood your earlier post.

I was interested in what you said on the Holy of Holies (a favorite subject of mine). Was that what you were referring to here?

 

I don't quite remember what I said earlier about the Holy of Holies; but the temple in general is a favorite topic of mine.

 

Probably I was talking about the last couple chapters of Revelation where the city of Jerusalem is described.  Its dimensions are perfectly symmetrical.  One should ask, "who cares?"  "Why is it important to mention the dimensions of the city?"

 

Well, the only building mentioned in the OT with perfectly symmetrical dimensions is the HOly of HOlies is the tabernacle and temple.  The dimensions of the whole tab/temple move (starting with the courtyard) from fairly symmetrical (the courtyard), to almost symmetrical (the holy place), to perfectly symmetrical (H of H)....indicating a progression of holiness or sanctity.

 

The point about Revelation is that one day the whole world will be a holy of holies, enjoying the full, undiluted, presence of God.  Note that Revelation says there will be no more temple--for of course the temple was itself an isolated location of God's presence; but we have no need for that: all the earth will enjoy His presence.  Note also that a river flows out from under the throne of God in Rev.......an echo of Ezekiel's temple, which in turn is looking back to Eden as the first temple (a river flows from Eden, into the garden of Eden, and from there out to the world---3 parts corresponding to the 3 sections of the temple).

 

That is probably what I was getting into; my outline is forthcoming but things are busy at work.

 

clb