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.
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 -:)