View Poll Results: New heaven and earth, or renewed?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Brand new heaven and earth that do not exist today.

    10 52.63%
  • Renewal of the current heaven and earth.

    8 42.11%
  • Other

    1 5.26%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 91 to 98 of 98

Thread: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

  1. #91

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The same river is also mentioned in Zechariah 14. I tend to the literal unless the symbolism is obvious. By doing this I eliminate the blurred grey areas that come when we allow ourselves to cherry pick what is literal and what is symbolic.

    In this way a complete picture emerges. A clear picture of the future without any contradictions. You may find in discussions with me your views may differ. But my view will regularly be the most obvious. The most literal. And the having the least contradictions.
    So you think both the river in Ezekiel and the river in Revelation are literal? I suppose it's possible. My rule is that we are to take things symbolically when they cannot be taken literally. There are some elements of the river in Ezekiel that are difficult to take literally. But I suppose it's possible...

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,357

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    So you think both the river in Ezekiel and the river in Revelation are literal? I suppose it's possible. My rule is that we are to take things symbolically when they cannot be taken literally. There are some elements of the river in Ezekiel that are difficult to take literally. But I suppose it's possible...
    Yes I feel it's safer to go with the literal meaning otherwise we end up making up meanings never intended. Symbols are nearly always blatantly obvious. Or actually described as symbols.

    For example the creation events of the garden of Eden seems far fetched to some. But when u study fossils nearly ever major phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian explosion with no signs of being evolved. IE the evidence supports far-fetched creationism over the claimed logic of evolution. Same with the story of Troy. Written off as far fetched myth. Until history confirmed it.

    Same with prophecy. It may seem far fetched. Until it occurs exactly as described.

  3. #93

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Yes I feel it's safer to go with the literal meaning otherwise we end up making up meanings never intended. Symbols are nearly always blatantly obvious. Or actually described as symbols.

    For example the creation events of the garden of Eden seems far fetched to some. But when u study fossils nearly ever major phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian explosion with no signs of being evolved. IE the evidence supports far-fetched creationism over the claimed logic of evolution. Same with the story of Troy. Written off as far fetched myth. Until history confirmed it.

    Same with prophecy. It may seem far fetched. Until it occurs exactly as described.
    Every phyla may be represented in the Cambrian Explosion, but certainly not the modern animal groups! The appearance of very basic animal life over a 20 million year period of time doesn't have a thing with proving the 6 days of creation were literal! This "Explosion" supposedly took place half a billion years ago. The biblical record divides up creation of the fish and birds from the creation of the animals and man by a single day!

    So I don't think these 6 days of creation were any more than "days" in the mind of God--mere metaphors for distinct steps God took in creating an assembly of items in categories. No matter--God's creating all of these items was a literal creation because they are literally real. We're literally real!

    But I agree with you in principle that symbols should be obviously symbolic. Otherwise it is right and proper to adopt the literal interpretation. Clearly there are things that may appear to be "obvious" to some that are not "obvious" to others. But the principle is sound.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,075

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I had no idea you were that far out on a limb! I can give you full assurance that you are wrong about dating the Rapture. For one thing, you're wrong about a Pretrib Rapture--2 Thes 2 denies you the right to even teach a Pretrib Rapture, let alone prophesy it!

    And your reading into the book of Daniel is equally off the beaten path. Perhaps you think you're special, and have been "chosen of God" to lead God's flock in the matters of prophecy? But to me you're in danger of getting all puffed up on your own self-importance. I do think we all play a role in God's doings. But to just put yourself way out there is a bit much to stomach. I'm a little worried about you! Scratch that--I'm *very* worried about you! You're too nice a guy to start putting your reputation on predictions. Many very good people have fallen by the wayside simply because they refused to approach things humbly, carefully submitting to Scriptures in the most literal way possible.

    Brother, take your personal revelations and submit them to the Bible--not to symbolic interpretations of the Bible, but to exactly what the Bible says. Then you can't go wrong!
    In time you will see all this differently. Until then scorn and mock is my lot. So be it. When God teachs you something directly over a long period of time, you will understand. Peace until that time I told you about. Tishri 1, 2020. Everything He has shown me so far has worked out perfectly. I have no reason to doubt.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,357

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Every phyla may be represented in the Cambrian Explosion, but certainly not the modern animal groups! The appearance of very basic animal life over a 20 million year period of time doesn't have a thing with proving the 6 days of creation were literal! This "Explosion" supposedly took place half a billion years ago. The biblical record divides up creation of the fish and birds from the creation of the animals and man by a single day!

    So I don't think these 6 days of creation were any more than "days" in the mind of God--mere metaphors for distinct steps God took in creating an assembly of items in categories. No matter--God's creating all of these items was a literal creation because they are literally real. We're literally real!

    But I agree with you in principle that symbols should be obviously symbolic. Otherwise it is right and proper to adopt the literal interpretation. Clearly there are things that may appear to be "obvious" to some that are not "obvious" to others. But the principle is sound.
    I was hoping you would be a creationist and/or believe in the literal garden of Eden story. Instead I created another side-issue .... my bad. But thanks for seeing past the example to the point I was trying to make.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,370
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    Do you know of one single person past or present that knows exactly to the day and hour Jesus is to return?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P

    Yes. Me. It is the reason I was born. Though it will not be believed or even understood until the appointed time. Just know that I told you about the Tishri 1, 2020 restoration of Jerusalem ahead of time. Once that occurs, it will be time to disseminate the info to the church. That is the appointed time to reveal to the church the timing of the rapture and what the "call at midnight to indicate the bridegroom is coming" is. How many people are even looking for such an order to restore Jerusalem to come? Let alone giving out the date ahead of time. That was a gift from God to cause many to listen when the time comes.

    Without giving away the year, the date for the rapture is Nisan 3. This is the date of Daniel's first vision in chapter 10. The same God who revealed Nebuchadnezzar's dream to Daniel can reveal Daniel's first dream to us if we seek it diligently. Daniel's Nisan 3 vision was of the rapture. Then the angel comes 21 days later to tell Daniel what follows it. That is why the whole 10-12 is sealed until the time of the end. The wise who are left behind will figure it out. There are 50 years between the rapture and Armageddon, not 7. Btw, the clock strikes midnight on Nisan 1. About 2.4 days before the rapture, during which, no one will be able to buy oil for their lamps. It's too late. The HS will be removed from the earth, just as Paul, Ecclesiastes 12:7, and Genesis 6:3 tell us. The year will have to wait until the appointed time. But, it isn't far from the appointed time of the reveal.
    This is crackpot stuff. Im referring this to a moderator, and hopefully you will have enough humility to listen to a word of warning.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,267
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    i never said there are two new Jerusalem's. The one is current Jerusalem... In a sanctified new world with renewal flowing out from Jerusalem.
    The next Jerusalem is that described in Rev 21/22. That of a massive heavenly city that comes down to earth
    Edit: I'm interested... Where does the bible say that Jesus and us saints reside in the New Jerusalem at the beginning of the millennium?
    The point is that IF Jesus is in Jerusalem and the River of Life flows out of it, then it IS the New Jerusalem.
    You claim to take the simplest and most obvious, and the NJ being at the START of the Millennium is exactly that.
    Otherwise you have TWO Rivers of Life.

    Now where does the Bible say "that Jesus and us saints reside in the New Jerusalem at the beginning of the millennium?" is your question.
    It is a strange question in my view, because the Bible tells us where Jesus will be DURING the Millennium. He will be seated on the throne of David and will be in Jerusalem. I am sure you don't need all the references which point to that reality.
    Psalm 132 and Isaiah 9 should help.

    Now when you recognise that Jesus will be in Jerusalem, on the earth DURING the Millennium, then the simple question is where will the saints be DURING the Millennium?
    The answer for this is also clearly stated. The saints will be WITH Jesus. IOW wherever He is, there we will be.
    So this tells you that the saints will also be in Jerusalem. This is simple logic. Further they will be in the Jerusalem that has the River of Life flowing out from the throne room of God.
    What many fail to grasp is that the Temple IS the throne room of God. When you realise the two are the same place, then things which seemed unclear gain clarity.
    Now we also know that Jesus went to prepare a place for us. John 14 is where Jesus tells us this. That place is the NJ.
    So we find scripture shows us that the NJ, which is the place prepared for us, will be on earth at the START of the Millennium.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    16,813

    Re: New Heaven New Earth. New or Renewed?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The point is that IF Jesus is in Jerusalem and the River of Life flows out of it, then it IS the New Jerusalem.
    You claim to take the simplest and most obvious, and the NJ being at the START of the Millennium is exactly that.
    Otherwise you have TWO Rivers of Life.

    Now where does the Bible say "that Jesus and us saints reside in the New Jerusalem at the beginning of the millennium?" is your question.
    It is a strange question in my view, because the Bible tells us where Jesus will be DURING the Millennium. He will be seated on the throne of David and will be in Jerusalem. I am sure you don't need all the references which point to that reality.
    Psalm 132 and Isaiah 9 should help.

    Now when you recognise that Jesus will be in Jerusalem, on the earth DURING the Millennium, then the simple question is where will the saints be DURING the Millennium?
    The answer for this is also clearly stated. The saints will be WITH Jesus. IOW wherever He is, there we will be.
    So this tells you that the saints will also be in Jerusalem. This is simple logic. Further they will be in the Jerusalem that has the River of Life flowing out from the throne room of God.
    What many fail to grasp is that the Temple IS the throne room of God. When you realise the two are the same place, then things which seemed unclear gain clarity.
    Now we also know that Jesus went to prepare a place for us. John 14 is where Jesus tells us this. That place is the NJ.
    So we find scripture shows us that the NJ, which is the place prepared for us, will be on earth at the START of the Millennium.
    It is undeniable to some of us that the NJ is here as of the 2nd coming, meaning sometime near to that initial event and not a thousand years later instead. And since one can't have a NJ without also having a NHNE, that also undeniably to some of us means the NHNE also begin sometime soon in proximity of the 2nd coming, and not a thousand years later instead.

    Two options here then since no way can the NJ and NHNE be meaning 1000 plus years post the 2nd coming. Either the thousand years parallel the beginning of the NJ and NHNE. Or a position such as Amil is the correct position if the thousand years aren't the first thousand years of the NHNE. There are no other logical options besides these tow that I can think of.

    It's already illogical beyond belief that the NHNE in Isaiah 65 is not the same as the NHNE in Rev 21-22. That would make two NHNE then. But according to Revelation 21, only one first heaven and only one first earth were passed away, not two first heavens and two first earths, meaning the heaven that is now plus the new heaven per Isaiah 65, and the same for the earth. That disagrees with the text in Revelation 21:1. Clearly the first heaven and the first earth are meaning the ones right now. But how could it be meaning that if a NHNE follow this one, but that it's not the same one mentioned in Rev 21:1 though? If only some folks would at least really think through some of these things first before concluding what they do.


    Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

    Either the above means the following....

    And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven(THIS PRESENT ONE) and the first earth(THIS PRESENT ONE) were passed away; and there was no more sea.

    Or it doesn't, but means this instead...

    And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven(THE NEW HEAVEN PER ISAIAH 65) and the first earth(THE NEW EARTH PER ISAIAH 65) were passed away; and there was no more sea.

    Makes utter nonsense of the text. First wouldn't even mean first here anymore, because in order for there to be the NHNE according to Isaiah 65, it means the former ones would have to pass away, thus making the new heaven and the new earth per Isaiah 65 the 2nd ones instead, which contradicts Rev 21:1 of course, because that verse clearly calls the heaven and earth prior to the NHNE, the first..

    One thing I have learned around here. Some folks are going to continue believing what they believe no matter what, even when it clearly defies sound logic and that it was adequately proven to them that it does indeed defy sound logic if they are supposed to be correct and that the Scriptures coupled with sound logic proves otherwise.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. In Heaven or on Earth?
    By Soldier_of_Faith in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Apr 12th 2015, 12:36 AM
  2. New Heaven and New Earth (Rev. 21)
    By RollTide21 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Mar 10th 2011, 01:32 AM
  3. New Heaven and New Earth
    By Searcher1 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: Jun 2nd 2009, 07:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •