Where is heaven?

lau1247

Where is Hell and Heaven? It was believed that heaven was in the sky until modern astronomers showed otherwise



Here's something else to think about

If God has a plan for you, and his plan cannot be thwarted, do you really have a free will?

GAAman

lau1247

I believe both are true, ie you have a destiny but also have free will along the way i will try explain it through my own experiences in life

I left school when i was 15 to be an apprentice printer. Now i always had dreams of going to uni somewhere far from home where nobody would know me, despite not feeling i was intelligent enough because i was kinda suffering in school (i found out i actually had add rather then a severe case of the dumb dumbs)

So i worked in the printers for a few years then came down with a sickness*. This sicknss caused me to have to leave the job. The company i worked for ended up going under**. Now i am a very restless guy and to cut a long story short instead of lyin in a hospital bed suffering i decided to go to a plc college and do a computers course.

Because of this course and stuff i was acceptd to uni in derry. I just finished my first year

* I believe if i had not of gotten sick like this i would never have left the job and still be working there today or maybe somewhere else but would be nowhere near my dreams

** The fact that the job went belly up meant i couldnt go back even if i wanted to therefore the only way was forward instead of goin back

So i hope i have conveyed why i feel how i do

Excelsior

lau1247 wrote:

Where is Hell and Heaven? It was believed that heaven was in the sky until modern astronomers showed otherwise

No one thought heaven was in the stars. Biblically speaking, Heaven is spoken of as a coming future state here on Earth.

Hell is the place where God isn't. We're not going to find it with a telescope.

Here's something else to think about:
No one ever thought heaven was in the sky but you did. Maybe you haven't gotten the full story on Christianity?

archdukefranz

lau1247 wrote:

Where is Hell and Heaven? It was believed that heaven was in the sky until modern astronomers showed otherwise

People believed lots of things, like the earth was flat...
none of this has basis in scripture... just in people's first perception

lau1247 wrote:

Here's something else to think about

If God has a plan for you, and his plan cannot be thwarted, do you really have a free will?

Perhaps you could provide some scriptural backing for this... assuming you are talking about YHVH (the G-d of the Bible).

djeddy

:cool: ok hi, @ this moment in time where is jesus christ, where are all the people and all of gods other creatures ?

i would like to think they were all in a place called paradise, (heaven)

but i guess we cant see heaven jesus or others gone before us, with our earthly eyes,:cool:

lau1247

Excelsior wrote:

No one thought heaven was in the stars. Biblically speaking, Heaven is spoken of as a coming future state here on Earth.

Hell is the place where God isn't. We're not going to find it with a telescope.

Here's something else to think about:
No one ever thought heaven was in the sky but you did. Maybe you haven't gotten the full story on Christianity?

If no one thought of heaven was in the sky, then why do people always look upward towards the sky when they speak of heaven..

Anyway man.. chillax.. don't read too much into it.. just something to think about that's all

robindch

> No one thought heaven was in the stars.

Hmmm... we've been over this before, but the bible is quite clear in saying that heaven is a physical place some distance over the surface of the earth -- see all through the book of Genesis and plenty of other places in the bible. Various old-testament prophets are said to have physically flown there, as did Jesus, Mary as well as Islam's Mohammed.

While it's quite true to say that there are currently very few (if any?) people who still believe these days that heaven is physically in the stars -- heaven having become a sharply Platonic metaphysical expression of the idea eternal perfection -- it's certainly quite untrue to claim that nobody ever did.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Hmmm... we've been over this before, but the bible is quite clear in saying that heaven is a physical place some distance over the surface of the earth -- see all through the book of Genesis and plenty of other places in the bible. Various old-testament prophets are said to have physically flown there, as did Jesus, Mary as well as Islam's Mohammed..

bibel verses please?:rolleyes:

robindch wrote:

While it's quite true to say that there are currently very few (if any?) people who still believe these days that heaven is physically in the stars -- heaven having become a sharply Platonic metaphysical expression of the idea eternal perfection -- it's certainly quite untrue to claim that nobody ever did.

Jesus was pretty clear on its' location:

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Xavi6

It's in the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre beside the West End Retail Park.

BrianCalgary

lau1247 wrote:

If God has a plan for you, and his plan cannot be thwarted, do you really have a free will?

When we speak of God's plan, there are two area to be looked at;
1) His plan for mankind, which is the plan of salvation and His ultimate victory over Satan. His welcoming of his people into His kingdom.

2) The choice an individual makes in accepting God's plan for their life and eventual welcoming to His kingdom.

Freewill comes into effect in part 2. God gives us the choice to accept His gift.

In part 1 there is no choice, God will win, there will be a wedding feast as Jesus is joined with His church.

Xavi6

For those of ye who doubt

http://www.hotspots.ie/clubs/heaven/photogallery1.htm

lau1247

Xavi6 wrote:

It's in the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre beside the West End Retail Park.

Hahaha good one

robindch

> bibel verses please?

Crumbs, an evangelist asking an atheist for biblical references. What're we coming to at all, at all?!! Anyhow, ask and you shall receive

Picking a few at random, there's

• Exodus 16:4: "I will rain down bread from heaven for you",
• Exodus 20:4: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
• Isaiah 55:10: "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven [...]"
• Matthew 26:64 "I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
• Matthew 28:2: "an angel of the Lord came down from heaven."
• Mark 6:41: "Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves."
• Mark 13:25: "The stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."
• Mark 16:19: "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God."
• Acts 1:9-12: "After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

etc, etc, etc, etc. There are hundreds of other references to the physical location of heaven -- it's outside and straight up. Do check the references yourself for authenticity! Try Elijah, for example, or the two lads in Revelation.

BrianCalgary

Hey Robin.

As I tell my brother, you can learn something from anyone at anytime.:D

I agree that Heaven is a place. But the only way to get there is by dying and having accepted Christ. Except in thoses extraordinary cases where God just takes someone. I remember the comment by Yuri Gagarin? the first man in space, on his arrival making a statement that here he was in the Heavens and there was no God.

I don't think folks through the ages expected to get to Heaven by chariot, bus, plane or donkey cart though.

robindch

> I agree that Heaven is a place.

Ok, that's good -- agreement is breaking out all over!

You must therfore also agree, upon the infallible authority of the bible, that heaven is physically above the surface of the earth? Plenty of verses to support the position, after all.

> I don't think folks through the ages expected to get to Heaven by
> chariot, bus, plane or donkey cart though.

Again, wrong. The bible quite clearly talks about going to heaven in a whirlwind, or using the clouds as chariots. And I might add, no sign of Elijah having "accepted christ".

So, given that the bible is quite unambiguous on the topic of flying into heaven, do you not agree with it?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I agree that Heaven is a place.

Ok, that's good -- agreement is breaking out all over!

You must therfore also agree, upon the infallible authority of the bible, that heaven is physically above the surface of the earth? Plenty of verses to support the position, after all.

> I don't think folks through the ages expected to get to Heaven by
> chariot, bus, plane or donkey cart though.

Again, wrong. The bible quite clearly talks about going to heaven in a whirlwind, or using the clouds as chariots. And I might add, no sign of Elijah having "accepted christ".

So, given that the bible is quite unambiguous on the topic of flying into heaven, do you not agree with it?

'Whirlwinds' and 'clouds as chariots' are quite different than bus, planes, dogsleds, and donkey carts. On this I'm sure you would agree. What happened in the instances you mentioned would have been spiritual events described as 'whirlwinds' (we know what they are) and 'clouds as chariots' another descriptive term to describe a spiritual event.

Elijah was a prophet of God, looking forward to the coming of the saviour. When you look at Elijah's life he obeyed God an was rewarded with an eternity in Heaven.

robindch

> descriptive term to describe a spiritual event.

So am I understanding you correctly that you believe that the text of the bible is describing a metaphorical event, and not a physical event, when it refers to an ascent up into the sky?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> descriptive term to describe a spiritual event.

So am I understanding you correctly that you believe that the text of the bible is describing a metaphorical event, and not a physical event, when it refers to an ascent up into the sky?

There is no question that the event happened. The description has to be a metaphor, how do you describe a spiritual event when the language doesn't exist to do so.

I watched a show called 'Beyond the gates of Splendour'. A man from a primitive culture in Brazil was brought to the USA. It was comical how he described a rocery store, interac payment and a drive-thru window at a fast food restaurant. As grocery stores, interac (money) and drive-thru's don't exist in his culture his description had to be done within the context of the languages vocabulary.

ScumLord

I always thought Heaven was in another place nowhere near earth. Could be another dimension or something.

However with statements like this, it's hard to believe allot of stuff writen in the bible..

Mark 16:19: "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God."

Who could see that far into the sky or whatever to know where Jesus sat?

I think allot of the bible was an attempt by uneducated people to understand what was happening.

BrianCalgary

ScumLord wrote:

I always thought Heaven was in another place nowhere near earth. Could be another dimension or something.

However with statements like this, it's hard to believe allot of stuff writen in the bible..
Who could see that far into the sky or whatever to know where Jesus sat?

I think allot of the bible was an attempt by uneducated people to understand what was happening.

God has revealed Heaven to some who have tried to describe it for the benefit of others.

Some of the Bible as a result is written by people who saw things thatthey didn't understand and then tried to describe it within the vocabulary available to them. No necessarily uneducated.

Luke was a physician and Paul was highly educated.

ScumLord

Luke was a physician and Paul was highly educated.

But to be fair the education of the time wasn't really that great. You spend 3 years in collage and come out with a degree in multiplication.

robindch

> There is no question that the event happened. The description has to be a
> metaphor, how do you describe a spiritual event when the language doesn't
> exist to do so.

When this text was written, language was just as expressive and powerful as it is now, and the vocabulary existed too -- the bible is full of it. So your belief that it's a metaphor simply doesn't fly, so to speak.

Unless, of course, you want to accept that the same thing might have happened in other places in the bible: where the authors wrote down a metaphorical story to describe something they didn't understand. Genesis is a good example. Would you agree that your metaphor theory could apply to that text as well?

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

There is no question that the event happened. The description has to be a metaphor, how do you describe a spiritual event when the language doesn't exist to do so.

I watched a show called 'Beyond the gates of Splendour'. A man from a primitive culture in Brazil was brought to the USA. It was comical how he described a rocery store, interac payment and a drive-thru window at a fast food restaurant. As grocery stores, interac (money) and drive-thru's don't exist in his culture his description had to be done within the context of the languages vocabulary.

So what do you think actually, physically happened that was described as floating up into the sky? Is there some kind of physical phenomenon occurring for which a primitive writer might have to use approximations? Do you think the people's bodies disappear in a flash of light? Or do they simply die, and the writer assumes that their invisible soul travels to Heaven? If so, how does the writer know this?

Why do you dismiss the idea that these people flew up into the sky, and what explanation do you propose that is more plausible?

Are there other descriptions in the Bible that you are comfortable assuming are metaphorical descriptions of things too complicated for a primitive writer to understand? Why can't you see Creation as an example of this, for instance? Or the miracles of Christ?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

When this text was written, language was just as expressive and powerful as it is now, and the vocabulary existed too -- the bible is full of it. So your belief that it's a metaphor simply doesn't fly, so to speak.?

Not in describing the switch from the physical realm that we inhabit vs. the spiritual realm of Heaven and the transition between the two.

robindch wrote:

Unless, of course, you want to accept that the same thing might have happened in other places in the bible: where the authors wrote down a metaphorical story to describe something they didn't understand. Genesis is a good example. Would you agree that your metaphor theory could apply to that text as well?

Which text in particular?

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

So what do you think actually, physically happened that was described as floating up into the sky? Is there some kind of physical phenomenon occurring for which a primitive writer might have to use approximations? Do you think the people's bodies disappear in a flash of light? Or do they simply die, and the writer assumes that their invisible soul travels to Heaven? If so, how does the writer know this?

Why do you dismiss the idea that these people flew up into the sky, and what explanation do you propose that is more plausible??

I do not dismiss an upward motion at all. What I am dismissing is that Heaven is a physical place that is accesible form Earth without having to die or God's direct intervention.

Sapien wrote:

Are there other descriptions in the Bible that you are comfortable assuming are metaphorical descriptions of things too complicated for a primitive writer to understand??

The parts of revelation or parts of Daniel

Sapien wrote:

Why can't you see Creation as an example of this, for instance? ?

Because Adam was spoken of as a historical figure in Romans, Corinthians and Jude.

Sapien wrote:

Or the miracles of Christ?

The descriptions are pretty starightforward. In John 11 Jesus calls a dead Lazarus, come out, and Lazarus comes out of the cave. Nothing metaphoriacal there.

The blind can now see, the lame can now walk, the sick are now healed. No metaphors. It is interesting to note that non-Christian writers of thre period never denied any of Christ's miracles. All his opponents would have to have done to take the wind out of his sails (that was using a metaphor there just now) was to show that one of his healings didn't work. This couldn't be done. See Benny Hinn as a modern example.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

I do not dismiss an upward motion at all. What I am dismissing is that Heaven is a physical place that is accesible form Earth without having to die or God's direct intervention.

Well presumably God has intervened in these instances. People don't just decide to fly up into the sky. And if you accept the upwards flight, and not the physical location of Heaven - where is the person going? Why do they fly upwards so? Do they end up in space? Or are they "transported" once they are obscured by the clouds?

Why do you have such an absolute objection to the existence of Heaven as a place? What can you show us in the Bible that makes that so clear - that outweighs the evidence others have shown to suggest it is a place?

Trying desperately to understand.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The parts of revelation or parts of Daniel

How can you tell when metaphorical meanings are intended, as opposed to historical ones?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Because Adam was spoken of as a historical figure in Romans, Corinthians and Jude.

Perhaps the authors were unaware of the metaphorical interpretation option. Perhaps Adam existed historically, but the events described as happening around him had to be conveyed metaphorically.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The descriptions are pretty starightforward. In John 11 Jesus calls a dead Lazarus, come out, and Lazarus comes out of the cave. Nothing metaphorical there.

The blind can now see, the lame can now walk, the sick are now healed. No metaphors.

You have not explained why you can makes such a judgement that there are "no metaphors" here, but there are in the stories of ascensions. How can you tell? - that is the point.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is interesting to note that non-Christian writers of thre period never denied any of Christ's miracles.

How did they describe them? Have you heard of Simon Magus?

robindch

> What I am dismissing is that Heaven is a physical place that is accesible
> form Earth without having to die or God's direct intervention.

Where does it say that heaven is inaccessible from earth? The text is quite clear that Eliajah physically flew there upwards from the earth's surface, which implies that heaven is physically accessible from earth. There are plenty of other references (see above) which back up this physical understanding of the physical and real location of heaven. Again, it's said to be straight up and no transformation is mentioned.

My point here, which is the same as Sapien's, is that the bible is full of things which the reader can interpret either as metaphor or read as a fully-accurate physical description of a physical event. You are choosing to interpret parts of the story of Elijah's flight as metaphor, while the story of genesis, you are choosing to interpret as physical fact.

How do you know that Elijah is metaphor, and genesis isn't?

robindch

> All his opponents would have to have done to take the wind out of his sails
> (that was using a metaphor there just now) was to show that one of his
> healings didn't work. This couldn't be done.

The world is full of people who are expert conjurers who can fool many, many people over and over again. It is very easy to do. Even when people are shown how a trick works, they frequently refuse to believe that it was a trick. Take the spoon-bender Uri Geller for example -- he's been debunked many times, has been caught on camera faking it, but it's made not one jot of difference to the number of people who believe that he can bend a spoon by thinking about it. People *want* to believe, regardless of the evidence.

> See Benny Hinn as a modern example.

Er, I'm not sure whether you're referring to Hinn positively or negatively here. Regardless, he's an excellent example of a man who has been thoroughly discredited over and over again, but who was still pulling in huge crowds the last time I looked:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html

...which has a link to a good documentary on how Hinn operates and plays the crowds, quite expertly.

Xavi6

I think Belinda Carlisle put it best when she said -

"Oooo baby do you know what that's worth, oooo heaven is a place on earth".

robindch

> [me] How do you know that Elijah is metaphor, and genesis isn't?

Brian?

Dr Pepper

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus was pretty clear on its' location:

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Hmmm.. If that's clear, I can't imagine what you would call vague?

Xavi6 wrote:

I think Belinda Carlisle put it best when she said -

"Oooo baby do you know what that's worth, oooo heaven is a place on earth".

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> [me] How do you know that Elijah is metaphor, and genesis isn't?

Brian?

I´m in Guatemala at the minute.

Just read it, we are constantly making the differentiation in language in our day to day readings. The language presented is pretty obvious. Plus since Heaven can´t be accessed from here, In the time that Elijah goes up and arrives in Heaven he moves from the physical to the spiritual.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

we are constantly making the differentiation in language in our day to day readings.

But on what basis do you make such differentiations? Perhaps one of our other Christians can help you out with this one - I realise it's rather difficult. Wolfsbane? JC?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Plus since Heaven can´t be accessed from here, In the time that Elijah goes up and arrives in Heaven he moves from the physical to the spiritual.

If Heaven was above the Earth, beyond the clouds - it could not be accessed from Earth at the time of the writing of the Bible. Except, of course, by building a huge tower - which they tried at Babel, and which angered God very much. Why would he be angry if the Tower wasn't actually going to bring them any closer to Heaven?

Are we to take it that you believe that Elijah physically flew up into the air and then, when obscured by the clouds, travelled into some kind of spiritual plane? Where does the Bible mention a spiritual plane that lies outside the physical. I know Christ says that his "Kingdom in not of this world", but in the context of the Bible the clearest interpretation to this would be that it is in the sky.

robindch

> Just read it, we are constantly making the differentiation in language in
> our day to day readings. The language presented is pretty obvious.

I'm sorry, Brian, but you haven't answered my question, so I'll rephrase:

You say that it's "pretty obvious" that the story of Elijah flying up into the sky is a metaphor. Elsewhere, you say with equal conviction that the story of genesis is factual.

How do you work out that Elijah is a metaphor and genesis is not?

- robin (wishing we had some good Guatemalan weather here!)

panda100

Did anyone ever read the lovely bones? To me that always seemed to be a really unique interpratation of Heaven
Anyways OT,I dont think there is a physical heaven or hell.If there was then we would evidently need our bodys but they are left to rot. What does live on is our souls as its the only part of our body that isnt a physical part. No physicians yet have located the 'soul' but it very much exists.I think we can all testify to that, and seperates us from the rest of the animals perhaps.
Anywho I think Heaven and hell will be in our souls and on judgment day it will be up to God to decide wether our soul should linger in hell or heaven,which will be pretty much a state of mind.
I dont think you should take the bibles images of people flying up to heaven to literally. This was written in a day when it was inconceivable that people would fly and now look at us with our space travel etc. So I dont think flying images in the bible shouldnt be taken as fact.

robindch

> This was written in a day when it was inconceivable that people would fly [...]
> So I dont think flying images in the bible should be taken as fact.

Again, the text of the bible is quite clear that people flew up into the sky. Ancient people were perfectly familar with birds, and the later authors would no doubt have known of the story of Icarus (the guy who flew too close to the sun). So I don't accept at all that ancient people were unable to conceive of humans flying.

But all of that's beside the point. My question -- still unanswered -- is not whether people did or did not fly into the sky (I don't believe they did; at least we agree on that!), but the far more important question about how a religious person decides that one text is metaphorical and one text is literal.

Brian? Anybody else?

BrianCalgary

11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them apart.

When we read this passage on the moving of Elijah to Heaven it starts off with: suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them.

It is fairly obvious that what is happening is a supernatural event and the event ends with: And Elisha saw him no more

When something happens that is supernatural yoy can know that what is described is as accurate as the witness can put into language.

In Job, there are two instances where God speaks to Job, out of a whirlwind. This also is a supernatural occurence.

robindch

> It is fairly obvious that what is happening is a supernatural event

Ok, so is the rule is that when a piece of text describes an event which violates normal laws of physics, then the text must be read as a metaphor? And things which do not violate basic physics must be read as factual descriptions. Am I understanding you correctly?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

But all of that's beside the point. My question -- still unanswered -- is not whether people did or did not fly into the sky (I don't believe they did; at least we agree on that!), but the far more important question about how a religious person decides that one text is metaphorical and one text is literal.

Brian? Anybody else?

Often the type of literature gives the clue: prophetic writing often uses symbolism that is evidently not meant to be taken literally. The Book of Revelation is a case in point. But it is not that simple: all forms of writing usually use some of both literal and symbolic language. Just as we do in our daily life. So it would be foolish not to expect Revelation to include plain literal language as well as difficult symbolic language. Some theological disputes centre on whether something was meant to be understood literally or symbolically/metaphorically/spiritually. The Millenium; Transsubstantiation, etc. So not just the type of writing, but the theology conveyed must be considered: Scripture must agree with Scripture. The interpretation cannot contradict what is plainly set out elsewhere.

As to the ascension of Elijah and Christ, it seems to be plainly literal. They rose up into the sky and disappeared from sight due to distance. However, and this is the issue of the thread, what does this imply concerning the location of heaven or hell?

Does it imply that heaven is out beyond space on the particular trajectory Christ took? Or that heaven is outside space in all directions, i.e., that heaven surrounds the universe? Scripture doesn't say. What it does say is that heaven is not a physical place. It is a spiritual place. But one that can accommodate bodies - Enoch, Elijah, Christ. It is the great reality; the universe is just something created by the One who eternally exists in heaven.

Why would Christ rise into the sky to go to heaven? Maybe He could have just blinked out - like teleporters of SciFi. But the visible rising would point man to the thought that heaven was above and beyond our physical constraints.

Hell also may be considered likewise. The physical symbol of under, beneath, pointing to the spiritual reality of being cast away on the rubbish heap, of the grave where one rots. It seems clear that literally under the ground is not where hell really is, for the earth and the universe are to be destroyed in the Last Day and replaced by the New Heavens and New Earth, yet hell goes on forever.

Summary: up and down were used to convey the otherness of the spiritual world, not necessarily to indicate that they were physically located up or down.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

What [scripture] does say is that heaven is not a physical place.

Where?

robindch

> Often the type of literature gives the clue: prophetic writing often uses
> symbolism that is evidently not meant to be taken literally.

Yes, I agree completely. And I am trying very hard to find out how religious people are able to assert with 100% certainty that one piece of text is intended to be taken literally, and a different piece of text is not.

So far, Brian's most recent post has provided the most information, but it's nothing close to explaining it fully, so I'm still finding it extremely difficult to pin down exactly how either him or you work out the 100% correct way to read the texts.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Often the type of literature gives the clue: prophetic writing often uses
> symbolism that is evidently not meant to be taken literally.

Yes, I agree completely. And I am trying very hard to find out how religious people are able to assert with 100% certainty that one piece of text is intended to be taken literally, and a different piece of text is not.

So far, Brian's most recent post has provided the most information, but it's nothing close to explaining it fully, so I'm still finding it extremely difficult to pin down exactly how either him or you work out the 100% correct way to read the texts.

I think Robin that any passage would have to be looked at specifically in order to comment. The general language is a key. As the parables will start with 'The kingdom of Heaven is like', because it is like, a metaphor is usually about to come. A description of a spiritual event is also likely to be a metaphor as it is a description of something that is very difficult to describe.

One thing I have learned in trying to learn some Italian and Spanish recently is that any rule in any language has it's exceptions. The same is true with the Bible. Give a specific passgae that youwould be wondering about then we can discuss what type of speech it is and why.

robindch

> I think Robin that any passage would have to be looked at specifically in
> order to comment.

Fair enough. So, what you're saying, in short, is that there is no hard and fast rule for working out what's a metaphor and what's not. And it really comes down to a your own subjective judgement at the time, based upon your own feeling, about whether it is or not?

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

Where [does Scripture say heavewn is not a physical place]?

This from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven
gives a fair summary of my position:
In Protestant Christianity
The intermediate state (between death and the resurrection) is unclear in Protestant Christian thought (see the article on psychopannychism), but the following is generally concluded about the eternal life which Jesus promised those who believed in him:

The term Heaven (which differs from 'The Kingdom of Heaven' see note below) is applied by the Biblical authors to the realm in which God currently resides. Eternal life, however, occurs in a renewed, unspoilt and perfect creation (presumably full of plants, animals and stunning landscapes), which can be termed Heaven since God will choose to dwell there permanently with his people. There will no longer be any separation between God and man. The believers themselves will exist in incorruptible, resurrected and new bodies; there will be no sickness, no death and no tears. The person was never meant to be disembodied. Death is not a natural part of life, but was allowed to happen after Adam and Eve disobeyed God (see original sin) so that mankind would not live forever in a state of sin and thus a state of separation from God. Not only will the believers spend eternity with God, they will also spend it with each other. John's vision recorded in Revelation describes a New Jerusalem which comes from Heaven to the new earth, which is a seen to be a symbolic reference to the people of God living in community with one another. 'Heaven' will be the place where life will be lived to the full, in the way that the designer planned, each believer 'loving the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul and with all their mind' and 'loving their neighbour as themselves'(adapted from Matthew 22:37-38) - a place of great joy,it is not bad in heaven like here.

Heaven at present is the spiritual place of God's immediate presence - a real place, however, not metaphorical. The spirits of the righteous dead go there to await the final day, when they will receive their glorified bodies. God will then bring this heaven together with something new He will create: the New Heavens and New Earth, the eternal home of His people. He will be there with them. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=3&verse=11&end_verse=13&version=50&context=context
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=50&context=context
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021:22-27%20;&version=50;

I can't think of a direct 'heaven is not a physical place' text, but there are many that show that to be the case, in my opinion:
1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
Hebrews 13:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Fair enough. So, what you're saying, in short, is that there is no hard and fast rule for working out what's a metaphor and what's not. And it really comes down to a your own subjective judgement at the time, based upon your own feeling, about whether it is or not?

Brian has put it very well. Yes, there is no hard and fast rule that gives certainty in every case. There are examples that seem open to either literal or metaphoric intention.

That does not leave us in the position that we cannot know anything for sure. We use the literal and metaphoric in daily life, and usually understand each other correctly. So with the Bible. When Jesus said, “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser", is there anyone who thinks He meant He was a plant? When He called Christians His sheep, did He imply they had woolly coats?

But when we move from narrative to prophetic writing, the metaphoric is much more present and there is some times a difficulty in seeing what is literally meant and what is not.
Revelation 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
What is literal here and what figurative/metaphorical? Seems evident to me that Satan really is bound, i.e., restrained from his usual activity. But is it by a chain one can see? Or is the chain a metaphor for the power of God that prevents him going about his business? Given the many other figurative uses in the Book of Revelation, e.g., Christ pictured as the slain Lamb,
Rev.5:6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. ,
it is safe to say the chain is a metaphor for the power of God.

robindch

> Yes, there is no hard and fast rule that gives certainty in every case.

So, given this honest uncertainity, why does it seem to me that you are placing 100% trust in your specific interpretation, when you acknowledge that you cannot know with 100% certainty that you are extracting the correct meaning from the text?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

So, given this honest uncertainity, why does it seem to me that you are placing 100% trust in your specific interpretation, when you acknowledge that you cannot know with 100% certainty that you are extracting the correct meaning from the text?

Depends on what text is being considered. Notice I said there is no hard and fast rule that gives certainty in every case. That does not mean there cannot be certainty in some or even most cases - just that some are difficult.

I think I have understood your question above correctly, taking it not in some metaphorical sense but in a plain literal one. On another occasion you may want to speak to me in a figurative sense and I might be unsure if you mean in literally or metaphorically.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Yes, there is no hard and fast rule that gives certainty in every case.

So, given this honest uncertainity, why does it seem to me that you are placing 100% trust in your specific interpretation, when you acknowledge that you cannot know with 100% certainty that you are extracting the correct meaning from the text?

Wolfsbane answered it very well. There are certain beliefs that are clear and non-negotiable. These I have stated before. When it comes to passages as Wolfsbane used, they are open for discussion. Satan is bound, but how?

On the negotiables and bible passages that are slightly unclear, we can discuss them for ever, enjoy the discussion as brothers, but ALWAYS keeping in mind the ultimate question: how is your relationship with Jesus Christ?

If you relationship with Him is in good standing then together we will learn what God really meant in those difficult passages.

marius

wolfsbane wrote:

Revelation 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
What is literal here and what figurative/metaphorical? Seems evident to me that Satan really is bound, i.e., restrained from his usual activity. But is it by a chain one can see? Or is the chain a metaphor for the power of God that prevents him going about his business?

wolfsbane...I would assume from the above that you believe the chain/bottomless pit/seal are all metaphorical? But the thousand years sounds pretty specific to me, 'a thousand years' is very specific language and would logically be taken in a non-metaphorically way. Would your understanding be that the Devil was bound for 1000 years?

rgrds.

wolfsbane

Hi, marius.
You said:

wolfsbane...I would assume from the above that you believe the chain/bottomless pit/seal are all metaphorical? But the thousand years sounds pretty specific to me, 'a thousand years' is very specific language and would logically be taken in a non-metaphorically way. Would your understanding be that the Devil was bound for 1000 years?

This is a prime example of the difficulties surrounding prophetic passages. I agree that the passage seems to suggest a literal 1000 years. But before one can be certain of that, the other factors of Biblical interpretation must be examined. The chief of these is consistency with the rest of Scripture.

That is what moved me from the literal interpretation of the 1000 years. It just doesn't seem to fit with the narrative passages that refer to the End Times, e.g.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

On balance, given the difficulty of fitting the obviously literal references like 2 Peter 3 in with a literal 1000 years, and the fact that the sole reference to the 1000 years comes in a book that is mostly symbolic (Revelation), then I will hold to a metaphoric understanding of Rev.20, until I get more light.

A dear pastor friend once described himself to me a a premillenist with problems; I'm happy to describe myself as an amillenialist with misgivings.:)

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote:

Hi, marius.
You said:

This is a prime example of the difficulties surrounding prophetic passages. I agree that the passage seems to suggest a literal 1000 years. But before one can be certain of that, the other factors of Biblical interpretation must be examined. The chief of these is consistency with the rest of Scripture.

That is what moved me from the literal interpretation of the 1000 years. It just doesn't seem to fit with the narrative passages that refer to the End Times, e.g.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

On balance, given the difficulty of fitting the obviously literal references like 2 Peter 3 in with a literal 1000 years, and the fact that the sole reference to the 1000 years comes in a book that is mostly symbolic (Revelation), then I will hold to a metaphoric understanding of Rev.20, until I get more light.

A dear pastor friend once described himself to me a a premillenist with problems; I'm happy to describe myself as an amillenialist with misgivings.:)

I myself take the 1,000 years to be literal with the above mentioned verse to be a potential rapture matching with

1 Thess. 4 16-18:
16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Which means that we have rapture, tribulation, 2nd coming, 1000 year reign, final judgement.

Having said all that understanding the eschatological scriptures as I do, has absolutely no bearing on one's salvation.