Literal truth

[Digit]

It is not so much as they are "false" as that the theology gets very muddied.

Genesis proclaims a literal Adam, from whom other people came, with an unbroken line of promise and fulfillment through Abraham, etc., David, all the way to Jesus. This establishes Jesus' complete humanity AND His fulfillment of the promises. Jesus is called the last Adam as compared to the first. Romans 5:14, I Cor 15:22 and 15:45 all refer to Adam in the context of developing the redemptive theology around Jesus. Jesus talks about the creation of man and woman as occurring at the beginning of creation, not millions of years later.

The ten commandments in Exodus (called out as being absolutely directly from God) specifically calls out the 6 day creation as God setting an example for men, that they should obey the Sabbath. Jesus helps us understand that God made the Sabbath for men, not the other way around -- its a good thing, not a yoke. If the creation is not 6 days, there's a big problem. Was God a liar? Did they write His commandment down wrong? Was Moses a liar?

Other parts of Genesis are important as well. For example, the global flood. Without going into interpretational gymnastics, if you gave a bunch of reasonably intelligent (but not schooled in liberal theology) people a copy of Genesis and asked them afterwards if the flood was global, I would bet the vast majority (or all) would say yes. Its how the story reads. However, a global flood leaves evidence. This directly affects our interpretations of the fossil record, for example. The fossil record can be interpreted as supporting evolution, or as supporting a global flood. I happen to believe that the global flood model matches the physical evidence much better, as well as matching the Scriptural account.

The biggest way it matters is that it affects our view of the entire Scriptures. Are they from God or from men? Are the topics raised limited in truth to the worldview and knowledge of the authors, or is an omnipotent loving God seeking to communicate with us? Timothy called the scriptures "God-Breathed" and there are a TON of scriptures rejoicing in the way that they are more than just a myth with vague spiritual messages. They are true and real. They reveal God working throughout real history in real ways with real people. I can rejoice that that same God can work through me in real ways in my real life.

(I prefer the term historically accurate, as opposed to literal. There are tons of different literary constructions in the Scriptures -- poems, stories, parables, word pictures, etc. But Genesis is accurate historically.)

Wow, that pretty much says it all I think. Nice work sir!

Digit

 

[shernren]

Jesus talks about the creation of man and woman as occurring at the beginning of creation, not millions of years later.

Hoho. We still haven't settled that one.

The ten commandments in Exodus (called out as being absolutely directly from God) specifically calls out the 6 day creation as God setting an example for men, that they should obey the Sabbath. Jesus helps us understand that God made the Sabbath for men, not the other way around -- its a good thing, not a yoke. If the creation is not 6 days, there's a big problem. Was God a liar? Did they write His commandment down wrong? Was Moses a liar?

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exodus 20:8-11 ESV)

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
(Deuteronomy 5:13-15 ESV)

Was Moses lying in Exodus 20 or was he lying in Deuteronomy 5? (The word "lying" is a bit harsh - but you first used it, not me.)

 

[laptoppop]

We have the grace of God. Nothing else is required to save us. Why look for anything else? Why continue to pore into the universe when we're all gonna die and face judgement anyway?

Indeed -- the way we deal with the Lord Jesus, our obedience and love relationship with Him, our daily lives and how we treat our kids and our wives, all these and more are more important than this doctrine.

Why look into it? Because
Psa 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
and

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
and

2Pe 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with {their} mocking, following after their own lusts, 2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For {ever} since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God {the} heavens existed long ago and {the} earth was formed out of water and by water, 2Pe 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
(all scriptures NASB)

As I see the unity between God's love letter in the Scriptures, and the incredible evidence left from the flood, huge deposits miles thick covering huge areas, a grand canyon with soft formations folded but not cracked, with plant pieces and pollen throughout the strata, including precambrian, on and on and on -- as I see beauty and order in His creation from the smallest subatomic particle to the incredible molecular machines in ever cell, more complex than any machine made by man to the heavens themselves - I see a glorious God who tells us what has gone before that we might learn and know Him better. I catch a glimpse of the glory of God and rejoice that He has chosen to allow me to know Him.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You are confusing senses (such as taste) with sensibilities. Two different things.

Second, you've told dozens of times in this forum by your fellow christians that no TE assumes that God is unimportant.

Third, to deny the literalness of the flood is to acknowledge that there is any evidence to support the flood. You may think the evidence is convincing, but you've been told that to others it is not.

Fourth, you say the Bible is meant to be understood. Are you seriously saying that metaphors are not understandable?

Fifth, you've been told that there is evidence by such folk as Assyrian that the text of Genesis 1 is poetry. Such much for a plain reading of the text. A plain reading of the text is that Jesus has a door knob for a belly button and that the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. Everyone denies the first. Protestants deny the second. Why do protestants deny it?

Look, believe what you want. But, please stop talking as if you've never had this said to you before.

Sixth, no one here has said it is important to believe what agnostics and atheists say. It is important to see what Creation itself tells us. And, it tells us that there was no such thing as a global flood, the universe is ~13.7 billion years old, and man shares an ancestor with the other great apes.

It is hard to imagine that after so much time in this forum that you wouldn't understand what the TE perspective is -- whether you agree with it or not.

We see similar things. The difference is in our interpretation. It is not your SENSES.

It is a different level when God calls us to do things against our own senses -- such as Abraham with his son. I don't think that's happened to many people recently.

So the issue is that you are putting your interpretation, based on the consensus view which is developed from a scientific method that specifically assumes God is either non-existent or unimportant and impotent, over Scripture. No, I don't say over interpretation of Scripture. The Bible was meant to be understood. If you took a bunch of brilliant atheists and had them read the Bible and asked them if it said there was a global flood in Genesis - they'd say yes. To deny the reality of the story is to deny the plain reading of the text. The Bible was not locked up so that only some ruling class of people could hand down the proper interpretation.

So the Bible teaches there was a global flood. We have stratigraphic evidence that supports a global flood. Why look for anything else? Is it that important to agree with secular agnostic (or even atheistic) science?

 

[gluadys]

Thank you. I have seldom seen the TE view expressed so simply and succinctly.

 

[laptoppop]

You are confusing senses (such as taste) with sensibilities. Two different things.

Sorry -- I was responding to your post where you said "It strikes me that if we can't trust our senses about the universe that God created, then God himself is deceiving in the most direct revelation we have.
If Genesis is metaphorical, I trust God more. If it is literal, I don't trust him."

You specifically said senses, not sensibilities and I was responding to that. There is a huge difference between observed data and theory -- a line which often gets blurred around here.

Second, you've told dozens of times in this forum by your fellow christians that no TE assumes that God is unimportant.

Where did I say that they did? If I gave that impression, I apologize. I have often supported the view that wonderful, godly, Christians who care deeply about their faith can be either creationists or TE. Check my posting history -- I've made this clear lots of times.

Third, to deny the literalness of the flood is to acknowledge that there is any evidence to support the flood. You may think the evidence is convincing, but you've been told that to others it is not.

Right -- I understand that there is a difference in interpretation. I see the evidence as broad and convincing that there was a global flood. If so, it should have left evidence. I see structures that look exactly like what a modern understanding of the hydrodynamic complexities of a global flood would be expected to deposit. I also see 2Peter3 saying denying the reality of the flood is a sign of the end times.

Fourth, you say the Bible is meant to be understood. Are you seriously saying that metaphors are not understandable?

No, not at all. I have often talked about how the Scriptures use a variety of literary styles to communicate the truth of God.

However, I do think that God meant the Scriptures to be understandable by people, not only certain groups of scholars. The flood story is told as history, not metaphor. Unless one goes through analytical gyrations, someone reading the Scriptures would see it as a global flood.

Fifth, you've been told that there is evidence by such folk as Assyrian that the text of Genesis 1 is poetry. Such much for a plain reading of the text. A plain reading of the text is that Jesus has a door knob for a belly button and that the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. Everyone denies the first. Protestants deny the second. Why do protestants deny it?

I totally acknowledge that there are metaphors and word pictures on and on and on in the Scriptures. Discussing particular passages and their interpretation can be very helpful. These passages right now, however, are getting away from the topic.

Look, believe what you want. But, please stop talking as if you've never had this said to you before.

Where have I done that? Just because I have heard arguments that have failed to convince me doesn't mean I need to qualify my statements "other folks disagree". That's obvious. I am presenting my positions, what I believe is true and consistent with both the evidence and the revelation of God. I do not feel obligated to present the positions of others. There are plenty of other folks around here to do that. I do not believe that truth is relative for different people. I believe there is one true truth for all.

Sixth, no one here has said it is important to believe what agnostics and atheists say. It is important to see what Creation itself tells us. And, it tells us that there was no such thing as a global flood, the universe is ~13.7 billion years old, and man shares an ancestor with the other great apes.

No, Creation does not tell you that. A particular interpretation of the evidence tells you that. This is theory, not direct observation. It is crucial to distinguish between observable data and the conclusions we draw from that data.

I do find it interesting to see just how far some Christians will go in defending a theory that explains our development in purely natural terms. To me, this is against both the evidence and the revelation of God.

It is hard to imagine that after so much time in this forum that you wouldn't understand what the TE perspective is -- whether you agree with it or not.

I *DO* feel that I understand it. I just don't agree with it, and I don't feel that I need to present it. Again, this is not to say Godly people cannot believe in TE. I just honestly believe they are mistaken on this point.

I don't see TEs going out of their way to talk about how others view the fossil record, etc. Why should I? Again, I'm just posting honestly -- there's plenty of other folks, also posting honestly, reflecting different positions.

 

[laptoppop]

Hoho. We still haven't settled that one.

Understood -- but to me, I'm just repeating Jesus' position as stated in Mark 10:6.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exodus 20:8-11 ESV)

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
(Deuteronomy 5:13-15 ESV)

Was Moses lying in Exodus 20 or was he lying in Deuteronomy 5? (The word "lying" is a bit harsh - but you first used it, not me.)

Actually, in both cases Moses is being quoted as being the actual speaker. Given that the children of Israel were likely over a million people, it would take multiple addresses to talk to everyone. The two passages relate different addresses. Yes, Moses left off an important expansive phrase in one of his addresses -- but the Scripture records it accurately, and would have been in error if it did not record it. And, compared to the importance of the actual commandments, the explanatory phrase being discussed in our context is much less important. Obedience to God is (as always) of primary importance -- as I'm sure we'd all agree.

 

[Tinker Grey]

laptoppop

I'm tempted to go back and show you how your words appear very laden with implications (to me).

However, I will refrain. I appreciate your clarification and accept your apology.

I do want you to know that I find you a reasonable poster and that I've been touched by your previous defenses of your brothers and sisters in Christ. This is why I found your post here so frustrating and perhaps in light of your posting history, shocking.

God bless.

 

[laptoppop]

laptoppop

I'm tempted to go back and show you how your words appear very laden with implications (to me).

However, I will refrain. I appreciate your clarification and accept your apology.

I do want you to know that I find you a reasonable poster and that I've been touched by your previous defenses of your brothers and sisters in Christ. This is why I found your post here so frustrating and perhaps in light of your posting history, shocking.

God bless.

Thank you. I DO want to make clear the distinction between the doctrine and the folks who hold it. I do apologize for giving the wrong impression -- I'm sure I could have posted more clearly.

 

[shernren]

Actually, in both cases Moses is being quoted as being the actual speaker. Given that the children of Israel were likely over a million people, it would take multiple addresses to talk to everyone. The two passages relate different addresses. Yes, Moses left off an important expansive phrase in one of his addresses -- but the Scripture records it accurately, and would have been in error if it did not record it. And, compared to the importance of the actual commandments, the explanatory phrase being discussed in our context is much less important. Obedience to God is (as always) of primary importance -- as I'm sure we'd all agree.

1. In both cases God is being quoted as the actual speaker.

And God spoke all these words, saying, ...
(Exodus 20:1 ESV)

The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. ... He said: ...
(Deuteronomy 5:2, 5 ESV)

2. The two are not descriptions of separate events, or even separate messages being given to the same congregation, they are different retellings of the one occasion of the Ten Commandments being given on Mt. Sinai / Horeb. Deuteronomy 5:4, 5 summarize Exodus 19, indicating that these two passages must describe the exact same event.

3. While they are indeed different retellings, they are different retellings of the same event and of the same commandment. Any difference, therefore, is significant, given the level at which you are drawing out support for YECism from the passage.

Understood -- but to me, I'm just repeating Jesus' position as stated in Mark 10:6.

Jesus' position in Mark 10:6 is that adultery is wrong, and that the Torah fumbled on this moral question. I fail to see how that is an objection to TE in any way.

 

[busterdog]

More people thru history have found the testimony that demons create disease rather than germs? Should I back away from germ theory?


Yeesh, this is long.

YMMV

Yeesh indeed. I have to take 'em a few at a time. If creation is to speak to people, it would appear to be an intractible problem. Creation has mostly lied to people, judging by what they seem to have deduced. Can the "creation lies" argument be a meaningful argument?

Granted, there is a resemblance between two argument. One is evaluating whether God lies through the YEC view of scripture. The other is through the TE view of cosmology. Arguably both represent small minority of human experience and arguably both are confined to a small portion of history with very specialized knowledge not known to the ancients.

(I accept for the sake of argument that the YEC tradition is new, since if I argue that one, there are a hundred other doctrines that would arguably appear to be impenetrable, but from a very narrow perspective.)

In terms of how God builds knowledge in people, He gave them a law and then chucked it to some extent. Imagine being Peter and God when starts telling him to go for that escargot with pig knuckle fritata. Since the law was fulfilled in Jesus, we have a different way to look at knowledge. But, the "appearance of a lie" doesn't really help us understand what God is saying.

As Jesus fulfills the law, I look to his view of Genesis as well, or more precisely, to him.

As for logic, what good is logic? I think you have to look at the human track record to determine whether it is at all reliable. At one time it made sense to pull a man's beating heart out of his chest, logically, to appease god.

 

[Assyrian]

It is not so much as they are "false" as that the theology gets very muddied.

Genesis proclaims a literal Adam, from whom other people came, with an unbroken line of promise

Isn't odd, if Genesis is meant to supply an unmuddied theology and line of promise, that the only promise in the whole sorry tale is that the Messiah would step on the snake?

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

If this promise is the reason Genesis has to be literal, then we have serious problem believing Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah because Jesus never stepped on any snakes.

And who are the seed of the serpent? Again they don't turn out to be literal snakelets, instead we read of the Pharisees being called 'a brood of vipers' and 'children of the devil'. Though not literal children of the devil either.

Of course you are not a hyperliteralist and claim that even historical narratives can contain metaphors, but you cannot argue that Genesis has to be literal because of a line of promise if the promise itself turns out to be metaphorical promise about an allegorical serpent.

and fulfillment through Abraham, etc., David, all the way to Jesus. This establishes Jesus' complete humanity AND His fulfillment of the promises. Jesus is called the last Adam as compared to the first. Romans 5:14, I Cor 15:22 and 15:45 all refer to Adam in the context of developing the redemptive theology around Jesus.

All drawn from Paul's interpretation of Adam as a figure of Christ Romans 5:14. Now that does not mean Adam was only figurative, but it certainly isn't an argument for a literal Adam.

Jesus talks about the creation of man and woman as occurring at the beginning of creation, not millions of years later.

Given that you and I both believe God created the human race, how do you know this passage it talking about the creation of the world rather than the creation of mankind?

The ten commandments in Exodus (called out as being absolutely directly from God) specifically calls out the 6 day creation as God setting an example for men, that they should obey the Sabbath. Jesus helps us understand that God made the Sabbath for men, not the other way around -- its a good thing, not a yoke. If the creation is not 6 days, there's a big problem. Was God a liar? Did they write His commandment down wrong? Was Moses a liar?

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
(Deuteronomy 5:13-15 ESV)

Is it calling God a liar to say he doesn't literally have a arms and hands, and that he did not literally stretch out an arm to free the Israelites?

Other parts of Genesis are important as well. For example, the global flood. Without going into interpretational gymnastics, if you gave a bunch of reasonably intelligent (but not schooled in liberal theology) people a copy of Genesis and asked them afterwards if the flood was global, I would bet the vast majority (or all) would say yes. Its how the story reads.

How about you tell them this was written in the bronze age by an author living somewhere in the Middle East. How about telling them what the word erets means. Ask them how much of the world the author would have known about. Then ask them if they think the author was describing a flood that covered Australia and South America.

How about consistency in your eternal future? What does God say about the kind of world he will provide in lieu of this fallen world? Genesis tells us what that world is like in part, though many other prophets tell us as well.

Whatever happened to 1Cor 2:9 "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard," nor has it risen up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those that love Him?

 

[crawfish]

Indeed -- the way we deal with the Lord Jesus, our obedience and love relationship with Him, our daily lives and how we treat our kids and our wives, all these and more are more important than this doctrine.

Why look into it? Because
Psa 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
and

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
and

2Pe 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with {their} mocking, following after their own lusts, 2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For {ever} since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 2Pe 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God {the} heavens existed long ago and {the} earth was formed out of water and by water, 2Pe 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 2Pe 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
(all scriptures NASB)

As I see the unity between God's love letter in the Scriptures, and the incredible evidence left from the flood, huge deposits miles thick covering huge areas, a grand canyon with soft formations folded but not cracked, with plant pieces and pollen throughout the strata, including precambrian, on and on and on -- as I see beauty and order in His creation from the smallest subatomic particle to the incredible molecular machines in ever cell, more complex than any machine made by man to the heavens themselves - I see a glorious God who tells us what has gone before that we might learn and know Him better. I catch a glimpse of the glory of God and rejoice that He has chosen to allow me to know Him.

Exactly.

We search because we have to search. We question because it's our responsibility to question. We cannot stop searching, or deny truth, because it conflicts with our interpretation of the bible.

 

[busterdog]

Isn't odd, if Genesis is meant to supply an unmuddied theology and line of promise, that the only promise in the whole sorry tale is that the Messiah would step on the snake?

How about the incorporation by reference, "Behlold I make all things new."

The picture of Eden is a prophetic view of our future.

 

[busterdog]

Whatever happened to 1Cor 2:9 "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard," nor has it risen up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those that love Him?

What "God has prepared" can of course be in addition to all of those things already revealed. Rules of construction would disfavor the idea that the statement is exclusive unless it says so.

Men have seen Jesus. He will be there. QED.


1Cr 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1Cr 2:10
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Cr 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1Cr 2:12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1Cr 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cr 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

1Cr 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Cr 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


When God says, "Let there be light", is that of the world or of the spirit that it must be revealed by His spirit?

 

[metherion]

I would just like to say, thanks for all the responses and I look forward to what is to come. I just haven't joined since I started because I don't think I can add too much to what's already going on.

(I'm not trying to be a hit'n'run thread starter, it's just that you guys on both sides already have what I would add covered.)

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

How about the incorporation by reference, "Behlold I make all things new."

The picture of Eden is a prophetic view of our future.

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new."
In Revelation 'making all things new' is in contrast to the former things, literally, the first things.

Verse 1 we have the same word former or first:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

If eye has not seen nor ear heard, then atheists who interpret Genesis literally do not have a sneak preview of the new creation. The new creation is utterly different from the old. Though there is a sense where Genesis is prophetic of things to come. The Seventh day rest is a picture of our relationship with God in Christ, the tree of life is a picture of the cross, but there is no suggestion the new creation will simply be a patched up Genesis.

 

[busterdog]

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new."
In Revelation 'making all things new' is in contrast to the former things, literally, the first things.

Verse 1 we have the same word former or first:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

If eye has not seen nor ear heard, then atheists who interpret Genesis literally do not have a sneak preview of the new creation. The new creation is utterly different from the old. Though there is a sense where Genesis is prophetic of things to come. The Seventh day rest is a picture of our relationship with God in Christ, the tree of life is a picture of the cross, but there is no suggestion the new creation will simply be a patched up Genesis.

Your interpretation requires that Jesus has passed away, the Word of God and me as well. Thats' not playing well here in Peoria.

 

[crawfish]

Your interpretation requires that Jesus has passed away, the Word of God and me as well. Thats' not playing well here in Peoria.

I'm sitting here, trying to bite down the smarmy comment, but I just can't. Please take this in the best possible way. The question is:

"Why would God lie to us about this?"

 

[Assyrian]

Your interpretation requires that Jesus has passed away, the Word of God and me as well. Thats' not playing well here in Peoria.

2Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.