70 A.D. passage...or future?

[Guest]

Rev 21:1;4 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Isaiah 65:17; 20 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind...No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

So my question that never got a responce:

1. What does sorrow, crying and pain mean?

New questions:

1. What does it mean that a child shall die one hundred years old.
2. What does it mean that an infant from there ( where here? ) will no longer live but a few days.


The language is figurative correct? How do these things apply? Also, to whom do they apply?

[Guest]

[/quote]This question is about the nature of inspiration. What does it mean that Paul was inspired by the Spirit? Steve Gregg often points out something interesting. In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul said:

"14 I thank God that I (baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name."

Sounds quite definite doesn't it? But then he says:

"16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other."

This is direct contradiction to the previous statement. First he said he baptised no-one except Crispus and Gaius. Then he remembers that he also baptised thehousehold of Stephanas and then admits that he is not sure who esle he may have baptised. One of these two verses is incorrect, most likely verse 15. Does this mean that it was not inspired by the Spirit? No. So what then? Well, "inspiration" apparently doesn't require that the writers themselves to be infallibly correct in everything they wrote.

Thus, Paul apparently expected Christ's parousia to occur within his lifetime and wrote accordingly. The fact that it didn't (see below), doesn't alter the fact that his writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God knows when the Christ will be revealed from heaven, but He has arranged things so that each and every generation of belivers could potentially be the one to witness the coming, and lives with this hope in mind (e.g Titus 2:11-13).


Just a side note. I have always look at this as Paul finishing his thought. Maybe because I'm reading it in english. Right Mike

[Guest]

Rev 21:1;4 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Isaiah 65:17; 20 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind...No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

So my question that never got a responce:

1. What does sorrow, crying and pain mean?

New questions:

1. What does it mean that a child shall die one hundred years old.
2. What does it mean that an infant from there ( where here? ) will no longer live but a few days.


The language is figurative correct? How do these things apply? Also, to whom do they apply?

You can answer these questions for yourself Ron. I don't want to rob you of that joy. But I will give you a hint where to start. You can find the answer in Isaiah 24-27. The author of Revelation is speaking of nothing new. Another reason why you have to have the O.T. in your head before you read Revelation.

Let me know when you figure it out.

8) Mike

[Guest]

You can answer these questions for yourself Ron.

Thanks Mike. Question remains the same for anyone that would like to help.

[Guest]

You can answer these questions for yourself Ron.

Thanks Mike. Question remains the same for anyone that would like to help.

Here's what Steve would say. He says it well.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=146

Kind of an already but not yet view. Fulfilled in the first century, but still waiting a fulness in it's fulfillment. If I understand him correctly. He makes a really good point of Paul quoting these passages in fulfilment in his day.

8) Mike

[Guest]

Cotton pickin' mike :

As I understand it, Revelation 21-22 and Isaiah 65-66 may be talking about the same thing. I'm tending to think that they probably are. If so, then there are details that need to be reconciled such as the death issue. However, it could be that Revelation is talking about the post-millennial era (aka "eternal state").

I am aware of pros and cons of both views and I'm not yet convinced one way or the other, so don't shoot me down in flames just yet!

Ely

[Guest]

I personally believe in a literal new heaven and new earth to be created at the second coming, but I also believe that the "powers of the world to come" have already been "tasted" by the believer in the present age (Heb.6:5). Thus, the realities to be physically established in the end of this world have already come into being as spiritual realities to the believer in Christ. Isaiah could have either or both of these fulfillments in view in chapter 65.

Isaiah 65:20 is most difficult. It speaks of a child dying at 100-years-old. If this is the literal new heaven and new earth, death will not occur to infants or anyone else, at any age (Rev.21:4). If it is talking about the present age, it cannot be literal, since a person dying at 100-years-old is not "a child."

I take this verse as a poetic picture of eternal life in the new creation. By any interpretation, it speaks of LONG life! I think eternal life is what is here in view. The prediction is:

"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days" (i.e., no more premature deaths);

"Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days" (another way of saying there will no longer be any premature death);

"For a child shall die one hundred years old" (that is, were a person to die after only a century in this place, he would be accounted a mere child—not that anyone really WILL die there);

"But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed" (the sinner, who will not be in this new world, will, after the same hundred years, be no better off than before, since he will be experiencing eternal judgment).

I realize that this is not the easiest application of the words to swallow, but, given the impossibility of other explanations, I think we are left with some such interpretation as this.

I assume this is what your talking about correct Mike? Thanks, I believe the same thing.

You as a full Preterist don't believe this so... I was hoping to get your take on it.

Thanks

Ron

[Guest]

I personally believe in a literal new heaven and new earth to be created at the second coming, but I also believe that the "powers of the world to come" have already been "tasted" by the believer in the present age (Heb.6:5). Thus, the realities to be physically established in the end of this world have already come into being as spiritual realities to the believer in Christ. Isaiah could have either or both of these fulfillments in view in chapter 65.

Isaiah 65:20 is most difficult. It speaks of a child dying at 100-years-old. If this is the literal new heaven and new earth, death will not occur to infants or anyone else, at any age (Rev.21:4). If it is talking about the present age, it cannot be literal, since a person dying at 100-years-old is not "a child."

I take this verse as a poetic picture of eternal life in the new creation. By any interpretation, it speaks of LONG life! I think eternal life is what is here in view. The prediction is:

"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days" (i.e., no more premature deaths);

"Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days" (another way of saying there will no longer be any premature death);

"For a child shall die one hundred years old" (that is, were a person to die after only a century in this place, he would be accounted a mere child—not that anyone really WILL die there);

"But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed" (the sinner, who will not be in this new world, will, after the same hundred years, be no better off than before, since he will be experiencing eternal judgment).

I realize that this is not the easiest application of the words to swallow, but, given the impossibility of other explanations, I think we are left with some such interpretation as this.

I assume this is what your talking about correct Mike? Thanks, I believe the same thing.

You as a full Preterist don't believe this so... I was hoping to get your take on it.

Thanks

Ron

I really don't want to misrepresent Steve so I will do my best to interpret what he says.

The Isaiah 65 new heavens and earth were a first century event.
And the Revelation 21 new heavens and earth are a future event.

If this is what he is saying then no I don't agree with this. But I do applaude him in the way that he tied the Isaiah 65 passage to the first century...Bravo!

8) Mike

I will be back shortly to explain why I think that Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 are talking about the same event.

[Guest]

rvornberg wrote:

This is direct contradiction to the previous statement. First he said he baptised no-one except Crispus and Gaius. Then he remembers that he also baptised thehousehold of Stephanas and then admits that he is not sure who esle he may have baptised. One of these two verses is incorrect, most likely verse 15. Does this mean that it was not inspired by the Spirit? No. So what then? Well, "inspiration" apparently doesn't require that the writers themselves to be infallibly correct in everything they wrote.

if paul's transcriber had an eraser this wouldnt have been a problem. and besides, cross-outs destroy the look of a nicely written scroll. i can see the scribe shaking his head...

TK

[Guest]

No TK, I tried to make that a quote. It didn't formate correctly.

My only point was at the very end where I said:

Just a side note. I have always look at this as Paul finishing his thought. Maybe because I'm reading it in english. Right Mike