Jesus implied the kingdom of God was on the earth: of course, he and his servants rule from heaven, but the kingdom is here. Recall Jesus said this to the Jews:
"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Mat 21:43 KJV)
And do you recall Jesus eating in the kingdom of God after his resurrection?
"And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16 KJV)
"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him [Jesus] a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." (Luke 24:41-43 KJV)
To be more specific, the Kingdom of God is within us:
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21 KJV)
>>>Now "while the earth remaineth" does imply to me, that the earth will not remain forever. <<<
And "the earth abideth forever," and "world without end" do not imply the opposite? That is a very interesting interpretive method, I must admit.
>>>[Eccl 1:4] Well, this is Ecclesiastes. Written by Solomon. He claims in this book that all is vain (1:14), yet God claimed it was good. And he claims that which is crooked can not be made straight (1:15), though we know that's not true for all things are possible through Christ.<<<
If all things are possible, do you think all things are likely? For example, have you seen anyone move any mountains lately? It only takes faith as a grain of mustard seed. And if the crooked could be made straight, why did God send armies to destroy evil nations, including Israel, twice? Over 1.1 million Jews were killed or starved to death in Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman war, alone! Why didn't he simply make them "straight?" I believe we are in way over our heads on this one.
BTW, I didn't know it was written by Solomon. I never really considered it since the author claimed to be a Preacher. I assumed it was one of David's other sons, say, Nathan.
>>>In 3.19, he claims we are no better than the beasts, but we know this is not true either, for unlike the beasts we were made in the image of God, and given dominion over the beasts. So maybe everything he's writing in Eccl shouldn't be taken literally.<<<
I believe that to be true in every book, and especially in visionary prophecies like those of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, the Revelation, and the like. Any pretense of "plain language" in the prophecies should always be questioned.
>>>In fact, this verse, is intended to show that generations of men are like vapors in the wind to support his argument that all is vain.<<<
That is true, and will always be. Did he say the earth was also like a vapour?
>>>I don't think Solomon actually meant to claim that there would never be an end to the earth.<<<
He is not around to ask, nor are any of the others. Maybe we should compare his scripture with others, say with John 3:17, or Eph 3:21, or Rev 11:15, and even others. Letting the scripture interpret the scripture is, in my opinion, the only valid way to interpret it. I certainly cannot get into the Lord's mind to "see" what he was thinking; and it is all God's Word, which sorta makes a mockery of so-called "scholars" who pretend they can get into the minds of the writers, like Paul.
>>>There are many other verses that support the traditional interpretation of a new heaven and new earth. [Isa 65:17, 13:13, 34:4] <<<
I referenced Isa 65:17 in my original post. I only recently referenced Isaiah 13:13, which referred to the destruction of ancient Babylon by the Medes: a verse which shoots a few holes into a literal interpretation of the earth, stars and sun doing really crazy things. Regarding Isaiah 34:4, this is the context:
"Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment." (Isa 34:3-5 KJV)
That passage refers to the destruction of ancient Idumea. In the continuation in the next chapter, it explains why Idumea was destroyed:
"As thou didst rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto thee: thou shalt be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Idumea, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the Lord." (Isa 35:15 KJV)
Those passages present the same dilemma for the literal interpreter as 13:13. If all that bizarre stuff in 34:3-4 happened many centuries ago, why is there not so much as a whisper about it in the history books?
Philip
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."
The Lord can make the sinful man perfect. But he will not strive with man forever. He judges the nations and sometimes he wipes them out.
Yes, Jesus ate in his ressurected body, which implies we'll eat in our resurrected bodies. And the Baptists rejoiced!!!
I'm thinking you bought up eating to imply the earth is necesary for production of food. I don't think it is, but in any event we know there will be a new earth.
"And "the earth abideth forever," and "world without end" do not imply the opposite?
The difference is that, the Gen statement was a conditional logic statement. While the earth remaineth, the seasons will occur. It makes no claim that the earth will remain forever, rather it implies that seasons will occur only until the earth itself ends.
Taken out of context those two phrases would seem to imply the opposite. 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.
"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)
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 agree with your general approach, that scripture should be interpreted in light of the rest of the scripture. 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.
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.