Yes, so do you think the individual being born again is a 'microcosm', if you will, of the promised regeneration of the entire world? And if so, is the lake of fire in Rev 20-22 essentially the baptismal fire upscaled?
The Lake of Fire in Revelation is the place of eternal punishment. To be "baptized with fire" means to endure the wrath of God. This is why Jesus posed the question to (I think it was James and John) can you be baptized with the baptism that I'm baptized with?
The "front end" answer to that question is "no"; because they would never survive an eternity under God's wrath. The "back end" answer to that question is "yes" because "in Christ" they have been "baptized with (that) baptism".
It takes two "elements" of ones existence to survive "baptism by fire" (i.e. the wrath of God)
1. You have to be without sin. Because what one receives of the wrath of God is based on the "wages of sin" earned from the sin committed.
2. You have to be Divine. Only one who is eternal can "outlive" an everlasting wrath. And He can only outlive it because He is all powerful. He endures it knowing that He will overcome it because He possesses omniscience. He overcomes it also because He Himself is omnipresent. All these attributes are what makes God immortal.
This is why substitutionary atonement is so important.
This is also why the current creation is destroyed. On account of the temporal nature of what it is; it can not be "eternal glory". A portion of the atonement freed the creation from the curse brought upon it by Adam's transgression.
The flip side of this though is that the creation itself on account of its temporal nature could not inherit eternity because it was created into a "corrupted" "space".
I believe the "knowledge of good and evil" that God possessed consisted of the understanding that when ever and what ever He "did" something; the "equal and opposite reaction" of HIs action would also come into play. And since the nature of God is reflected in His action; the theoretical opposite of God comes into existence as a "reaction" to His action. It's not a reaction to Him the entity; but a reaction to His action. This is why evil is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal or from everlasting to everlasting.
Now the other aspect of this is that there are entities God created who are outside of the possibility of redemption. There are non carbon based entities that Scripture calls "angels". There are "beasts" and other things that are depicted in Revelation that don't appear to be carbon based either. Obviously God is not a carbon based entity; although the second person of the Trinity became a carbon based entity.
The point of that necessity had to do with atonement.
Which brings up the question as to whether or not angels are actually "life" (or at least in the same sense as carbon based life is "life"; i.e. it contains the "breath of life". There's no evidence from Scripture that these non carbon based entities called "angels" contain the breath of life.
Yet they obviously possess sentience because they are accountable for their sin. There are those who've transgressed and there are those who continue to obey. And they are apparently different than carbon based life because in that sense they are not "killable". Now is this why the Lake of Fire is eternal because of the aspect of both fallen angels and fallen men that is not "killable"?
That would make sense.
An interesting view. Are you suggesting the wolf's nature is not inherently vulpine - that he and the lamb will lie down together without the need for a full spiritual regeneration?
Now plants and animals need the curse removed from them to be recreated; but they don't need personal atonement for their "sin" (and yes, entities other than man are capable of being guilty of sin) because they are not created in God's image. "Lower form" carbon based life also does not bear the capacity to examine its behavior in the context of accountability before God; simply because it isn't created in God's image. It does of nature what is directed by its state of existence (being corrupted or being in state prior to corruption).
So to answer your question about the wolf being "inherently vulpine"; the uncorrupted nature of the wolf was not that of one that ate other animals. Prior to the fall; everything ate plants as its source of fuel. This was because there was no "death".
Now one could argue that consuming a plant constitutes it's "death"; yet if "the life is in the blood" and and organism has not "blood" even though it is still considered "life" because it possesses the breath of life; it is just transferring that breath to another organism and in that sense it doesn't die.
That animal's body processes that fuel, combining it with the animals own waste products and excretes that waste both in feces, urine and exhaled CO2; reinserting that converted energy back into the system as a type of fuel that the plant can now use to grow.
That aspect of "energy transfer" in that respect is a "closed system" because the breakdown and recycling of the "plant" / "waste" undoubtedly has a "consistent mathematical factor" to it (for lack of a better term). The "unaccounted for factor" though is solely dependent on the amount of "be fruitful and multiply" that has occurred within an ecosystem.
A healthy ecosystem has vibrant and abundant life. And that life; by nature of what it is created as (also Who it's created by) just produces more life simply because it was designed to do that. It is designed to do that because the Creator who made it is inherent of His essence "Creative".
We'll have to disagree on this point, as I believe in a flat motionless earth under a solid firmament. The universe is all contained in maybe 100,000 cubic miles between the separated waters. Just as the ancients saw it and interpreted the OT.
That is also arguable based on interpretation of what people think Hebrew words mean. Not all the ancients believed the earth was flat either.
Just a propaganda machine I suggest!
Something did crash in Roswell that we are not being told the truth about. That is fact. Now what that object was and why we are still not told the truth of what it was is obviously still current in public discourse. I don't find it unreasonable or doubtful to state that event really happened though.
To say Roswell was a "non event" is like saying World War II didn't happen. Now it is also up for much debate of what actually happened in WWII? But that's also the subject of another thread.