The Key to Revelation

[roselady]

I got to thinking about some deep stuff here and LOL I noticed something. Two books of the bible are almost mirror images of each other. Genisis and Revelation. Its like one is going forward and one is going in reverse. Check it out sometime and tell me what you think?

I just love this theology stuff, God is my favorite subject, yuppers, indeed.

 

[busterdog]

I got to thinking about some deep stuff here and LOL I noticed something. Two books of the bible are almost mirror images of each other. Genisis and Revelation. Its like one is going forward and one is going in reverse. Check it out sometime and tell me what you think?

I just love this theology stuff, God is my favorite subject, yuppers, indeed.

There is a thread or two around here somewhere nipping around the edge of some of that stuff. I think some of the TEs didn't want to go too far and Revelation possibly for fear of offending others.

Part of the problem seems to be that Tim Lahaye has a bad reputation in some circles as grim fantasy.

One of the most remarkable parallels has to do with death. If death is cast into the lake of sulfur at the end, where was death in paradise before the fall? Shouldn't paradise on either end be a mirror image?

I think the argument somewhere is that evolution does not require death prior to the fall of man. I can't comprehend that suggestion. Maybe someone will clear it up.

Another parallel is the use of types. Revelation uses dragons and a woman clothed with the sun. Daniel uses bears, leopards, etc. What does Genesis use? A snake? That is a specific entitity, whether or not he was also possessed of scale and a threechambered heart. A man? Doubtful that he is not also a literal man. Most of these "types" are actual historical entities, such as the empires in Daniel. WHy should Adam not be the same? Granted, there are more inchoate entities in Revelation, horses and riders, which seem to represent processes, not historical entities -- but that is open to debate.

 

[Assyrian]

I think the argument somewhere is that evolution does not require death prior to the fall of man. I can't comprehend that suggestion. Maybe someone will clear it up.

Just answering some YEC who tried to identify evolution with death to make evolution sound bad. But evolution is about breeding successfully rather than kill or be killed. There is nothing intrinsic in evolution that requires death, though death is part of the world God made and evolution does operate in a world where animals eat each other and kill plants.

One of the most remarkable parallels has to do with death. If death is cast into the lake of sulfur at the end, where was death in paradise before the fall? Shouldn't paradise on either end be a mirror image?

Death is cast into the lake of fire along with Hades, and yes, the dragon too, the ancient serpent. So if Revelation is a mirror image, then if the snake was in Eden, an innocent part of God's original creation before the fall, then death could have been an innocent part of God's creation too.

Hi roselady welcome to OT

 

[roselady]

Thats just how I see it and some things have to remain a mystery until the very end. You know, a good book has to have a good ending and I cant go giving away the ending just yet, it would ruin the whole darn plot and story line ya know? Dont you just hate them people who tell you the end of a movie and it just ruins it. tee hee

 

[busterdog]

Just answering some YEC who tried to identify evolution with death to make evolution sound bad. But evolution is about breeding successfully rather than kill or be killed.

That's a fine theory, but when it gets personal, isn't our faith in the Redeemer of the unsuccessful, marred, moribund and less fit?

I am trying to walk through the evolution-in-eden theology, which continues to challenge me.

Beings before Adam were perhaps somewhat like man, and God was pleased to let them die?

The lion was not lying down with the lamb in paradise, but the law of the jungle was natural and therefore pleasing to God?

Because death is natural, its acceptable, if not beautiful, because what? Because there was heaven during the time that there was "paradise"? So, death is ok as long as it isn't violent and unjust? Are parasites and disease allowed in paradise?

What is the goal of paradise, improvement of breeding stock? Revelation says that the future of man is bodily resurrection and life again on earth in paradise. The redemption is not by improving the species generally by natural selection, it is the miraculous intervention of God.

Your biggest problem is that your theory fails to pass the "Disney test." Everything about the "Lion King" makes me want to puke. This is just a little too much "circle-of-life" for me. Hakunnah Mettatah.

 

[c1ners]

Here's a good link on Rev. It answers a lot of your questions:

http://www.freewebs.com/urldownloads/Setting%5Fthe%5FSeal%5Fof%5FTruth%5Fof%5FRev.pdf

 

[Assyrian]

That's a fine theory, but when it gets personal, isn't our faith in the Redeemer of the unsuccessful, marred, moribund and less fit?

I am trying to walk through the evolution-in-eden theology, which continues to challenge me.

Beings before Adam were perhaps somewhat like man, and God was pleased to let them die?

The lion was not lying down with the lamb in paradise, but the law of the jungle was natural and therefore pleasing to God?

Because death is natural, its acceptable, if not beautiful, because what? Because there was heaven during the time that there was "paradise"? So, death is ok as long as it isn't violent and unjust? Are parasites and disease allowed in paradise?

What is the goal of paradise, improvement of breeding stock? Revelation says that the future of man is bodily resurrection and life again on earth in paradise. The redemption is not by improving the species generally by natural selection, it is the miraculous intervention of God.

Your biggest problem is that your theory fails to pass the "Disney test." Everything about the "Lion King" makes me want to puke. This is just a little too much "circle-of-life" for me. Hakunnah Mettatah.

The lion king is just a slightly more sophisticated form of the sentimentalism that has come in with cartoons. Have you any idea damage Bugs Bunny did to the rabbit business? Babe was even worse and did terrible damage to the pork industry. I am afraid YECs do even worse at the Disney Test. Of course death is evil. God wouldn't let cuddly animals die in the garden of Eden. And even the lion are cuddly in a noble sort of way.

It is not biblical. God cares for lion and ravens - and gives them prey to feed their hungry young. He watches over the sparrows - not one of them dies without him knowing. This is not the sentimentalism of Lion King, or of Babe. It is God caring for a good creation.

Life is a precious gift of God, whether God gives an eternity to man or a few years to a rabbit. I really don't see how God was obligated, if he gave life to any creature, to give an eternity to them.

We should thank God for those parasites too. About a third of all pest insects are kept in check by parasites. Insects breed, they are fruitful and multiply, but the more of a certain species there are the easier it is for their particular parasite to spread through the population. It sounds grizzly but they keep a lot of famines at bay.

I haven't thought about it before, but how would Adam have kept the pests at bay in the garden? It is bad enough talking about being up to his neck in insects who were being 'fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth'. But they would have eaten all the fruit too and they breed faster than us. Good job ladybirds are fruitful and multiply too, as do parasites when there are a lot of hosts around.

 

[busterdog]

The lion king is just a slightly more sophisticated form of the sentimentalism that has come in with cartoons. Have you any idea damage Bugs Bunny did to the rabbit business? Babe was even worse and did terrible damage to the pork industry. I am afraid YECs do even worse at the Disney Test. Of course death is evil. God wouldn't let cuddly animals die in the garden of Eden. And even the lion are cuddly in a noble sort of way.

It is not biblical. God cares for lion and ravens - and gives them prey to feed their hungry young. He watches over the sparrows - not one of them dies without him knowing. This is not the sentimentalism of Lion King, or of Babe. It is God caring for a good creation.

Life is a precious gift of God, whether God gives an eternity to man or a few years to a rabbit. I really don't see how God was obligated, if he gave life to any creature, to give an eternity to them.

We should thank God for those parasites too. About a third of all pest insects are kept in check by parasites. Insects breed, they are fruitful and multiply, but the more of a certain species there are the easier it is for their particular parasite to spread through the population. It sounds grizzly but they keep a lot of famines at bay.

I haven't thought about it before, but how would Adam have kept the pests at bay in the garden? It is bad enough talking about being up to his neck in insects who were being 'fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth'. But they would have eaten all the fruit too and they breed faster than us. Good job ladybirds are fruitful and multiply too, as do parasites when there are a lot of hosts around.

Part of the problem is that we are not clear on the distinction between the pre- and post-fall worlds.

EG, the woodpecker is an example of "intelligent design." But, its design appears to be predatory. Is that a pre- or post-fall adaptation? So, I see the problem in explaining it.

However, evolution is very hard to cram into a biblical view of paradise.

But, look, don't mess with Babe. "Pig In The City" is a masterpiece (and I am not talking about the barbeque sauce.)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Part of the problem is that we are not clear on the distinction between the pre- and post-fall worlds.

EG, the woodpecker is an example of "intelligent design." But, its design appears to be predatory. Is that a pre- or post-fall adaptation? So, I see the problem in explaining it.

However, evolution is very hard to cram into a biblical view of paradise.

But, look, don't mess with Babe. "Pig In The City" is a masterpiece (and I am not talking about the barbeque sauce.)

How do you figure the woodpecker as an example of ID?

as for

However, evolution is very hard to cram into a biblical view of paradise.

I don't see any conflict at all if you are able to get your mind around the concept of Genesis as parable, or attempt to make the ACTUAL explanation of life and cosmology more poetic, and palatable to pre-scientific semi-nomads

 

[Assyrian]

Part of the problem is that we are not clear on the distinction between the pre- and post-fall worlds.

EG, the woodpecker is an example of "intelligent design." But, its design appears to be predatory. Is that a pre- or post-fall adaptation? So, I see the problem in explaining it.

Nice point busterdog

However, evolution is very hard to cram into a biblical view of paradise.

I see paradise in Genesis as a picture of an unspoiled relationship with God. It fits with its use Revelation. Paradise is where the tree of life is, but that is in the city of God in heaven. Paul was 'caught up to paradise' and the thief on the cross was with Jesus in paradise, when he died.

Even if you take it literally, paradise was one garden on a whole planet, a garden Adam was instructed to protect Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. Literally 'keep' means put a hedge of thorns around to protect it.

But, look, don't mess with Babe. "Pig In The City" is a masterpiece (and I am not talking about the barbeque sauce.)

To late busterdog has been got.

It starts off with innocent looking pigs
but before you know it you are singing duets with warthogs
♪♫ ...[sub]that's[/sub] the names of the [sup]game...[/sup]♪♫

 

[busterdog]

How do you figure the woodpecker as an example of ID?

as for I don't see any conflict at all if you are able to get your mind around the concept of Genesis as parable, or attempt to make the ACTUAL explanation of life and cosmology more poetic, and palatable to pre-scientific semi-nomads

Woodpecker needs to wrap its tongue, not three, but four times to cushion the brain while pecking, which of course ruins some termite's day. Evolution has a hard time explaining the improbability of the woodpecker's evolution. It can hypothesize all it wants, but it remains a difficult and improbable mutation. We can assume that the WP was coddled with soft wood until he was ready to take on a maple, but we can just as easily hypothesize vegetarian woodpecker that turned aggressive, post-fall.

As for evolution, all I can say is natural selection leaves me completely dead someday. I have been promised something better.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Woodpecker needs to wrap its tongue, not three, but four times to cushion the brain while pecking, which of course ruins some termite's day. Evolution has a hard time explaining the improbability of the woodpecker's evolution. It can hypothesize all it wants, but it remains a difficult and improbable mutation. We can assume that the WP was coddled with soft wood until he was ready to take on a maple, but we can just as easily hypothesize vegetarian woodpecker that turned aggressive, post-fall.

As for evolution, all I can say is natural selection leaves me completely dead someday. I have been promised something better.

I don't see how evolution negates the promise of something better one day... I believe in something better, AND that evolution is the best available explanation for biodiversity

 

[ContentInHim]

Thats just how I see it and some things have to remain a mystery until the very end. You know, a good book has to have a good ending and I cant go giving away the ending just yet, it would ruin the whole darn plot and story line ya know? Dont you just hate them people who tell you the end of a movie and it just ruins it. tee hee

A friend of mine says with the Bible you know the END from the BEGINNING. Just another spin on your OP!

 

[busterdog]

I don't see how evolution negates the promise of something better one day... I believe in something better, AND that evolution is the best available explanation for biodiversity

If one were to infer that the end of things looks like the beginning of things, then I would argue that no death in paradise after history is over means no death in paradise prior to the fall.

Since we based this reasoning largely on inference, it is perhaps pointless to argue beyond this assertion. Inference and counter-inference are not going to lead to a resolution on the point.

There are a couple of scriptures:

"Behold I make all things new." (as in Revelation)

And

Hbr 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
With respect ot the latter, perhaps not all of us agree that "Elohim" in Gen. 1 included Jesus.

 

[shernren]

And no temptation to sin in paradise after history means no temptation to sin in paradise prior to the fall - wait a minute ...

 

[Assyrian]

If one were to infer that the end of things looks like the beginning of things, then I would argue that no death in paradise after history is over means no death in paradise prior to the fall.

Since we based this reasoning largely on inference, it is perhaps pointless to argue beyond this assertion. Inference and counter-inference are not going to lead to a resolution on the point.

There are strong parallels between Revelation and Genesis. But I don't think we can say the end of things looks like the beginning. We are talking about the completed fulfilment of the God's eternal purpose. The garden does not describe God's completed plan, it was the very beginning.

We read in 1Cor 15 that flesh and blood bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If that is the case then Adam was not the final blueprint because he was flesh. The blueprint for the kingdom of God is the second 'Adam'. We are going to have resurrected bodies like Jesus, bodies that cannot die.

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
There are two types of bodies, one made from dust the other from heaven. One is perishable, the other imperishable. One cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven the other can. Our bodies are just the way God created us. We are made of dust: as was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. Mankind did not become mortal as a result of the fall. We were made that way, of 'dust'.

 

[gluadys]

I think the argument somewhere is that evolution does not require death prior to the fall of man. I can't comprehend that suggestion. Maybe someone will clear it up.

Maybe it will be clearer when you realize that evolution does not require death after the fall either. Doesn't mean that creatures don't die. Obviously they do. Just not because of evolution.

As for evolution, all I can say is natural selection leaves me completely dead someday.

Only if you have no descendants. You will die, but not because of natural selection. If you have descendants, then in an evolutionary sense, you are not extinct.

(btw, they don't have to be direct descendants either. If you have siblings, they each have on average half of the same genes as you do, so if you have nieces or nephews, natural selection has not killed you off.)