Posted on 03/16/2014 6:46:27 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
thank you for posting this; I think about this often. I wonder if the “sea” is people. Since the Bible references believers as a “remnant” that no more sea means no great number of people.
And I agree with your summation that a new heaven and a new earth is because Jesus Christ is at the helm, not Satan.
Since when God grants them repentance and all that is left of them will be saved, then I cannot imagine anyone with even half-a-heart being excited about fulfillment via your interpretation.
And why the attitude over something that is open to some interpretation? You have an axe to grind?
So it is crazy to think that "their eyes shall consume away in their holes," and "in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up," sounds like a thermonuclear event, even if by Divine means? Could not God use such?
It is crazy to think it does sound like such, and that God cannot cause it.
The earth has continually changed from its beginning, how long it was here before God could put life on it no one knows but like the moon one day it will not support life.
Of course this is nothing more than my thinking on it.
I personally believe the 1000 year reign is over, and Satan has been loosed out of his prison. Regarding fire, I posted a response to that in #14, but I will post again for you:
Really? Right with you jimmyray! Troll here, nobody can be this stupid.
>>>I don’t think the cities of the nations collapsed, or every island fled away, and every mountain was lost, but maybe I’m missing some history. And a few catapult stones are not a plague, and they were not even decisive in the battle.<<<
From what I have read the destruction was more narrow in scope that most modern interpretations; but other cities besides Jerusalem were destroyed. And Jerusalem was a very beautiful and prosperous city: it was considered the showcase of the middle east.
There were more than a few catapult stones. There were lots of them. And they were huge, and very deadly. From Josephus’ account, they were also “white” stones, at least during the first part of the siege. Remember this was a vision John saw; and 100 pound “hailstones” could mean anything, even 100 pound stones from military catapults. LOL!
Anyway, visions are like dreams. I would not take things too literally. A beast rising up out of the sea should at least beg for cautious interpretation. Besides, this book was only written for the seven churches in Asia, and the servants of Jesus Christ, of which John was one. Peter’s comment about the “church at Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) leads me to believe the early Christians had already worked out some sort of code amongst themselves. It would have been extremely dangerous, in the days of Nero and an intact Jerusalem leadership, to have a book that spelled out in detail their violent destinies.
By the way, Josephus explained the “three parts” as three factions fighting for control of the city; and they were vicious: ruthless. During the civil war, they destroyed (burnt up) each other’s food supplies, which led to massive starvation and eventually cannibalism within the city during the siege.
Philip
Huh? LOL! It certainly reads like that is what it is saying:
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." (Eccl 1:4 KJV)
But, I was not relying only on that verse. For example, after the "new heaven and new earth" are "created," and New Jerusalem appears to John (who was on a great and high mountain when he saw the city) there is this:
"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (Rev 21:24 KJV)
"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2 KJV)
I read that to mean there are still nations, there are still kings. Where did they come from if this is a brand new earth, foundation, dirt, trees and all. And why would any of those "nations" require any healing whatsoever. Didn't God make "all things new?" He said he did:
"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." (Rev 21:5 KJV)
Nothing fits with your interpretation. Otherwise, I would believe it.
Philip
>>>I would love to hear your creative answer.<<<
You first.
>>>You are Postmillennial<<<
That is what I believe, but I could not derive that from your previous statement
>>>Every prophetic scripture regarding end time destruction (Day of the LORD) was either literally fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or it is figurative, allegorical, or the reader’s misinterpretation. <<<
No, that is not true, and that is not what I said. Re-read what I said.
>>>No way to even discuss the matter further! I am done.<<<
Very well.
>>>It’s Hebrew. There is no Greek in the OT.<<<
Slip of the “tongue.”
>>>If the crooked can’t be made straight, then our faith is in vain. “Come let us reason together, though your sins are like scarlett, they shall be whiter than snow.”<<<
Do you believe everyone will be saved? I believe that particular doctrine is called Universalism. I would welcome that, if it were true. But I can find no evidence for it, unless I “twist” a few scriptures in the gospel of John; and that can hardly be considered evidence.
Sorry, I am not buying it, unless you can come up with a better argument (e.g., from the scriptures.)
>>>The Lord can make the sinful man perfect. But he will not strive with man forever.<<<
What is his hurry? He has all the time in the world. LOL!
I really, truly don’t think there is any point to be made in this discussion, except that we do not know the mind of the Lord.
Philip
No kidding.
“Careful, man, there’s a beverage here!”
LOL
My point is, Jesus ate food in the kingdom of God, as he prophesied, shortly after his resurrection and before his ascension. Therefore, the kingdom of God existed in the generation of his disciples, and, even in the days of John the Baptist, as is written.
>>>Taken out of context those two phrases would seem to imply the opposite. <<<
I took nothing out of context. I strive to keep things in context.
>>>But in the greater context of scripture you have both Isaiah, Peter, and Revelations stating ambivalently that the earth will be destroyed and new earth will replace it.<<<
Are you not taking things out of context by not considering Rev 21:24 and 22:2 in your interpretation? (I am not discounting the importance of Isaiah 66:22-24, and 1 Peter 1:7)
>>>The context here is that Jesus will always have a church through all time. Not sure world even refers to the earth and not the kingdom in this passage. And even if it does, the new earth would qualify. In the same way that we live forever, but our mortal bodies die, and we take on new bodies. There is a replacement earth, thus a world without end.<<<
I am not buying it until you can show me more proof than the words from symbolic, visionary prophecy. I am not making the same mistake my fellow Jews made prior to, and during the days of Christ (and some, even today.)
>>>But it seems to me that you're picking a couple of phrases and interpreting them to mean the earth isn't destroyed when there are clear unambivalent passages indicating that it will be.<<<
I seems to be you are ignoring an awful lot of scripture that points in the other direction, beginning with John 3:16-17.
>>>It looks to me like you're trying to force a preconceived interpretation instead of letting scripture speak. And it has you treating whole passages as allegorical to support the meaning you've assigned to a couple of phrases.<<<
That seems to be your greatest misunderstanding. I, unlike many, had no preconceived interpretation. I didn't go to church for well over 40 years. When I was saved, nearly 40 years ago, I had nothing but a Gideon NT in the beginning (no concordance, nothing;) and my first full bible contained no concordance. My wife and I have had no TV for a long time. I have been so in the dark I didn't know who Cyrus Scofield was until this past summer. LOL! I had never heard of authors like Matthew Henry, Charles Ryrie, or Ken Gentry.
I believe you are the one with a preconceived interpretation, and mostly likely it is dispensationalism or a similar futurism; and that is all you have ever heard. Otherwise, there is no way (and I do mean, NO WAY) you could have interpreted Matthew 24:34 to mean anything other than the generation of the disciples.
Philip -:)
And the inhabitants of Jerusalem hardly “cursed God” as they probably cursed the Romans.
>>>thank you for posting this; I think about this often. I wonder if the “sea” is people. Since the Bible references believers as a “remnant” that no more sea means no great number of people.<<<
I believe the sea is a reference to people, in a sense; but like a “sea of confusion.” “No more sea” would mean no more confusion.
I believe the “remnant” generally referred to the remnant of Israel: the lost sheep that Jesus was sent to gather (Matt 15:24 and Matt 10:5-8.) That would be a good topic for a thread. I would love to hear other interpretations on that.
>>>And I agree with your summation that a new heaven and a new earth is because Jesus Christ is at the helm, not Satan.<<<
It does seems to be the only scripturally supported interpretation. But I am always willing to learn.
Philip
>>>Since when God grants them repentance and all that is left of them will be saved, then I cannot imagine anyone with even half-a-heart being excited about fulfillment via your interpretation.<<<
So they all survive the one-third of mankind being killed, as well as the Nuclear war in the vicinity of the mount of Olives? I guess I misunderstood that part of your interpretation?
>>>And why the attitude over something that is open to some interpretation? You have an axe to grind?<<<
I apologize. Sometimes I get a little carried away when someone paints a gloomy outlook for the world. I get outraged when they get rich off that gloom (e.g., book sales.)
Philip
After God destroys the earth, will he then destroy himself?
"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." (Rev 11:18 KJV)
Philip
>>>The earth has continually changed from its beginning, how long it was here before God could put life on it no one knows but like the moon one day it will not support life.<<<
You don’t know that. Maybe everything falls into place after God makes “all things new.” For example, no more violent weather patterns, earthquakes, etc..
While I do not consider the following verse to necessarily be in that context, it is a verse to consider:
“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” (Rom 8:22)
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.