What will happen to earth after Armageddon?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Medina said:

I see what you are getting at - Does this imply no future Judgement Day?

The context clarifies it. The Old Testament warns of the Day of Judgement, e.g.
Daniel 12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%2012;&version=50;
Malachi 4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%204;&version=50;

The reference then to 'never again' must be to another sifting of mankind as with Noah's Flood. That Judgement spared the righteous man and his family, but they were not sinless. From them arose another generation of wicked men and so on down to ourselves. But with the Last Day, only the righteous are saved and they are made perfect. The present earth will be destroyed and the sinless saints will inherit the new one.

So no repeat of the judgement that destroys the wicked but lets them rise again:
2 Peter 3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203;&version=50;

Gosh. It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. When what is so straightforward is really so complicated, how does one know that the Flood doesn't really refer to a political party?

cheekily,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

I don't know what religious groups you have been exposed to, but I only speak of the Evangelical churches I have encountered both personally and by way of media. Both the Reformed end (mine) and the Biblical Fundamentalist usually have something to say about the new earth.

This is still not addressing the point! 'Usually have something to say about new earth' is not an explaination. Those same groups will say the good go to heaven, only when the question of earth is asked will they have an answer like, 'well yeah there does seem to be an indication of a new earth'. My point, is that, is it only vague because the doctrine of Heaven and hell are taken as a given!

Hmm. Why are they so solid when you admitted not having an answer to what the Bible said on eternal torment? Nor had you the answer to the other texts on the deity of Christ. I accept one can have a principle of understanding that governs how we interpret details, but if your principle contradicts the details, you have a faulty principle.

My principle does not contradict the detail. Such a vague representation of what i said is what you've given. I gave much detail on the second death and the father being greater than the Son. I showed how for every trinity scripture there were at least 5 more that would suggest otherwise. I suggest that you read those points again. i stated that I did not have an answer to the torments question or to the alpha omega question yet. that does not make me less certain. I am just not going to give an answer until I, God willing, gain accurate knowledge of them. I do not want to add to the confusion that Christendom has put out.

Indeed, trust no man. But one can put weight to their words, depending on their character. The only thing we can trust is the Word of God.

What is the Word of God? because i distinctly recall that this is a title reserved for Jesus. If you are saying that the only thing we can trust is the testimonies and inspired words of the bible then I would say, combined with faith and prayer, yes.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

This is still not addressing the point! 'Usually have something to say about new earth' is not an explaination. Those same groups will say the good go to heaven, only when the question of earth is asked will they have an answer like, 'well yeah there does seem to be an indication of a new earth'. My point, is that, is it only vague because the doctrine of Heaven and hell are taken as a given!
.

Because if I die tomowrrow I can't go to a new Earth; it doesn't exist yet.

So where do I go? I go to Heaven.

The only time the new Earth is talked about is within the context of eschatology, as this discussion is. It isn't talked about in the context of what happens immediately after death.

Excelsior

BC- would a valid scientific definition of death be that we no longer exist in the space-time universe. Therefore, the concept of atemporality needs to be considered when we consider Paul talking about us falling asleep. It need only be as a blinking of an eye before we are awoken to glory with the shout of acclamation that inaugurates the New Earth. What do you reckon?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Gosh. It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. When what is so straightforward is really so complicated, how does one know that the Flood doesn't really refer to a political party?

Interpretation always depends on context. All that a person says on a matter, for instance, should be considered before we reckon we can pin him down as meaning x or y. For example, if I quoted your first sentence - It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. - as an example of your theology, I would be totally wrong.

What God meant here is perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

This is still not addressing the point! 'Usually have something to say about new earth' is not an explaination. Those same groups will say the good go to heaven, only when the question of earth is asked will they have an answer like, 'well yeah there does seem to be an indication of a new earth'. My point, is that, is it only vague because the doctrine of Heaven and hell are taken as a given!

There are a lot of conservative Evangelical commentaries out there. Even more books on Eschatology. They cover the subject in much more detail than you suggest. Brian's point is pertinent: the new heavens and new earth are not usually referred to when we speak of where departed saints go, for they presently go to heaven. Only after the resurrection, and the destruction of this present universe, will they inherit the new.

My principle does not contradict the detail. Such a vague representation of what i said is what you've given. I gave much detail on the second death and the father being greater than the Son. I showed how for every trinity scripture there were at least 5 more that would suggest otherwise.

You did not give an explanation of the pro-deity, pro-eternal punishment texts. That's my point. Your system can only deal with some of the texts. My system deals with both. Jesus being a created being could explain some texts. Jesus being God could explain others. But the only way both texts are reconciled is if He is both God and man.

Likewise with eternal punishment. Some texts could be taken to mean annihilation, but to explain all the texts one has to accept eternal punishment.

i stated that I did not have an answer to the torments question or to the alpha omega question yet. that does not make me less certain.

It should. You can't just decide that annihilation fits better your opinion of what God would do, in spite of all the texts that specifically say different.

I am just not going to give an answer until I, God willing, gain accurate knowledge of them. I do not want to add to the confusion that Christendom has put out.

That would be sensible - but you then firmly make your mind up on the issues, without waiting for this accurate knowledge. Why not just admit you don't know either way?

What is the Word of God? because i distinctly recall that this is a title reserved for Jesus.

It is indeed. He is the incarnate word. He is God's full revelation:
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

If you are saying that the only thing we can trust is the testimonies and inspired words of the bible then I would say, combined with faith and prayer, yes.

I'm glad you agree. Now all you have to realise is that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

ISAW

Sorry if somebody made this post already but I think noboday has.
ther is another interpretation of Revelations.

somebody early on stated UU I think ,"why dont we just be nice to each other now" or words to that effect.

the other interpretation is that Revelations has already happened. the Beast can be interpreted as Nero or someone like that who wiped out christians.

One can even build the hilled city of Rome into the mix and add the Vatican/latern.

Because Christ came and made a new covenant we have a new heaven and new Earth. so we can live in Christ now. we have been shown the way.

this does not negate the second coming just all the "Damien OMEN" stuff related to it.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Interpretation always depends on context. All that a person says on a matter, for instance, should be considered before we reckon we can pin him down as meaning x or y. For example, if I quoted your first sentence - It's always nice to see someone going straight to the "literal truth" of the Bible. - as an example of your theology, I would be totally wrong.

Indeed - here, of course, you know I'm being sarcastic, because of all the other debates we've had over the literal truth of the Bible. On the other hand, you are hardly claiming that you have personally debated with, say, Moses? If you have, do let me know his posting name...

wolfsbane wrote:

What God meant here is perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Is perfectly consistent with a specific interpretation of Scripture. Consistency, as I think you said to me, is not evidence of truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

You did not give an explanation of the pro-deity, pro-eternal punishment texts.That's my point. Your system can only deal with some of the texts. My system deals with both.

Your system deals with both? Really? without ambiguity? without mystery? Your system 'attempts' to deal with both, that is all, and sometimes quite poorly. Another point, my 'system' was not to take the deity of Jesus as a given. I didn't look to prove or dis-prove, just reason what I saw, and with prayer, what I saw was clear.

But the only way both texts are reconciled is if He is both God and man.

Again, thats not so. You have ambiguity. just because you have an 'answer' doesn't mean its the right one.

Likewise with eternal punishment. Some texts could be taken to mean annihilation, but to explain all the texts one has to accept eternal punishment.

I disagree. With all my faith, with all my heart I disagree.

It should. You can't just decide that annihilation fits better your opinion of what God would do, in spite of all the texts that specifically say different.

i would never be so whimsical. and I don't see the texts that specifically say differently.

That would be sensible - but you then firmly make your mind up on the issues, without waiting for this accurate knowledge. Why not just admit you don't know either way?

Because I do know. I just said that I was looking into a few of the points you raised, specifically, the torments and alpha and omega scriptures.

I'm glad you agree. Now all you have to realise is that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hmmm, could you just highlight the bit that Timothy says its the literal 'word of God'.

Could I ask you this. If I don't believe Jesus is God, can I be saved? Am I not a proper Christian? If I believe hell is not a place of literal torment, or the bible is 'the literal word of God', same question?

Also, I've noticed that my posts seem a little aggressive at times, please be assured I am not trying to be an agressor, and appreciate your views, time, and knowledge.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

You have ambiguity. just because you have an 'answer' doesn't mean its the right one.

Indeed. But you have no answer at all, no way to explain blatant eternal punishment texts or reconcile the many deity texts with the humanity ones. Having no answer strongly suggests your theory is mistaken.

i would never be so whimsical. and I don't see the texts that specifically say differently.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Hmmm, could you just highlight the bit that Timothy says its the literal 'word of God'.

First, I establish that the word of God = the Scripture:
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Then I remind you of what Paul wrote to Timothy:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Could I ask you this. If I don't believe Jesus is God, can I be saved?

I say yes, but hesitatingly. You do seem to place Jesus far above the angels, in a unique relationship with the Father. You trust in Him, you give Him glory and honour, you praise His name, you live for Him: all the things many would think only proper towards God. So I hope He will bear with your lack of understanding or confusion on the issue of His exact status.

Am I not a proper Christian?

You are not an orthodox Christian; you are in need of a more accurate understanding of the Truth:
Acts 18:25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

If I believe hell is not a place of literal torment, or the bible is 'the literal word of God', same question?

Same answer.

Also, I've noticed that my posts seem a little aggressive at times, please be assured I am not trying to be an agressor, and appreciate your views, time, and knowledge.

No offense taken; I sensed your sincerity. I too can come across sharper than I mean, especially if I'm pushed for time.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

On the other hand, you are hardly claiming that you have personally debated with, say, Moses? If you have, do let me know his posting name...

My point being the whole of Scripture is the context, since it all comes from the same Author. The meaning of any text must fit in with all the others. Man may contradict himself, but God does not.

Is perfectly consistent with a specific interpretation of Scripture. Consistency, as I think you said to me, is not evidence of truth.

It is not proof of truth, but it is an essential of truth.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

My point being the whole of Scripture is the context, since it all comes from the same Author. The meaning of any text must fit in with all the others. Man may contradict himself, but God does not.

Ah well. Yes, if one believes God to be the author, then scripture must all be consistent. This being the thread it is, I have not denied that, of course.

That does not change my point in the slightest. You have made a quite contrary interpretation of what seems quite straightforward. God says he will "never again destroy the earth", and you interpret this as follows:

wolfsbane wrote:

The reference then to 'never again' must be to another sifting of mankind as with Noah's Flood. That Judgement spared the righteous man and his family, but they were not sinless. From them arose another generation of wicked men and so on down to ourselves. But with the Last Day, only the righteous are saved and they are made perfect. The present earth will be destroyed and the sinless saints will inherit the new one.

Convoluted, and almost entirely reversing the sense of what God says - turning an apparent promise not to "destroy the world" into a promise to "do it differently next time". What was he doing? "Spinning" his promise for popular consumption? I hardly think so.

If the rest of your interpretation is consistent with this (and you are not, after all, God, so it need not be), then I would take that to mean your entire interpretation is at fault, to be honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed. But you have no answer at all, no way to explain blatant eternal punishment texts or reconcile the many deity texts with the humanity ones. Having no answer strongly suggests your theory is mistaken.

How do you explain, death and hades been thrown into the lake of fire? How do you explain Jesus saying that the Father is greater than he? How do you explain Jesus calling The Father, God in the same prayer? Asked how to pray, he did not say, 'God who are in heaven', he said, Father. The fact that they have a, Father, Son relationship. There are countless numbers of incidents like this, that pro-trinity folk explain with ambiguity, like, the greater quotes only mean he's greater at the time because he's human. Then why did he ask people to pray to 'The Father'. Why is he The Son? If he is The Son, he had to have come from The Father. As for having no answer, I have, just not one I'm going to share at present without more scrutiny and prayer. Watch this space:)

First, I establish that the word of God = the Scripture:
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Then I remind you of what Paul wrote to Timothy:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I think the bible question is just splitting heirs TBH. We both see it as inspired text pertaining to The Living God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. I just think to represent it as 'The literal Word of God' can be deceptive. I do believe the writers were inspired of Holy Spirit, but I stop short of it all being 'the literal word of God'. I think it contains the word of God. Again, I think its arguement without real purpose. We both know its essential, inspired text, 'and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.'

I say yes, but hesitantly. You do seem to place Jesus far above the angels, in a unique relationship with the Father. You trust in Him, you give Him glory and honour, you praise His name, you live for Him: all the things many would think only proper towards God. So I hope He will bear with your lack of understanding or confusion on the issue of His exact status.

I appreciate your concern, but there's no need for hesitancy. A tree will be known by its fruits:) I indeed pray for understanding daily, maybe if you pray for me also in petition to God, all confusion will indeed be vanquished.

You are not an orthodox Christian

Not in the modern context of the word, no.

you are in need of a more accurate understanding of the Truth:

Indeed I am, always. That is the remit I began with some years back, and here I am still going. And of all the things I've looked at, the greatest thing I found? Love God and Love your neighbour! Its said so much, but understanding what Love really is, we only scratch the surface. This is what the law and the prophets and God and Jesus is about. Everything hangs on these 2 'simple' commands. Exhibiting these in everyday life is a task at present. Not to friends and family, but to the guy that cuts you off on the motorway, the backstabber in the workplace etc. If I knew and had 'Godly Love', it would be exhibited without thought. That is my goal! God be praised in the name of his Son Jesus Christ. Amen.

I sensed your sincerity.

I am very happy you did, and hope you can call me brother, even if we have some fundamental disagreements. The day is coming when we shall all see the error of our ways and thoughts:)

BrianCalgary

Excelsior wrote:

BC- would a valid scientific definition of death be that we no longer exist in the space-time universe. Therefore, the concept of atemporality needs to be considered when we consider Paul talking about us falling asleep. It need only be as a blinking of an eye before we are awoken to glory with the shout of acclamation that inaugurates the New Earth. What do you reckon?

I can agree with the idea that death means we no longer live in this space-time continuum.

However with the blinking of an eye idea, I am going to assume that you are alluding to soul sleep here?

When on the cross Jesus says to theif that 'yoday you will be with me in Paradise'. Not at a future time, but today.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

I can agree with the idea that death means we no longer live in this space-time continuum.

However with the blinking of an eye idea, I am going to assume that you are alluding to soul sleep here?

When on the cross Jesus says to theif that 'yoday you will be with me in Paradise'. Not at a future time, but today.

Just something to think about. There are no punctuation marks in greek, just context. So if we take the scripture above

'I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise'. change where the comma goes:
'I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise'

This simple ammendment changes completely what Christ said. And just to be clear, this is not bad translation, as its contextual where the comma goes.

robindch

> There are no punctuation marks in greek, just context.

The word "context" is used by a number of forum members to claim that a sentence doesn't mean what it says. Doesn't sound very honest to me, I must say.

Also, written ancient Greek does contain punctuation marks -- question marks, quotation marks, colons, semi-colons, full stops, and of course, commas. Though these are conventionally omitted from some editions of the NT for the same reason that they're omitted from many German legal texts: because having them in causes more arguments amongst literalists than leaving them out altogether.

The Greek text of the above quotation can be found here, with punctuation:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155&layout=&loc=Luke+23%3A43

.

BrianCalgary

Hey Jimitime, I checked 21 translations of the above verse and each one renders it: today, you will be with me in paradise.

If the translation was in question it would be noted.

Thanks for that site Robin, I don't get how to use it though.

A quick tutorial?

It's all Greek to me!!!!:D

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Convoluted, and almost entirely reversing the sense of what God says - turning an apparent promise not to "destroy the world" into a promise to "do it differently next time". What was he doing? "Spinning" his promise for popular consumption? I hardly think so.

If the rest of your interpretation is consistent with this (and you are not, after all, God, so it need not be), then I would take that to mean your entire interpretation is at fault, to be honest.

You are taking one statement and basing its interpretion only on that. The point of context is to see all that the speaker says on the subject, so that we won't misinterpret. If we do that, my explanation makes sense. If we don't then God is indeed contradicting Himself.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

You are taking one statement and basing its interpretion only on that. The point of context is to see all that the speaker says on the subject, so that we won't misinterpret. If we do that, my explanation makes sense. If we don't then God is indeed contradicting Himself.

Well, I'd certainly accept that there are various other references to the Day of Judgement scattered through the Bible. In a strong sense they are in the majority, so it is certainly likely that they should be read as being prophesied.

On the other hand, this particular statement has a very obvious sense - one quite the opposite to what you claim for it - and therefore is quite in opposition to the rest of the statements about Judgement. I think your interpretation requires God to have been being, at the very least, 'economical with the truth', in order for the statement not to contradict others.

In other words, I would consider that in order to maintain a particular stance on Biblical reading (seamless whole, inerrant, inspired), you have had to bend the notion of God out of shape.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

JimiTime, I'm sorry I have run out of time to respond to your last. Hope to pick up things again at the holidays.

P.S. Lest anyone think I'm into 'Christmas is Christian', I'm happy to acknowledge it is just a pagan festival dressed up in Christian clothes. The only festival Christians are commanded to observe is the Lord's Table, which most do every Sunday. But the turkey, pudding, and time off work are all welcome.:) Have a good one.

robindch

> Thanks for that site Robin, I don't get how to use it though.
> A quick tutorial?

When you click on the link:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155&layout=&loc=Luke+23%3A43

...you get to the page, but it's probably being displayed using an English transliteration. To see the original Greek, click on the 'Configure display' link and select the "Unicode (UTF-8) with pre-combined accents" option from the 'Greek Display' section, then click on the 'Set Configuration' button at the top. The page will remember your setting for the next time you visit it. BTW, if you have the 'Word Study Links' set to 'Yes', most of the Greek words will be linked to pop-up translations (and morphological analysis tools) which are pretty handy for learning which way is up.