Will the old creation mirror the new creation?

[DamianWarS]

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.

the bible and the entire ancient world view look at the earth as flat. there is nothing remarkable that it is throughout the bible... would you expect anything else? you seem to have sympathy for this position? are you a flat earther to?

 

[d taylor]

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?

Why do you think the original creation was six days.

In Genesis 1:1 it clearly states God created heaven and earth. The six days you seen in Genesis 1:3 and beyond could very well be a restoration of Gods creation in Genesis 1:1. A restoration for a future home of Gods creation of mankind.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

the bible and the entire ancient world view look at the earth as flat. there is nothing remarkable that it is throughout the bible... would you expect anything else? you seem to have sympathy for this position? are you a flat earther to?

As I said, it was research into geocentrism (stationary central round earth) that allowed me to look again at the Bible. Like so many atheists, I'd always believed Galileo cut God's throat (as Herman Wouk put it in Winds of War), we'd killed God with our science (as that shyster crypto-mason Nietzche put it). So when I realized the actual results of observation and experiment are consistently over a long period dead set against heliocentrism/ big bang, the stumbling block was removed and not long after that I was saved! Alleluja! So God was right all along. Fancy that.

Although the science supporting lack of curvature arguably may not be as strong as that in support of absence of motion, ultimately any position requires an element of faith. I choose to put mine in the plain words of scripture. If the Biblical earth is flat, motionless and enclosed, then that's where it's at. Nobody said we had to like it.

I think you'll find that God is at odds with the world on most 'big picture' items. Choose this day whom you will serve, God or the bipolar Ba'al earth.

 

[timothyu]

The six days you seen in Genesis 1:3 and beyond could very well be a restoration of Gods creation in Genesis 1:1. A restoration for a future home of Gods creation of mankind.

Or a revamping of the world rebellious angels created.

 

[DamianWarS]

As I said, it was research into geocentrism (stationary central round earth) that allowed me to look again at the Bible. Like so many atheists, I'd always believed Galileo cut God's throat (as Herman Wouk put it in Winds of War), we'd killed God with our science (as that shyster crypto-mason Nietzche put it). So when I realized the actual results of observation and experiment are consistently over a long period dead set against heliocentrism/ big bang, the stumbling block was removed and not long after that I was saved! Alleluja! So God was right all along. Fancy that.

Although the science supporting lack of curvature arguably may not be as strong as that in support of absence of motion, ultimately any position requires an element of faith. I choose to put mine in the plain words of scripture. If the Biblical earth is flat, motionless and enclosed, then that's where it's at. Nobody said we had to like it.

I think you'll find that God is at odds with the world on most 'big picture' items. Choose this day whom you will serve, God or the bipolar Ba'al earth.

right, so the answer is yes, you accept the world is flat. well, that's not a discussion I'm interested in having but you are welcome to start a new thread regarding it. the bible was not at odds with his position of the earth when it was written and its view was quite normal and widely accepted, often the only position of the day.

Paul is often quoted with these type of conversations saying "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." what Paul, however, did not mean at the time of its writing was his cosmological worldview or geological worldview which would have been considered rational at the time which and the world was, of course, flat (because what else would it be). This "foolishness" was not about a scientific view it was about a spiritual view. it was about being willing to be persecuted, tortured and even killed because of your belief in some who died on a cross all the while being laughed at and belittled ergo called foolish and wasted. his "science" had nothing to do with it.

The point of the creation account is not affirming these views, it rather assumes an ancient worldview and uses contextual language that is inherited from these worldviews but that worldview is not the point. the point is that God (singular) is behind the creation of all things and he actively invested in his creation. If you accept the earth is flat, round, or a cube, it doesn't matter and as I said I'm not trying to replace the creation account with another. The creation account is compatible with it all, because the point is at the head of it all is God which is more of a top-down perspective. God is the most important thing to extract out of the creation account so we should start with him, then work down where it seems your view is starting from the bottom and working up. The geological view is the most uninteresting element of the creation account and we shouldn't put little value on it.

when we begin to use the creation account to prop up these views we have missed the point, becoming agenda-driven and are just using the accounts.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

it was about being willing to be persecuted, tortured and even killed because of your belief in some who died on a cross all the while being laughed at and belittled ergo called foolish and wasted. his "science" had nothing to do with it.

And today? You can tell everyone Jesus is Lord, who's going to persecute you? But try telling ppl you're a universalist and a flat earther. Then the blowtorches come out.

Anyway, no need to discuss that point, as you say. I was only bringing it up on this thread as an illustration. So if they used to read Gen 1 as describing among other things a flat earth, could their interpretation of the process of renewal of all things in the Eschaton have been very different as well? And if they were right about flat earth, how could we moderns who reject that interpretation hope to be right about our interpretation of the new heavens and earth?

You know, God gave me a glimpse across the Jordan when I got 'born again' in fire and spirit, totally took my breath away and knocked me down with a feather.

 

[klutedavid]

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'm not going through another life on a planet like this one again. No thanks.

We are eternal beings in the new creation and that creation is not just good, like the old creation was. It will be perfect.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm not going through another life on a planet like this one again. No thanks.

We are eternal beings in the new creation and that creation is not just good, like the old creation was. It will be perfect.

the product will be perfection but about the process of creation will that process be similar to the old? for example, if you accept an old earth will the new earth also go through similar stages? this, of course, is the same with any view you accept with creation, will the new creation reflect a similar timeline? I'm not here to argue the view but ask how does that view speak into what's going to happen during the new creation?

 

[DamianWarS]

And today? You can tell everyone Jesus is Lord, who's going to persecute you? But try telling ppl you're a universalist and a flat earther. Then the blowtorches come out.

The gospel is not about if the world is flat or not so believe it if you want but it's nothing to do with Christ. Live and die for Christ not for a flat earth (or spherical earth). If it's the latter it truly is foolish, but the former has unspeakable value. When you are persecuted for anything make sure the net result is glory to God because if it isn't then something is misfocused.

I'm interested in your "glimpse" of what's across the Jordan. how did that feed your current view of the world and the world to come? What was God telling you about himself, in about yourself or humans and general and in about how we are to proclaim that message in the vision you had?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The gospel is not about if the world is flat or not so believe it if you want but it's nothing to do with Christ. Live and die for Christ not for a flat earth (or spherical earth). If it's the latter it truly is foolish, but the former has unspeakable value. When you are persecuted for anything make sure the net result is glory to God because if it isn't then something is misfocused.

Ah but Nicodemus, if we speak of earthly things and ye believe not, how then will ye believe if we speak of heavenly things?

Theology is the king of sciences, cosmology his queen. If you see her as a mysterious near-infinite cold dark thing, then how can you expect your theology to be in order?

I'm interested in your "glimpse" of what's across the Jordan. how did that feed your current view of the world and the world to come? What was God telling you about himself, in about yourself or humans and general and in about how we are to proclaim that message in the vision you had?

It was the indescribable richness of His presence, all true value. Vibrant and timeless. A place and a state of grace, but not with a material feel to it, more tone and colour.

 

[DamianWarS]

Ah but Nicodemus, if we speak of earthly things and ye believe not, how then will ye believe if we speak of heavenly things?

Theology is the king of sciences, cosmology his queen. If you see her as a mysterious near-infinite cold dark thing, then how can you expect your theology to be in order?

Our most important task is to give glory to God in all things and it is the purpose of our existence. Belief of God is, of course, is the base value (implicit in the task), and so it is more important to give glory to God than to declare the earth is flat and those two are not mutually inclusive. So how does your cosmological view give glory to God and can that exist independent on how you view the earth? If it can't then you need to figure out how to separate them, we worship God, not his creation.

traditional faiths believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (communion) meaning that the bread and wine are actually the flesh and blood of Christ, they believe this because Jesus commands this saying "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." so since Christ asks it then we should value it so they value the real flesh and real blood of Christ. We may accept the raw literal words Christ spoke or look at these words with a transcendent truth, speaking of something more important than literal flesh and literal blood. Do we eat the real flesh and blood of Christ? Well if you're concerned if you do, then you've missed the point. Did creation literally happen in 6 days? if you demand this to be so than you've missed the point.

It was the indescribable richness of His presence, all true value. Vibrant and timeless. A place and a state of grace, but not with a material feel to it, more tone and colour.

how did this shape your current view of God?

 

[xxkingskidlmxx]

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?

my experience allows for a time of the kings (old earth) with the second death being placed at the GWT (new earth) 9priesthood) the difference is between those who are accepted at the GWT judgement beforehand.(judge thyself)

 

[James Honigman]

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?

Hi Damian. Our Heavenly Father's timetable for mankind is given to us in 11 Peter 3:8 but people like to ignore it. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Given that, think about this Damian: our generation is exactly 6 days out from Adam's creation and exactly 2 days out from our Beloved's crucifixion. Of course, He will rise again on the third day. Many choose to remain ignorant and others are blinded to the truth. Not you though!

 

[timothyu]

Of course, He will rise again on the third day. Many choose to remain ignorant and others are blinded to the truth. Not you though!

Had they stuck to the word age rather than day would there be less confusion?

btw folks... as a thousand days is not the same as is a thousand days.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

So how does your cosmological view give glory to God and can that exist independent on how you view the earth?

God asks us to trust Him. This is one of those matters. Easy to trust Him when there's no great controversy with the world. But who can be trusted in the small things these days?

If it can't then you need to figure out how to separate them, we worship God, not his creation.

Well then stop looking at images of the 'planets'.

Do we eat the real flesh and blood of Christ?

I see a good case for the real presence, but am undecided. How can you be so sure you're right on this point?

If God says 6 days, why not just accept it at face value, unless it's modified by other scripture? It's so obvious as to go without saying. Then you trust Him over man, and He starts revealing things. But if you read His word with one eye on your worldly wisdom, what then?

 

[DamianWarS]

Hi Damian. Our Heavenly Father's timetable for mankind is given to us in 11 Peter 3:8 but people like to ignore it. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Given that, think about this Damian: our generation is exactly 6 days out from Adam's creation and exactly 2 days out from our Beloved's crucifixion. Of course, He will rise again on the third day. Many choose to remain ignorant and others are blinded to the truth. Not you though!

so the micro points to the macro? if true, we are approaching the 7th rest. perhaps the millennial reign?... then what... new creation all over again and we start back at day 1, the day of Christ's resurrection.

 

[DamianWarS]

I see a good case for the real presence, but am undecided. How can you be so sure you're right on this point?

If God says 6 days, why not just accept it at face value, unless it's modified by other scripture? It's so obvious as to go without saying. Then you trust Him over man, and He starts revealing things. But if you read His word with one eye on your worldly wisdom, what then?

I'm saying "at face value", as you put it, are the most unimportant parts of the text and this is the same with Christ saying to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Your undecided position on the latter is a tension of seeing the deeper meaning of the text vs the face value (which is barbaric). Christ himself says "The Spirit gives life the flesh counts for nothing" in the exact same text where he says to eat his flesh. so "face value" is not always what we should be searching for.

 

[timothyu]

Christ himself says "The Spirit gives life the flesh counts for nothing"

So we should go vegan and drink wine?

 

[DamianWarS]

So we should go vegan and drink wine?

depends, is Christ talking about physical nourishment or spiritual?

 

[timothyu]

depends, is Christ talking about physical nourishment or spiritual?

Obviously spiritual. The ways of the flesh has always been a drawback. It was the whole concept behind the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only Gospel.