Apocalypse and long Cosmic History and Future

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Part of the faith of Christians includes texts that point to themes of individual judgement, a future “return” of Jesus (although He is never absent from the world in Spirit) and a future resurrection to a life and a new existence that is related to God’s eternity. The NT texts were written in an era of immediate hope that did not occur and the church has always tried to come up with alternative explanations of how these future hopes can occur.

With science today pointing to the earth as just one small planet circling an insignificant star in one galaxy of unknown number we again must adjust our vision to these scientific realities. The earth and all life on it has the potential for billions of years of continued existence unless some global catastrophe occurs, but even then the whole universe will continue to an even longer existence before all stars go cold and no organic life can exist.

So how are we today to think of the apocalyptic and resurrection themes, including “new heavens and new earth” hopes? The completion of salvation of the individual and the completion of the kingdom of God etc.

2 Likes
2

This question doesnt suprise me…its a dilemma that this forum has because it places science in front of the bible.

This is exsctly the reason why i follow YEC belief and follow Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries and organisations that dedicate their scientific research in support of the bible as literal history.

A world view is only authoritative and believable when all of it is consistently supported with evidence. Tear pages out of the bible saying they are wrong or written in error detracts from the relevance of the philosophical writings…they become nothing more than fairytales (as this question demonstrates)

There are those on this forum who it seems do not believe Moses and the Exodus were real. Given Moses wrote a significant portion of the Old Testament, and that his writings set the scene for the bible, if he isnt real and Creation, the Flood, Abraham, the Exodus…none of these are real, its even debated whether or not king David was real… what the heck was Christ harping on about? The man was simply a delusional idiot who thought he needed to die on the cross for his delusion…another Socrates. That would mean there is no salvation and we are all lost in our naivity and blind faith.

YEC do not face this dilemma as we agree with the many evidences that support the notion that God made this earth in 7 literal days (Seventh was the weekly insititution of the day of rest in rememberance that we are created…the Sabbath of Exodus 20:8-11).

Putting the YEC vs Naturalism argument aside…

The thing is, despite secular claims, there is no absolute proof one way or the other.

However, there are many evidences.

Ultimately, one must choose, its either “kaput” or “God”.
Darwinian theory does not offer anything beyond kaput, so I choose God. Atheists can grumble about that all they want, but its still kaput for them. The bible teaches one who has been exposed to the teachings of God must actively choose Him (Christ) to be saved.

3

There have been many interpretations about some NT texts. Apocalypse is an extreme example of this. It is obvious that all of these interpretations cannot be correct.

I assume that none of the preachers, teachers and priests telling how we should read and interpret Apocalypse understands everything in the Apocalypse correctly. We should have courage to judge all teachings, keep what is good and reject what is false.

When various interpretations are shown to be false, it may be painful for those who have believed that these interpretations are correct and even more painful for those who have been teaching wrong interpretations. Yet, it is healthy that wrong interpretations are shown to be wrong. Rotten parts should be removed, otherwise a building cannot stand storms.

I think there are sufficient information in the NT to believe that there will be a resurrection.
I also think that the return of Jesus is promised in ways that make me believe it is true.
Both of these beliefs are mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed.

‘New heavens and new earth’ is an expression that has been interpreted in many ways. I think we should remember the ancient cosmology of Genesis when we interpret this expression - the descriptions in the Apocalypse are linked to the stories in Genesis. I do not believe that the expression should be interpreted to mean that everything on Earth will be destroyed with fire and God will create a New Earth planet, including completely new plants and animals. It is more likely that it is figurative speech, telling that there will be radical changes before the end of the era.

4 Likes
4

Exactly, the “new heaven and earth” talk actually comes from the Hebrew Bible:

17 See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.

(Isaiah 65:17-18, NIV)

Yahweh is talking here about the end of the exile. Jerusalem would be inhabited again by the Jews.

1 Like
5

The delay of the second coming is more of a problem for certain modern schools of exegesis than it seems to be in the New Testament and the early church. John 21:22-23 has a warning against a misinterpretation of one of Jesus’ sayings as proof of soon return.

Although Earth probably could remain habitable for about another billion years before it gets too hot, humans are quite capable of wrecking things quicker. But the popular end-times fantasies miss the meaning of Scripture quite similarly to the young-earth error (in fact, LaHaye was a big backer of creation science). In both cases, figurative imagery intended to point us to consider spiritual realities is misinterpreted as modern historical-style reporting. The wrong focus is on a chronology of events rather than on personal holiness in light of what we learn about God.

The first major problem is that the Bible is not literalistic history. While giving a true account of God’s interactions with humanity, it does not do so in the manner of a modern historian. The second is that those groups do not do scientific research but merely make up claims t support their misinterpretations of selected bits of the Bible.

5 Likes
6

Return to Eden, back to God’s initial plan?

Deuteronomy 7:6 - For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.

1Petr 2:9 - But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1Petr 2:10 - Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

1 Like
7

That is your modern interpretation, however a natural reading of language shows categorically that is the wrong assumption.
The bible has numerous accounts of times, dates, individuals, surrounding objects…its rather difficult for one to deny that Noah had children with specific names, he preached of the oncoming flood for 120 years, animals came into the ark all by themselves in pairs, that noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood, that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, that he let dove fly out of the ark and it returned … we know that Noah is a literal historical figure because his family tree is traced all the way down to Christs day with specific individuals named in the generations cited. Its impossoble to ignore that.

Christ quotes the flood as does the apostle Peter.

Its plainly obvious that these are descriptors of literal events, its only an individual who cannot reconcile those facts with their version of natualism that denies history in the bible amd twists its meanings.

That leaves indidivuals who then post here that they have lost their faith because science says miracles cannot happen…so salvation via the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ is scientifically impossible. What is left of ones religion then?

8
  • Assume that Moses, Jesus, and Peter mentioned Noah and the Flood. Is it logically necessary that Noah and the Flood are historical facts?
  • No, it is not logically necessary.
    • While the mention of Noah and the Flood by religious figures like Moses, Jesus, and Peter lends credence to its significance within their respective faiths, it does not automatically prove its historical veracity.
    • Here are some reasons why:
      • Religious Texts as Myth and Symbolism: Many religious texts incorporate mythological elements and symbolic narratives to convey spiritual truths and teachings. The Flood story could be one such example, emphasizing divine judgment, redemption, and the preservation of hope.
      • Cultural and Historical Influences: The Flood narrative might be based on a shared human experience or a widespread belief system that predates the specific religious texts. It could have been adapted or incorporated into different religious traditions over time.
      • Lack of Empirical Evidence: There is no concrete archaeological or scientific evidence to definitively support the global Flood as described in the Bible. The geological record does not indicate a catastrophic event of that magnitude.
      • Therefore, while the mention of Noah and the Flood by significant religious figures is noteworthy, it does not conclusively establish its historical accuracy. The truth of the Flood story remains a matter of faith and interpretation within religious contexts.
  • Is it unreasonable to believe in the crucifixion, death, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus and not believe in the story of Noah and the Flood?
    • No, it is not unreasonable.
    • While the crucifixion, death, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus are central tenets of Christianity and are often considered historical events, the story of Noah and the Flood is interpreted differently within various religious traditions.
      • Here are some reasons why one might believe in the former without necessarily believing in the latter:
        • Historical Evidence: There is a significant amount of historical evidence, including archaeological, textual, and extra-biblical sources, that supports the existence of Jesus and the events surrounding his life and death. While the evidence for the Flood is primarily textual and often interpreted symbolically or mythologically.
        • Differing Interpretations: The story of Noah and the Flood is often interpreted as a symbolic or metaphorical account of divine judgment and redemption. It may not be intended as a literal historical event, but rather as a teaching about the nature of God and humanity.
        • Faith and Tradition: Belief in the crucifixion, death, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus is often rooted in faith and tradition within Christianity. It is seen as a core element of the Christian faith and is supported by the teachings of the Church.
        • Therefore, it is not inconsistent to believe in the historical reality of Jesus’ life and death while interpreting the Flood narrative as a symbolic or metaphorical account. Individual beliefs may vary based on personal faith, cultural background, and theological interpretations.
2 Likes
9

Of course there is geologic evidence of the flood…worldwide sandstone deposits containing mostly marine based fossils of a similar age…if thats not evidence then the moon is a light bulb that gets switched on by the Grinch!

The reason why biblical historicity is important is really really simple…blind faith in miracles.

The entire gospel is a series of miracles that defy all logic, reason and science.

For example, do you honestly believe that a person who has been eaten by a wild animal (such as a shark or crocodile)and deficated out said animals rear end can be raised from the dead at the second coming? Whats God raising there…spirit? That has already gone back to Him (God) at the time the person died…he doesnt need to come back here to get it!

We just had an individual post about that very dilemma…he cannot reconcile miracles. i would suggest thats because he doesnt believe the historicity of the bible and therefore is struggling with his faith because in all honesty, he is left with a book of fairytales and science tells us morality comes from evolution and social experimentation…not the bible! (So he doesnt need God to be a good person and feel like his conscience is satisfied at the end of his life)

Its the historicity of the bible thst gives credibility to the miracles of the gospel. This isnt a New Testament only doctrine…the plan of salvation started 4500 years before Christ was even reincarnated here as the child of a virgin! If you cant believe that, you cant believe anything the bible says…its a fairytale and nothing more.

10

For me it’s just not a battle. I left futurism behind years ago for preterism. As time has went on, I move from preterism to realizing that even within the Bible it tells of different futures and versions of the restored heaven and earth.

Isaiah 65:17-25
New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
The Glorious New Creation

17 For I am about to create new heavens
and a new earth;
the former things shall not be remembered
or come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I am creating,
for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy
and its people as a delight.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem
and delight in my people;
no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it
or the cry of distress.
20 No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days
or an old person who does not live out a lifetime,
for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth,
and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
they shall not plant and another eat,
for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,
and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain
or bear children for calamity,[a]
for they shall be offspring blessed by the Lord—
and their descendants as well.
24 Before they call I will answer,
while they are yet speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together;
the lion shall eat straw like the ox,
but the serpent—its food shall be dust!
They shall not hurt or destroy
on all my holy mountain,
says the Lord.

In this new heaven and earth it mentions people dying at old ages instead of young ages. It mentions that babies will be born, presumably through sex. Which seems to be very different from never dying and no more kids, presumably because of no more sex.

So I realized that to take anything in revelation even remotely literal is to understand just as badly as taking Genesis 1-11 literally. So revelation has no meaning to me about the future. But even if it did, I think it would be a future that we are already in that begin almost 2,000 years ago.

But as more time has went on it’s also became fairly reasonable to believe that revelation was written much later, as a fictionalized story of hope about what previously happened in Rome.

Data over Dogma podcast goes into this a bit as does the Bible Project podcast in the apocalypse and dragon episodes as well as the heaven and earth series.

1 Like
11

There is a huge difference between the writing styles of Revelation and Genesis.
Genesis tells us its historical…times, dates, ages, individuals names…its very specific.

Revelation is clearly different…if not because John tells us he is in vision at the very start! Its absolutely clear that imagery is being used all throughout revelation…most of it isnt using literal language. However it is definately describing literal outcomes…ie destruction, plagues, wars, perstilence, second coming of christ, new jerusalem, new earth…etc.

12

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Gen 8:4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

None of such specific details fits into ANE.

Gen 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.
Gen 6:15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits.

None of such specific details fits into ANE, secondly the description of the ark in v15 make the ark sea worthy, so I have read.

Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Gen 6:13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.
22 - Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.
23 - He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

It’s obvious from the quoted verses the Lord God had every intention to kill every living creature on the whole earth.

Matt 24:37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Matt 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
Matt 24:39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

When Jesus spoke these words (as a warning) he referred to Scripture which no doubt was understood literally by the disciples, we are the only ones who have made it a discussion between global versus local.

Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

After the flood we see the ages of people rapidly decrease till 120 years, even for nowadays statistics this prophecy still holds, and none of such remarkable facts fits into ANE.

13

So . . . you put your trust in known liars to deal with serious issues.

Or stuff modern science into the Bible and by so doing trash the majority of the message – that’s the YEC approach.

Fixed that for you.

14

The main problem is that there are many ways that apocalyptic literature can be read, and only the one who wrote it, and his intended audience, can know which one to apply – if there’s just one meaning in the first place. If it’s the first case, the only way we’ll ever know is if we find something where someone in the third century or so read John’s Apocalypse and knew the right approach and wrote it down – which isn’t likely, so we’re out of luck. If it’s the second case, we’re in better shape because all sorts of things could be meant at the same time – well, assuming the writer was competent enough to know what he was doing.

And some will be, because even if many interpretations were allowed for that only includes the ones known and used at the time!
As for the pain, that’s one reason I appreciated the attitude of the rabbis I knew: the scriptures are there for thought and discussion, not for locking into place, so always be open to something else . . . except for the obviously wrong.

I firmly agree. It’s something that bugs me, though, every time I read about colonizing Mars: if we become a multi-planet race, what happens to the Parousia?

It should be noted here that καινός (kai-NOHSS) doesn’t mean “brand new” so much as “reconditioned” or “renewed”. I like the image in a sci-fi novel I read where a devastated planet is “made new” as a wave of special energy washes over it from one pole to the other; as the wave passes all the devastation sort of largely melted and every surface was covered in lush growth of the ecosystems that had been there before.
And that fits because the whole enterprise since early Genesis has been to get humans back where we were intended to be, in a Garden that “overlaps” with Heaven, taking charge of the planet and running it in health and beauty, viceroys and living icons of Yahweh.

Though when I read about the “destroyed by fire” imagery that Peter uses makes me think of that wave of energy in my sci-fi illustration.

2 Likes
15

Yes and no. The context of the following doesn’t fit post-exilic Jerusalem, so this is probably one of those “double barreled” prophecies with an ‘earthly’ fulfillment close in time and a ‘heavenly’ fulfillment later.

Quite so. As I’ve pointed out before, to the ancient Hebrews if an event was important it should be mythologized to bring out the theological meaning. This is something YEC folks miss: that the Creation and Flood accounts are mythologized (in different ways) doesn’t say they weren’t real, it says they were extremely important!
And projecting the “historical-style reporting” forward misses the point just as much.

Right! If some event was reported in a matter-of-fact way, the ancient Israelites wouldn’t have regarded it as important – important events deserved to be mythologized to show their theological meaning.

They’ve funded some real research as I recall, but it hasn’t turned out the way they wanted – just like with flat-earthers.

Something that strikes me about that is that God didn’t choose a people, He built one: He chose one man and started over, leaving the rest of the nations to the “gods” who had appropriated them and making His own new nation.
But in another sense He did choose Israel the people when He called them back from Egypt and made them a covenant people at Sinai – and He continued to choose all who were willing to join themselves to Israel, which if archaeology is to be believed was many thousands early on.

In other words, the “grafting in” of the nations that Israel was supposed to foster is now happening apart from Israel; they failed, but Christ did not – and we are the beneficiaries.

Those together are Gospel: we didn’t choose God, He chose us; what we were given without earning it by good works cannot be lost by bad works – we have received mercy!

2 Likes
16

God’s chosen people produced the OT, the NT and most of all the privilege that Jesus was a Jew. No other religion had a leader who prophesied – And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations – and became true.

Amen.

17

Your “natural reading of language” makes the books of John Steinbeck, James Michener, John Grisham, and Tom Clancy history. Have you asked your local library to put them into the history section?

So does The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood of Great Renown in Nottinghamshire by Howard Pyle. So does A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. So does Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. Do you count them as history?

Your “natural reading of language” argument is void.

You know that’s false – I oppose the YEC reading because it is contrary to the text. I know it fits your worldview to categorize people rather than treat them with the respect of paying attention to them, but I will not stop reminding you that YEC is false based on the text.

But science doesn’t say that – it can’t because it has no tools to even address the issue.

No, it isn’t. None of the people I saw come to Christ in my university days cared one bit about “the historicity of the Bible”, they were convinced that they were broken and needed a Savior and found that Jesus fit the bill – the historicity of the Gospel events was enough. That’s why it’s the Gospel events that are included in the great Creeds; they are the foundation of everything.
And none of those people came due to any YEC influence; it was YEC that drove people away.

Now there’s a flat out heresy! Is it perhaps a spell-checker goof?

Yes – the End Times started with the Ascension.

18

Sorry, but yes they do; other flood stories specify dimensions for an ark.

If it was built like a box, and if it was miraculously held together, yes – but if it was built like the one at the Ark Encounter, and didn’t have miraculous strength, it wouldn’t have lasted a week.

Also not true. There are several reasons it has come to be taken as global: Start with the language aspect, where in the Hebrew it is clearly the world known to Noah that is involved, but when the Hebrew was translated into Greek in the Septuagint that was no longer clear for two reasons: the Greek word was not a reference to an area but to the whole world, and the Greeks understood that the world was round, knowledge that was connected to that word. This knowledge carried into our modern scientific worldview and became the standard meaning, so when modern readers see “earth” they think “globe” and/or “planet” even though that is not at all what the Hebrew meant. So taking “earth” to mean the whole planet comes from unwittingly stuffing our modern worldview into the scripture.
So ever since Jews and Christians started reading the scriptures in Greek, that understanding of “earth” has spilled back into the story even though the original text doesn’t support it.
The sad thing is that people insisting that the Bible has to be scientifically accurate have made a controversy out of nothing. Whether the Flood covered the known world of Noah (the Hebrew text), the civilized world (from Peter’s Greek), the entire world of man (some church Fathers), or the entire world does not change the point: rebellious angels mated with humans and taught them all sorts of new ways of sinning, with the result that wickedness dominated, and that had to be ended.
See, the Flood wasn’t an isolated incident in response to something that just happened to occur, it was part of the ongoing “war” between YHWH-Elohim and His rebellious heavenly servants. It started with the Deceiver in the Garden, but didn’t end there; it didn’t even end with the Flood. But as Peter and Jude tell us, God locked up this set of rebels, chained in gloomy darkness.
Something more than mildly interesting here is that Peter uses the word Tartarus, a term the Greeks used for a place where rebels against the gods were chained up, which tells us that this same rebellion and its result was known to them as well!

Again not true – after the Flood the ages of kings in the kings lists severely decrease.

Trying to make the Flood fit science, or make science conform to the Flood, is an activity that has no value for proclaiming the Gospel, it only serves to make Christians look like idiots and thus turn hearts away from hearing the Good News. The Flood seems silly to most people today even if it was only 10,000km^2, but trying to make it fit science doesn’t just make the story seem silly, it makes people think the entire Bible is silly.

2 Likes
19

There are thousands of species of animals in the world and there is not a boat that can be built big enough to contain them all safely. The author of Genesis of course did not know the existence of the Americas and there is not way all the animals of the Americas could have got to the Middle East. It really is better to accept the story, as with many other early chapters of Genesis, as a kind of revised myth or parable taken over from the Babylonians to emphasis the sinful nature of humanity and moral nature of God with both love and justice.

1 Like
20

Myth perhaps, but in the sense of mythologized history. Parable, no.

1 Like