Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1228 by marco]

Jehovahs Witnesses are not bible literalists, we accept that the bible speaks sometimes figuratively (metaphorically) and sometime literally, the question under discussion is which is applied in this (2 Peter 3:7) case. We have presented numerous scriptures to support the reasoning that 2 Peter 3:7 is NOT speaking about literally burning the entire planrt to a cinder. Indeed Peter explains himself very well, using serveral historic examples to establishe the precedent he applies to future prophecy.

Beautifully put by onewithim...

The Flood was literal, yes. But what was the "world" that was destroyed at that time? That is the whole point---the world that was destroyed was NOT THE PLANET. Why can't YOU take the word of Peter when he said that is was the ungodly people?? THAT is taking God at His word.

Those that let that let the bible speak for the bible can make sense of the bible. Easiest choice in the world!

JW

[onewithhim]

I wonder what the point would be in literally destroying the planet and yet figuratively writing about children playing with snakes and not getting hurt, and wolves being next to a lamb and not harming it. What is the message there?

[onewithhim]

Would it be so hard for you to admit the bible often speaks metaphorically?

Perhaps you should take your own advice JW. The "paradise on Earth" is a maybe a fine metaphor. Or are there THOSE who know, with unerring accuracy, what is metaphor and what is not?

Taken literally it makes no sense. Tough choice.

I would say, taken literally the idea of the heavens and the earth being destroyed makes no sense.

Tell me, what would the message be that the Bible is trying to get through to us if the destruction of the heavens and the planet is literal and Isaiah 11:6-9 is metaphorical? I await your explanation.

[brianbbs67]

Everyone other than Marco, is missing his point. You all argue from the position of authority, claiming you alone define what is literal and what is not. When you have no such authority. We are not privy to God's thoughts or intentions. It's all a hypothesis. No one can claim authority in reality.

The reason I believe fire will destroy the earth in the end, is the repetition of this theme in the OT. God keeps His word. So, not water this time. Wonder what it will be next time after the flames are put out? Wind and earth??

[onewithhim]

Everyone other than Marco, is missing his point. You all argue from the position of authority, claiming you alone define what is literal and what is not. When you have no such authority. We are not privy to God's thoughts or intentions. It's all a hypothesis. No one can claim authority in reality.

The reason I believe fire will destroy the earth in the end, is the repetition of this theme in the OT. God keeps His word. So, not water this time. Wonder what it will be next time after the flames are put out? Wind and earth??

First of all, you are missing the point that is staring you in the face. You say the earth was destroyed in Noah's time, with water.But you fail to understand that the planet itself was NOT destroyed. So if Jesus says that it will be just like that when Armageddon comes (Matt.24:37-39), then will the actual planet be destroyed?

What is it that will be destroyed? (2Peter 2:5)

Do you believe that the earth actually melted when Jehovah "raised his voice" as recorded at Psalm 46:6? If the planet literally melted, then mankind missed the event.


.

[brianbbs67]

Everyone other than Marco, is missing his point. You all argue from the position of authority, claiming you alone define what is literal and what is not. When you have no such authority. We are not privy to God's thoughts or intentions. It's all a hypothesis. No one can claim authority in reality.

The reason I believe fire will destroy the earth in the end, is the repetition of this theme in the OT. God keeps His word. So, not water this time. Wonder what it will be next time after the flames are put out? Wind and earth??

First of all, you are missing the point that is staring you in the face. You say the earth was destroyed in Noah's time, with water.But you fail to understand that the planet itself was NOT destroyed. So if Jesus says that it will be just like that when Armageddon comes (Matt.24:37-39), then will the actual planet be destroyed?

What is it that will be destroyed? (2Peter 2:5)

Do you believe that the earth actually melted when Jehovah "raised his voice" as recorded at Psalm 46:6? If the planet literally melted, then mankind missed the event.


.

Did I say the actual planet is destroyed? No. Just most of what is on it.

Genesis 7:21 All the flesh that stirred on the earth perished--birds, cattle, beasts, and all those things that swarmed upon the , and all mankind. 22 All whose nostrils was the smallest breath of life, all that was on dry land, died. 23 All existence on earth was blotted out---man, cattle, creeping things, and the birds of the sky;they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah's left, and those with him in the ark. JPS Tanakh

The problem with this is, we know from history and archaeology that many cultures had "Noahs" and flood stories(even Gilgamesh). So, the flood happened, everywhere. But, not everything was destroyed. Same will hold true for the "Ring of fire" ending.

As to 46:6, my Tanakh shows no such thing. The NKJ does. So that is subjective and maybe a metaphor but I can't believe you don't believe God will not wipe out a good portion of the earth as they are evil. Such action would be flood like and have other consequences as the flood did.

[marco]

Tell me, what would the message be that the Bible is trying to get through to us if the destruction of the heavens and the planet is literal and Isaiah 11:6-9 is metaphorical? I await your explanation.

"The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. "

Our literature overflows with such metaphoric language. Take Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Khayyam:

"They say the Lion and the Lizard keep
The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep;
And Bahrám, that great Hunter - the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, and he lies fast asleep. "

The specific animal names signify wildness that has grown over culture. The animals mentioned in Isaiah are symbols of savagery, of wild life. Eventually people will lose their barbarous habits and become civilised. The lion was created to eat meat; it wasn't a divine error that needs to be corrected.

There will be a time when we have education and the wild elements in society will merge, tamed, with the decent; those who would kill us will be gone as society develops laws. The emphasis will be on safety, security and peace.

[onewithhim]

Everyone other than Marco, is missing his point. You all argue from the position of authority, claiming you alone define what is literal and what is not. When you have no such authority. We are not privy to God's thoughts or intentions. It's all a hypothesis. No one can claim authority in reality.

The reason I believe fire will destroy the earth in the end, is the repetition of this theme in the OT. God keeps His word. So, not water this time. Wonder what it will be next time after the flames are put out? Wind and earth??

First of all, you are missing the point that is staring you in the face. You say the earth was destroyed in Noah's time, with water.But you fail to understand that the planet itself was NOT destroyed. So if Jesus says that it will be just like that when Armageddon comes (Matt.24:37-39), then will the actual planet be destroyed?

What is it that will be destroyed? (2Peter 2:5)

Do you believe that the earth actually melted when Jehovah "raised his voice" as recorded at Psalm 46:6? If the planet literally melted, then mankind missed the event.


.

Did I say the actual planet is destroyed? No. Just most of what is on it.

Genesis 7:21 All the flesh that stirred on the earth perished--birds, cattle, beasts, and all those things that swarmed upon the , and all mankind. 22 All whose nostrils was the smallest breath of life, all that was on dry land, died. 23 All existence on earth was blotted out---man, cattle, creeping things, and the birds of the sky;they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah's left, and those with him in the ark. JPS Tanakh

The problem with this is, we know from history and archaeology that many cultures had "Noahs" and flood stories(even Gilgamesh). So, the flood happened, everywhere. But, not everything was destroyed. Same will hold true for the "Ring of fire" ending.

As to 46:6, my Tanakh shows no such thing. The NKJ does. So that is subjective and maybe a metaphor but I can't believe you don't believe God will not wipe out a good portion of the earth as they are evil. Such action would be flood like and have other consequences as the flood did.

OK. It took me a while to understand what you were saying. So you agree that the planet itself isn't going to be destroyed, right? It's the evil people, right? That's what I've been saying also. Do I understand correctly?

[onewithhim]

Tell me, what would the message be that the Bible is trying to get through to us if the destruction of the heavens and the planet is literal and Isaiah 11:6-9 is metaphorical? I await your explanation.

"The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. "

Our literature overflows with such metaphoric language. Take Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Khayyam:

"They say the Lion and the Lizard keep
The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep;
And Bahrám, that great Hunter - the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, and he lies fast asleep. "

The specific animal names signify wildness that has grown over culture. The animals mentioned in Isaiah are symbols of savagery, of wild life. Eventually people will lose their barbarous habits and become civilised. The lion was created to eat meat; it wasn't a divine error that needs to be corrected.

There will be a time when we have education and the wild elements in society will merge, tamed, with the decent; those who would kill us will be gone as society develops laws. The emphasis will be on safety, security and peace.

I think you are correct in your assessment that the animals picture man's beastly qualities which will be adjusted due to help from God via Jesus' reign. Yes. But I believe also that Isaiah 11:6-9 pictures literal peaceful conditions on the earth after this old system is brought to a finish.

The scriptures say that the lion "will eat straw," and I don't know how that can be taken symbolically. I am of the opinion that God caused animals to eat each other (and man to eat animals) after the Flood to help sate the blood-lust of men after the Fall from perfection and the resulting destruction of a good relationship with Jehovah. I guess He knew that men would be depraved enough to need to kill things. That's how I see it, anyway. My own thoughts.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 1237 by onewithhim]

I am of the opinion that God caused animals to eat each other (and man to eat animals) after the Flood to help sate the blood-lust of men after the Fall from perfection and the resulting destruction of a good relationship with Jehovah.

Wow! Believing that God caused animals to eat each other (and man to eat animals) after the Flood to help sate the blood-lust of men doesn't paint him in a very good light. I honestly cannot understand how this bloodthirsty being warrants any amount of respect let alone worship.