Will the old creation mirror the new creation?

[DamianWarS]

Rev 21 tells us the old earth and heaven will pass away and a new one will be created. After reading this it struck me that the process of this new creation would mirror a similar process of the original and so if a literal 6-day creation happened for the old earth than a similar timeline would happen for the new. If creation was over a span of millions/billions of years than it also will be the same for the new.

For me, I do not replace the creation account with evolution or other theories, but I tend to lean toward it as a non-literal account still, especially for interpretation since there is no way to guess at the in-between the lines detail we need to just read the account as is without trying to explain it (exactly how non-literal accounts are read). the power of the text to me goes far beyond the literal so I hang on the literal loosely trying to read the account for it's meaning not it's conflict.

but with that said I also tend to read revelation as more dreamlike and mystical. my allowance for the unnatural in this space is far more tolerated so when all things are created new my head has visions of an immediate new creation with mountains sprouting up like flowers and oceans being drained away like a bathtub.

I recognize however there is a conflict with how I view both creations. Although I try and remain agnostic about the exact details of how God created the world and allow a space for an old earth (at the same time holding a space for a young earth) because it still makes sense to me however with the new creation of Rev 21 billions of years doesn't seem to fit the text.

I haven't changed my position but I am looking at that the way we view the old creation should connect with the way we look at the new creation and our view needs to take both into account. I'm still thinking out loud here and do understand that when Christ rose again he wasn't a baby and see the new creation/resurrection as part of the same theme (even in Rev 21 the timeline seems more instant than Gen 1).

Does this make sense and have you thought of it like this? Does your creation view endorse the creation to come? Should it?

 

[timothyu]

Two thoughts. The Garden was our first home and separate from the world we know. Second, we will be new beings free of fleshy ways so perhaps what comes down out of Heaven, the new Jerusalem into the Kingdom , is all part of a pre-existing place. Jesus said there were many mansions in our Father's house and He was going to prepare one for us.

 

[Jonaitis]

Rev 21 tells us the old earth and heaven will pass away and a new one will be created. After reading this it struck me that the process of this new creation would mirror a similar process of the original and so if a literal 6-day creation happened for the old earth than a similar timeline would happen for the new. If creation was over a span of millions/billions of years than it also will be the same for the new.

For me, I do not replace the creation account with evolution or other theories, but I tend to lean toward it as a non-literal account still, especially for interpretation since there is no way to guess at the in-between the lines detail we need to just read the account as is without trying to explain it (exactly how non-literal accounts are read). the power of the text to me goes far beyond the literal so I hang on the literal loosely trying to read the account for it's meaning not it's conflict.

but with that said I also tend to read revelation as more dreamlike and mystical. my allowance for the unnatural in this space is far more tolerated so when all things are created new my head has visions of an immediate new creation with mountains sprouting up like flowers and oceans being drained away like a bathtub.

I recognize however there is a conflict with how I view both creations. Although I try and remain agnostic about the exact details of how God created the world and allow a space for an old earth (at the same time holding a space for a young earth) because it still makes sense to me however with the new creation of Rev 21 billions of years doesn't seem to fit the text.

I haven't changed my position but I am looking at that the way we view the old creation should connect with the way we look at the new creation and our view needs to take both into account. I'm still thinking out loud here and do understand that when Christ rose again he wasn't a baby and see the new creation/resurrection as part of the same theme (even in Rev 21 the timeline seems more instant than Gen 1).

Does this make sense and have you thought of it like this? Does your creation view endorse the creation to come? Should it?

I never understood why Genesis 1 isn't considered literal-historical, with metaphorical and typological meaning underneath, but the rest of the book is such to some people on this board. If God did not create the world in a literal six-days, neither was Abraham a real historical figure.

I am of the view that the new creation is a resurrected/renewed world similar to our own, since Christians will be resurrected with a real body, but glorified and free from the corruption of sin.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Does this make sense and have you thought of it like this? Does your creation view endorse the creation to come? Should it?

Well the Genesis account focuses on the physical/ material creation of Earth. The Revelation account is focused on heaven coming down to earth in the form of the New Jerusalem. So Kingdom come renders the new Earth at least a spiritual state as much as a physical place. It is also described in apocalyptic genre language, as a prophetic vision, whereas Genesis is more matter-of-fact.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I never understood why Genesis 1 isn't considered literal-historical, with metaphorical and typological meaning underneath, but the rest of the book is such to some people on this board. If God did not create the world in a literal six-days, neither was Abraham a real historical figure.

Because Christians will do anything to avoid having to face the straight-up Biblical cosmology of a flat stationary enclosed earth. Let God be true.

 

[Jeshu]

No mind can conceive what God has in store for those who love Him. The New Creation will be utterly mind blowing!

 

[Jonaitis]

Because Christians will do anything to avoid having to face the straight-up Biblical cosmology of a flat stationary enclosed earth. Let God be true.

It is only your assumption that the biblical cosmology is a flat stationary enclosed earth.

Scripture is "phenomenological," that is it expresses matters simply, and from the standpoint of ancient observers. The sun appears to rise and set from man's fixed position on the surface.

The Bible is not a science textbook. It was not intended to convey a modern-instruments-precision of measurement, so when you read the account you must not take it strictly speaking. It is literal, but spoken in the perspective of an observer, similar to how the sun "stopped" through the prayer of Joshua.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It is only your assumption that the biblical cosmology is a flat stationary enclosed earth.

No man, it's abundantly clear. The ancient Hebrews concurred, and how often do they agree on anything?

The Bible is not a science textbook.

Science is knowledge. That's what the word means. So you're denying Biblical knowledge. Of course scripture has something to say about the nature and structure of the earth. 'Sun, stand thou still'. 'The firmament like a molten mirror'. 'One light to rule the day and one to rule the night'. Well you'll find God is the light and Jesus the lamp in the new heavens/earth (Rev 21:23, Isa 60:19). So at least quit believing the rubbish that moondust can reflect sunlight and utterly change its character in the process.

 

[DamianWarS]

I never understood why Genesis 1 isn't considered literal-historical, with metaphorical and typological meaning underneath, but the rest of the book is such to some people on this board. If God did not create the world in a literal six-days, neither was Abraham a real historical figure.

I am of the view that the new creation is a resurrected/renewed world similar to our own, since Christians will be resurrected with a real body, but glorified and free from the corruption of sin.

Abrahamic accounts and onwards are far more descriptive than pre-Abrahamic accounts and we expect this because Abraham, Issac and Jacob are extremely important to the Hebrews but not important to anyone else, so it would make sense that they would preserve these details more than others and that they would be accurate. However, this is not the same for pre-Abrahamic accounts where details would have high competition amound surrounding cultures. I see these accounts as divinely redeemed accounts existing from pervious known myths. Not that the biblical account itself should be called a "myth" but that God's goal is to de-paganize the Hebrews with these accounts not reinforced pagan practices so he takes existing accounts and points them to himself and his glory as the sole creator as well as infuse them with metaphorical and typological meaning underneath. It's called contextualization and we know God does this because the incarnation is the greatest example of this.

but that's not my point. My point is more about how should our view of creation agree with the view of the new creation. I get you say the world itself will be familiar but what I'm asking is more about the process of the new creation, not the product, and will it be similar to the process of the old creation. for example, if old creation was 6 days then will the new creation be 6 days? or if it was a billion years does this view also fit into the new creation as well? Should we use Revelation as a guide to how old creation looks like or vice-versa?

 

[DamianWarS]

Well the Genesis account focuses on the physical/ material creation of Earth. The Revelation account is focused on heaven coming down to earth in the form of the New Jerusalem. So Kingdom come renders the new Earth at least a spiritual state as much as a physical place. It is also described in apocalyptic genre language, as a prophetic vision, whereas Genesis is more matter-of-fact.

the genesis 1 creation account to me has more poetic tones with it's clear forced chiastic structures

A - bookend, opening “in the beginning…” there was chaos and God started a work

A1 God separates…

a light
b dark​

A2 God separates…

a water
b sky​

A3 God separates…

a land
b plants​

B1 God fills…

a the light with the sun
b the dark with the moon​

B2 God fills…

a the water with fish
b the sky with the birds​

B3 God fills…

a the land with animals (including man)
b plants are given as food​

B - bookend, chaos is organized and the work is finished, God rests, closing

this is just one of the apparent examples, the account itself is full of these structures and this forced structure doesn't reveal a literal unfolding... how exactly does the light shine without a source... it can because it's forced inside a chiastic pattern.

 

[timothyu]

Does it matter what the outcome will be? If nothing man has created built upon the will of man exists in the Kingdom, why would it be necessary to mirror this life?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

the genesis 1 creation account to me has more poetic tones with it's clear forced chiastic structures

A - bookend, opening “in the beginning…” there was chaos and God started a work

A1 God separates…

a light
b dark​

A2 God separates…

a water
b sky​

A3 God separates…

a land
b plants​

B1 God fills…

a the light with the sun
b the dark with the moon​

B2 God fills…

a the water with fish
b the sky with the birds​

B3 God fills…

a the land with animals (including man)
b plants are given as food​

B - bookend, chaos is organized and the work is finished, God rests, closing

this is just one of the apparent examples, the account itself is full of these structures and this forced structure doesn't reveal a literal unfolding... how exactly does the light shine without a source... it can because it's forced inside a chiastic pattern.

Yes, good analysis. But isn't that the idea of the inerrancy of the Bible, and/or the perfect literary skills of the HS? He's not going to have to compromise on literal truth just for poetic symmetry. He's not going to employ imperfect metaphors like pretentious human poets do. 'This sounds wonderful but might not be true' LOL. That's what the devil does - aesthetics, vanity.

Of course, it can be interpreted on 4 or more levels, but is coherent on all levels - that's the symphony of creation. People don't want to accept it because it flies in the face of their beloved worldly self-righteous blind pride in the scraps from the false religion of scientism. But God makes foolish the wisdom of the wise.

I feel strongly about Gen 1 cause it was my stumbling block for years as an atheist/ agnostic, and only after researching geocentrism for some years was I able to clamber over it by the grace of God. Now only to run into a pack of self-confessed Christians who see the need to duck, weave, twist and turn to escape the awful truth. Let God be true, He reveals great things to little children. The devil runs this world, and he doesn't lie about evolution then take a sabbath. Big blue ribbon lies. Please don't read them into the Bible. Spinning ball in space at one end and endless fiery torment at the other, what spirit pushes that rubbish?

 

[DamianWarS]

Does it matter what the outcome will be? If nothing man has created built upon the will of man exists in the Kingdom, why would it be necessary to mirror this life?

My question is not about the product of creation but the process.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

My question is not about the product of creation but the process.

Process of creation is the same, everything that was made originally and all things to be renewed ultimately through Jesus, the alef and the tav. God changes not.

 

[DamianWarS]

Yes, good analysis. But isn't that the idea of the inerrancy of the Bible, and/or the perfect literary skills of the HS? He's not going to have to compromise on literal truth just for poetic symmetry. He's not going to employ imperfect metaphors like pretentious human poets do. 'This sounds wonderful but might not be true' LOL. That's what the devil does - aesthetics, vanity.

this demand of literal inerrancy is a modern western phenomenon that the ancient mindset did not share or agree with. I would even argue it is a product of this "false religion of scientism" that you fight against so much. These accounts are written in a culture that cared more about the message than they did the factual content which may have little to no meaning in their world view. To you this seems to be a deal-breaker and perhaps it's a developed allergy given the disgust you have toward it and your professed background "as an atheist/ agnostic".

a western mindset starts with a hypothesis and then will use the facts to prove or disprove it, where an ancient eastern mindset will starts with the goal and will use points to build that goal. The degree of literalness to an eastern mindset is less important than its ability to enforce the goal because the goal is the most important thing, the details are more fluid. The goal is truth because it is worthy of truth not because it is proven with several preceding facts that have been tested.

looking at the creation account you are superimposing a western methodology to interpret and organize the information. The hypothesis is something like "God created the earth in 6 days", and each day proves this by demanding it to be literal hiding under a misrepresentation of inerrancy. But through this, miss the point.

What's the point? that God is the creator of all things and there are no other gods. Each day goes through and proclaims this leaving no room for other interpretations. Competing creation myths of the time have a recognizable structure, even starting with "in the beginning there was chaos... then going through organizing the chaos just like the biblical account yet instead of "days" there are "gods" and spitting, vomiting or other bodily functions as their creative acts. the creation account is about debunking these views and proclaiming the one and only true God and this is a truth that transcends any literal reading of the text; a truth that is inerrant.

This is all pre-history and if Moses introduced these accounts, and we accept the biblical timeline, they are 2500 years removed from the time they happened. The importance of this information being literal has no value at all. It is completely abstract information, literal or non-literal and there is no possible way to verify it. It's doesn't change our lives if it happened another way then presented nor does it change the truth. It is true because it is divinely given so the words in their exactness are immensely important, they just don't need to be literal.

Does this mean I am pushing some sort of scientific view? no, I'm not replacing the creation account with something else I just recognize the creation account is best when it is not interpreted literally or the weight of its literalness is not important.

given the propensity the Hebrews have toward these chiastic structures I would say the beginning is a frame to the end, things like day 1 God brings in light to overcome darkness can be called a metaphor to things like salvation, to Christ himself, to the resurrection or to the new creation all which may be chiastic in nature as they are repeating themes declared from the beginning building to the end. What is the end, it is the rest of God; a sabbath for all.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

.

Is your message written in invisible ink?

 

[timothyu]

My question is not about the product of creation but the process.

Why would we need a repeat of this world, our place of exile? We are to be changed to fit a a world already in existence prior to the exile to here.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why would we need a repeat of this world, our place of exile? We are to be changed to fit a a world already in existence prior to the exile to here.

I still feel you are hung up on the product of creation and not the process, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Revelation says there will be a new Heaven and new Earth so however you wish to interpret what this new Earth will be, let's call it "second creation", how does this compliment the Genesis account of the "first creation".

 

[timothyu]

how does this compliment the Genesis account of the "first creation".

It doesn't. It compliments the Garden.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

this demand of literal inerrancy is a modern western phenomenon that the ancient mindset did not share or agree with. I would even argue it is a product of this "false religion of scientism" that you fight against so much. These accounts are written in a culture that cared more about the message than they did the factual content which may have little to no meaning in their world view. To you this seems to be a deal-breaker and perhaps it's a developed allergy given the disgust you have toward it and your professed background "as an atheist/ agnostic".

Ok, but if you throw away Biblical inerrancy, or at least a view that the H.S. doesn't muck about, then you just have another book, you've profaned the Bible have you not. And to say that the fourfold interpretation is suspended in part for certain passages - especially passages ostensibly dealing with descriptions of physical/ material things - is I think to exhibit a lack of trust and faith in God's word.

You can dress it up all you like, and try to make an 'as above so below' version(!), but the truth is plainly there. Take Revelation 20:9, the nations gathered by Satan as armies from the four corners of the earth: And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city,...'

The Bible is a flat earth book. You may say it's just phenomenological, but it is nevertheless consistent throughout. In order to enter into God's rest, there needs to be a standard of rest.

a western mindset starts with a hypothesis and then will use the facts to prove or disprove it, where an ancient eastern mindset will starts with the goal and will use points to build that goal. The degree of literalness to an eastern mindset is less important than its ability to enforce the goal because the goal is the most important thing, the details are more fluid. The goal is truth because it is worthy of truth not because it is proven with several preceding facts that have been tested.

looking at the creation account you are superimposing a western methodology to interpret and organize the information. The hypothesis is something like "God created the earth in 6 days", and each day proves this by demanding it to be literal hiding under a misrepresentation of inerrancy. But through this, miss the point.

Truth is not a western mindset.

What's the point? that God is the creator of all things and there are no other gods. Each day goes through and proclaims this leaving no room for other interpretations. Competing creation myths of the time have a recognizable structure, even starting with "in the beginning there was chaos... then going through organizing the chaos just like the biblical account yet instead of "days" there are "gods" and spitting, vomiting or other bodily functions as their creative acts. the creation account is about debunking these views and proclaiming the one and only true God and this is a truth that transcends any literal reading of the text; a truth that is inerrant.

The Biblical account is not a competing creation myth.

Does this mean I am pushing some sort of scientific view? no, I'm not replacing the creation account with something else I just recognize the creation account is best when it is not interpreted literally or the weight of its literalness is not important.

It was very important in my journey to Christ. When God showed up and opened my eyes and changed my heart He didn't exactly tell me about cosmology, but did show me that He's led me through all these fields in a search for the truth that had run me smack bang into Him. So I'm not going to water it all down now and act like the literal reading of Gen 1 is some junior high class that can be dispensed with.

given the propensity the Hebrews have toward these chiastic structures I would say the beginning is a frame to the end, things like day 1 God brings in light to overcome darkness can be called a metaphor to things like salvation, to Christ himself, to the resurrection or to the new creation all which may be chiastic in nature as they are repeating themes declared from the beginning building to the end. What is the end, it is the rest of God; a sabbath for all.

Yes of course it's a beautiful allegory of salvation in Gen 1 especially, and I believe this is similar to what will occur in the eschaton, it's the whole of creation being baptised and born again. The 3 key words to compare are anakainosis (renew), apocatastasis (restore) and paliggenesis (regenerate).