What does the Bible say about the end of the world?

[Data]

What does the Bible say about the end of the world? Was the end of the world to come in the lifetime of the NT authors or soon?

[TRANSPONDER]

Or it has in fact been preached to all nations and the end hasn't come because it isn't going to.

If you think Matt. 24:14 has already happened, can you explain what "good news of the reign" means? Do you think all nations know meaning of that?

You should know by now that I think it was supposed to have happened before all the disciples and the Sanhedrin members had turned in their dinner pails, but it didn't. So no matter what one takes the 'Good News' to be or whether it has or hasn't been preached to all nations, I consider that the claim and belief has failed and the Bible is false. It's why I'm an atheist.

Suppose you give me reason to think I'm wrong.

[Data]

Or it has in fact been preached to all nations and the end hasn't come because it isn't going to.

If you think Matt. 24:14 has already happened, can you explain what "good news of the reign" means? Do you think all nations know meaning of that?

You should know by now that I think it was supposed to have happened before all the disciples and the Sanhedrin members had turned in their dinner pails, but it didn't. So no matter what one takes the 'Good News' to be or whether it has or hasn't been preached to all nations, I consider that the claim and belief has failed and the Bible is false. It's why I'm an atheist.

Suppose you give me reason to think I'm wrong.

[Excitedly raises hand] Oh! I know! I know! Because if he did you have to stop being an atheist?

[theophile]

... But given the end requires that death itself has been conquered, I would wager we're still pretty far off at this point.

I think the OP is asking about the end of the present world system of things; when Paul refered to "the end" in 1 Corinthians, I think he was referring to "the end" of DEATH itself (compare verses 54-57)

They are one and the same to me. ...

I can see that you believe they are one and the same. I can agree that it is indeed your opinion that they are one and the same.

The end that Paul speaks of is both the end of the present world order (/generation) and the end of death itself...

What else would Paul be referring to when he speaks of "all dominion, power, and authority" other than the present world order?

Paul does speak of the destruction of the present world system of things and the eradication of Adamic death but does he speak of the two events happening simultaneously ?

Notice Paul speaks clearly of a sequence of events (see verse 23a) leading ultimately to "the end" of [Adamic] death. But interestingly this "end" or the complete and permanent eradication of Adamic death , comes after Jesus' rule as king and his (Jesus) conquering of OTHER enemies (see verse 25). "For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet". So there is a beginning and an end to Jesus' rule (Kingdom) during which time enemies are conquered.

Which enemies and in what order? Jesus rule at some point leads to the the crushing of " all government and all authority and power" a clear reference to Christs return and the destruction of the wicked along with all rival kingdoms. Since death is spoken of as the "last enemy" the eradication of death must be AFTER (not simultaneous with) this event. In short, Paul points out that the world system ends BEFORE adamic death, the {quote} "last" enemy is eradicated.

We will need to look to other bible prophecies to see how long a period divides the two events but a clue is surely seen in his linking the end of [adamic] death with the end of Jesus Messianic rule (prophecied to be 1,000 years long) and the subseqent handing over of rulership to his Father.


JW

I agree there is an order and that death is the last enemy to be conquered. My point was that the verses I cited from 1 Corinthians 15 are about more than just the conquering of death. They cover the destruction of all dominion, authority, and power that isn't God's as a necessary lead up to the end. You seem to agree on this point now as well, so I think we can put these issues to rest.

However, as to my saying the destruction of the current world order and death are one and the same, what we have to understand is that death is the ultimate dominion / power / authority in the current world order. So the current world order itself will not pass away until death itself has been destroyed. Hence they are simultaneous events, even though there is a lead up / order and lesser powers are destroyed along the way.

Agreeable?

[TRANSPONDER]

Or it has in fact been preached to all nations and the end hasn't come because it isn't going to.

If you think Matt. 24:14 has already happened, can you explain what "good news of the reign" means? Do you think all nations know meaning of that?

You should know by now that I think it was supposed to have happened before all the disciples and the Sanhedrin members had turned in their dinner pails, but it didn't. So no matter what one takes the 'Good News' to be or whether it has or hasn't been preached to all nations, I consider that the claim and belief has failed and the Bible is false. It's why I'm an atheist.

Suppose you give me reason to think I'm wrong.

[Excitedly raises hand] Oh! I know! I know! Because if he did you have to stop being an atheist?

you are projecting. If a thing looks true, on evidence, I want to know it. I have said elsewhere that I have reason to believe that Jesus was a real person. I do not stop being an atheist because I think so. I once credited the resurrection -account but on evidence saw no reason to credit the miraculous element and stayed an atheist.

Now I don't credit it (too many contradictions) even though I credit the crucifixion on internal evidence.

I don't work the way you accuse me of, you do. Now suppose you give me a good reason now your mucky little evasion (1) has failed, why I should suppose the 2nd coming is going to happen when the Bible makes it clear it should have happened by the time the present Bible was imposed by Rome, and on all evidence it hasn't?

(1) a familiar wangle called "I have the evidence but choose not to give it because you wouldn't listen anyway". We've seen it all before and you can't fool an old soldier.

[JehovahsWitness]

The terms then for earth and world were interchangeable with various meanings.

This is simply inaccurate.

EARTH : The Greek word ge refers to denotes earth as arable land or soil (as contrasted with seas or waters); it can refer to "earth" as a habitation for human creatures and animals; land, country or territory ground. The word can be used literally or (as is arguably the case in the letter of Peter, figuratively).




WORLD : Greek word kosmos basically means “order” or “arrangement" and in the Christian Greek Scriptures, is primarily linked to the world of mankind; In various contexts, it is used to refer to Humankind rather than the planet upon which humans and animals live.

AGE / SYSTEM : There is another word which some English translations also translate as "WORLD" which is aion. This refers to the current state of affairs or to features that distinguish a certain period of time, epoch, or age . Thus some bibles render this word "age" or "system"

.

It is impossible to accurately understand end time propecy without taking the above into consideration. Bible writers used these words, which were not interchangabl, to refer to distinct and different aspect of Christian theology. Serious bible students do well to check the Greek before coming to any conclusions about what the writer was trying to convey.

Hmmm. I always think of kosmos as adornment more than anything. Cosmetics, cosmos. But really, you think ge and kosmos aren't interchangeable? Even given your definitions? Land, habitation, country, world of mankind. Doesn't the Insight book say, under world: "Evidently because the universe manifests order, Greek philosophers at times applied kosmos to the entire visible creation."
....

What is your point? Are you suggesting any of the definitions are academically unsound or inaccurate? If so on what basis (please provide references)?



Source: https://biblehub.com/greek/1093.htm


VINES

Earth

[ 1,,G1093, ge ]
denotes
(a) earth as arable land," e.g., Matthew 13:5, Matthew 13:8, Matthew 13:23; in 1 Corinthians 15:47 it is said of the "earthly" material of which "the first man" was made, suggestive of frailty;
(b) "the earth as a whole, the world," in contrast, whether to the heavens, e.g., Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:35, or to heaven, the abode of God, e.g., Matthew 6:19, where the context suggests the "earth" as a place characterized by mutability and weakness; in Colossians 3:2 the same contrast is presented by the word "above;" in John 3:31 (RV, "of the earth," for AV, "earthly") it describes one whose origin and nature are "earthly" and whose speech is characterized thereby, in contrast with Christ as the One from heaven; in Colossians 3:5 the physical members are said to be "upon the earth," as a sphere where, as potential instruments of moral evils, they are, by metonymy, spoken of as the evils themselves;
(c) "the inhabited earth," e.g., Luke 21:35; Acts 1:8; Acts 8:33; Acts 10:12; Acts 11:6; Acts 17:26; Acts 22:22; Hebrews 11:13; Revelation 13:8. In the following the phrase "on the earth" signifies "among men," Luke 12:49; Luke 18:8; John 17:4;
(d) "a country, territory," e.g., Luke 4:25; John 3:22;
(e) "the ground," e.g., Matthew 10:29; Mark 4:26, RV, "(upon the) earth," for AV, "(into the) ground;"
(f) "land," e.g., Mark 4:1; John 21:8-John 21:9, John 21:11. Cp. Eng. words beginning with ge, e.g., "geodetic," "geodesy," "geology," "geometry," "geography." See COUNTRY, GROUND, LAND, WORLD

Source : https://studybible.info/vines/Earth

Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

VINES :

[ 1,,G2889, kosmos ]
primarily order, arrangement, ornament, adornment" (1 Peter 3:3, See ADORN, B), is used to denote
(a) the "earth," e.g., Matthew 13:35; John 21:25; Acts 17:24; Romans 1:20 (probably here the universe: it had this meaning among the Greeks, owing to the order observable in it); 1 Timothy 6:7; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 9:26;
(b) the "earth" in contrast with Heaven, 1 John 3:17 (perhaps also Romans 4:13);
(c) by metonymy, the "human race, mankind," e.g., Matthew 5:14; John 1:9 [here "that cometh (RV, 'coming') into the world" is said of Christ, not of "every man;" by His coming into the world He was the light for all men]; 1 John 3:10; 1 John 3:16-17 (thrice), 1 John 3:19; 1 John 4:42, and frequently in Rom. 1 Cor. and 1 John;
(d) "Gentiles" as distinguished from Jews, e.g., Romans 11:12,Romans 11:15, where the meaning is that all who will may be reconciled (cp. 2 Corinthians 5:19);
(e) the "present condition of human affairs," in alienation from and opposition to God, e.g., John 7:7; John 8:23; John 14:30; 1 Corinthians 2:12; Galatians 4:3; Galatians 6:14; Colossians 2:8; James 1:27; 1 John 4:5 (thrice); 1 John 5:19;
(f) the "sum of temporal possessions," Matthew 16:26; 1 Corinthians 7:31 (1st part);
(g) metaphorically, of the "tongue" as "a world (of iniquity)," James 3:6; expressive of magnitude and variety.source : https://studybible.info/vines/World

Source: https://biblehub.com/greek/165.htm

[ 2,,G165, aion ]
"an age, a period of time," marked in the NT usage by spiritual or moral characteristics, is sometimes translated "world;" the RV marg. always has "age." The following are details concerning the world in this respect; its cares, Matthew 13:22; its sons, Luke 16:8; Luke 20:34; its rulers, 1 Corinthians 2:6,1 Corinthians 2:8; its wisdom, 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 3:18, its fashion, Romans 12:2; its character, Galatians 1:4; its god, 2 Corinthians 4:4. The phrase "the end of the world" should be rendered "the end of the age," in most places (See END, A, No. 2); in 1 Corinthians 10:11, AV, "the ends (tele) of the world," RV, "the ends of the ages," probably signifies the fulfillment of the Divine purposes concerning the ages in regard to the church [this would come under END, A, No. 1,

FURTHER READING Will the Earth Be Destroyed?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... destroyed/

To learn more please go to other posts related to

THE PLANET EARTH, THE LAST DAYS and ...THE SECOND COMING *

*The Return of Christ

[JehovahsWitness]

......given your definitions? Land, habitation, country, world of mankind. ...

The above are not MY definitions (I speak neither Greek nor Hebrew) they are the sourced defintions of biblical linguists (references provided). Do you have a problem with anything I posted? If so, what?

...I always think of kosmos as adornment more than anything. Cosmetics, cosmos. ...

That's nice, thanks for sharing. While it's certainly where we get the English word "cosmetic" , what are you suggesting regarding the OP topic of the "end of the world"? Perhaps you can enlarge.

...really, you think ge and kosmos aren't interchangeable? ...

To prove interchangeabilty one would have to provide two or more parallel biblical verses, each employing the different word refering to the same event. I'd be more than happy to read your thesis thereof.

[Data]

......given your definitions? Land, habitation, country, world of mankind. ...

The above are not MY definitions (I speak neither Greek nor Hebrew) they are the sourced definitions of biblical linguists (references provided). Do you have a problem with anything I posted? If so, what?

Well, since I hadn't questioned the sourced definitions of biblical linguists, at least not specifically in that response, I would suppose that the "problem" is, in fact with something you posted, but I already told you what it was. Maybe you missed it.

...I always think of kosmos as adornment more than anything. Cosmetics, cosmos. ...

That's nice, thanks for sharing.

Well, you are most welcome.

While it's certainly where we get the English word "cosmetic" , what are you suggesting regarding the OP topic of the "end of the world"? Perhaps you can enlarge.

Certainly.
I always think of kosmos as adornment more than anything. Cosmetics, cosmos.

...really, you think ge and kosmos aren't interchangeable? ...

To prove interchangeabilty one would have to provide two or more parallel biblical verses, each employing the different word refering to the same event. I'd be more than happy to read your thesis thereof.

See, there. I think we're at cross purposes.

[POI]

Yet another Bible believer who has invented their own religion.

There is nothing original about my theology. There is nothing original about anyone's theology.

Jesus appears to be saying He'll come back and the Sanhedrin will see it themselves

Mark 14 61 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26.63.And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Both of these during the interrogation by the High priest.

Have you and POI read Post #9 That was taken from an article I published years ago in response to Steve Wells' Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It used to be linked to from that website by Mr. Wells himself. It was also published on Sam Harris' Reason Project. Or was it called Project Reason. Whichever.

C'mon, guys.

It's rare, but we are now seeing it... Two folks, who want to justify the Bible disagreeing with one another in this forum. I'm going to grab some popcorn and see how this pans out.

Please be advised Jehovahwitness, below is Data's current position -- from post 27:

"the Bible doesn't say he's coming back for three reasons. 1) He isn't. 2) He is dead. And 3) He successfully finished what he came here to do. There isn't any reason for him to come back."

**************************

My hunch as that, yes, 1) and 2) are correct, but instead for the same reasons (you are I) will die and will never come back.

[Data]

Yet another Bible believer who has invented their own religion.

There is nothing original about my theology. There is nothing original about anyone's theology.

Jesus appears to be saying He'll come back and the Sanhedrin will see it themselves

Mark 14 61 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26.63.And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Both of these during the interrogation by the High priest.

Have you and POI read Post #9 That was taken from an article I published years ago in response to Steve Wells' Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It used to be linked to from that website by Mr. Wells himself. It was also published on Sam Harris' Reason Project. Or was it called Project Reason. Whichever.

C'mon, guys.

It's rare, but we are now seeing it... Two folks, who want to justify the Bible disagreeing with one another in this forum. I'm going to grab some popcorn and see how this pans out.

Please be advised Jehovahwitness, below is Data's current position -- from post 27:

"the Bible doesn't say he's coming back for three reasons. 1) He isn't. 2) He is dead. And 3) He successfully finished what he came here to do. There isn't any reason for him to come back."

**************************

My hunch as that, yes, 1) and 2) are correct, but instead for the same reasons (you are I) will die and will never come back.

I think you've made a mistake. Transponder and Jehovah's Witness you have confused? JW's agree with me on this. They might not agree with the way I put it when talking to you and Trans, but that's fine.

The question is, how is he not coming back? So, in other words, where do the traditional modern-day Christians differ from the JW?

[POI]

Yet another Bible believer who has invented their own religion.

There is nothing original about my theology. There is nothing original about anyone's theology.

Jesus appears to be saying He'll come back and the Sanhedrin will see it themselves

Mark 14 61 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26.63.And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Both of these during the interrogation by the High priest.

Have you and POI read Post #9 That was taken from an article I published years ago in response to Steve Wells' Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It used to be linked to from that website by Mr. Wells himself. It was also published on Sam Harris' Reason Project. Or was it called Project Reason. Whichever.

C'mon, guys.

It's rare, but we are now seeing it... Two folks, who want to justify the Bible disagreeing with one another in this forum. I'm going to grab some popcorn and see how this pans out.

Please be advised Jehovahwitness, below is Data's current position -- from post 27:

"the Bible doesn't say he's coming back for three reasons. 1) He isn't. 2) He is dead. And 3) He successfully finished what he came here to do. There isn't any reason for him to come back."

**************************

My hunch as that, yes, 1) and 2) are correct, but instead for the same reasons (you are I) will die and will never come back.

I think you've made a mistake. Transponder and Jehovah's Witness you have confused? JW's agree with me on this. They might not agree with the way I put it when talking to you and Trans, but that's fine.

The question is, how is he not coming back? So, in other words, where do the traditional modern-day Christians differ from the JW?

You state (paraphrased) - 'Jesus ain't com'n back.'

"Do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is coming back?

It proclaimed Christ's invisible return in 1874, the resurrection of the saints in 1875, and predicted the end of the "harvest" and a rapture of the saints to heaven for 1878 and the final end of "the day of wrath" in 1914."

*********************

Of course, they were wrong, along with other times.