Isaiah 65:17 vs. Revelation 21:1. How many NHNEs does that equal?

[Davidpt]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

 

[Truth7t7]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

Yes Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1 is exactly the same place, it's the NHNE after the Lord returns and dissolves this earth by fire as seen in 2 Peter 3:10-13

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have great difficulty understanding how the Coming of Christ for the Church relates to the Millennial period. I'm open.

It does appear that Isa 65 corresponds to Rev 21. It's the timing of these things I can't figure out--not the statements of fact.

 

[Wick Stick]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

In prophecies (and especially Revelation) there are often images that are meant to be interpreted. This is one of them. The interpretation can be discerned by looking at earlier Scriptures. For instance...

In Genesis 37, Joseph shared a vision in which his father and mother were visualized as the sun and moon, and himself and his brothers were all stars. The sun, moon, and other stars bowed down to Joseph's star in the dream. This dream was about power, the kind that government wields. Joseph went down to Egypt, became an important officer there, and eventually his brothers did come to literally bow before him, and he held the power of life and death over them.

In both Isaiah and Revelation, this is the sense in which "the heavens" are alluded to - it is speaking of the leaders of the tribes of Israel, the "stars" of Joseph's dream.

-Jarrod

 

[Timtofly]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

Because in Isaiah 65 it is after 2 Peter 3.

But 2 Peter 3 is the Second Coming which is before the Millennium.

Revelation 21 is not after heaven dissolves and the works on earth are burned up.

John says in Revelation 20:11, heaven and earth flee. Nothing in that verse about being destroyed.

"from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

This is when Jesus returns creation back to God, as the Word that formed them in the first place. John 1:1-3

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

This creation will simply and instantly cease to exist, and a new one will come into existence at the same time. The Word, Jesus, in action.

Back to Isaiah:

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy."

Still talking about Jerusalem not the New Jerusalem. To get ready to rule from Jerusalem, Jesus has to make some drastic changes like the ones made in Zechariah 14. Even at the 6th Seal all the Mountains and Continents are moved around prior to the 1st Trumpet even sounding. The Second Coming will be a huge change to the earth as we know it, but this creation still has a thousand years to go. The reason Isaiah 65 is about the Millennium is that death is still mentioned and that is the last enemy before the NHNE comes about. The new earth and the New Jerusalem will be hundreds of times larger than anything we can see and build today.

But this earth will have a different environment because the curse of sin and death will be removed, even if people dying still happens. So creating a new heaven and earth is still relevant for living in the Millennium. Jerusalem in the ME will still be relevant.

At the end of the Millennium, humanity will be given one more test to rebel and choose Satan, or continue to obey God. Those who choose Satan are the last enemy of death to die. 1 Corinthians 15:25-28

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

When God becomes all in all, that is when current creation ceases and the next one begins like nothing happened. Every one on earth catches their breath and watch as the New Jerusalem descends from heaven.

Isaiah 65 is the subduing of the earth by mass population growth in order to take advantage of the NHNE when it arrives. Isaiah 65 is a new earth and heaven after the baptism of fire, just like there was a new earth and heaven for Noah and his family after the baptism of water.

 

[Marty fox]

In prophecies (and especially Revelation) there are often images that are meant to be interpreted. This is one of them. The interpretation can be discerned by looking at earlier Scriptures. For instance...

In Genesis 37, Joseph shared a vision in which his father and mother were visualized as the sun and moon, and himself and his brothers were all stars. The sun, moon, and other stars bowed down to Joseph's star in the dream. This dream was about power, the kind that government wields. Joseph went down to Egypt, became an important officer there, and eventually his brothers did come to literally bow before him, and he held the power of life and death over them.

In both Isaiah and Revelation, this is the sense in which "the heavens" are alluded to - it is speaking of the leaders of the tribes of Israel, the "stars" of Joseph's dream.

-Jarrod

This same vision is also the beginning of revelation chapter 12

 

[PinSeeker]

I have great difficulty understanding how the Coming of Christ for the Church relates to the Millennial period. I'm open.

It does appear that Isa 65 corresponds to Rev 21. It's the timing of these things I can't figure out--not the statements of fact.

Hm. Interesting post. I see a lot of humility in it, which is... awesome; we don't see enough of that on this forum... ... and I would even apply that to myself.

So here's how I would answer you on this, Randy:

Maybe the thing to do is to understand Christ's coming as to the church ~ to claim it and to fully redeem it, once and for all ~ rather than for it, because His second coming is not to remove it or transport it to some other location but to finally... well, in the words of God in Revelation 21, "make all things new," which is to return all of creation (which includes us, of course) to its initially created, unfallen state. If you understand it that way, then... well, in my opinion, at least... backing into this, the unavoidable conclusion is that at that time, the millennial period has come to a close, and if that's the case, the unavoidable conclusion ~ and the correct one ~ is that we are in the midst of the millennial period now.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

op: ONE new heavens and new earth?
Yes.

I have great difficulty understanding how the Coming of Christ for the Church relates to the Millennial period. I'm open.

Precious friend, I humbly hope and pray this will be helpful:

Timeline of "New Heavens and New Earth"? Before or after the millennium?:

1) In "The [ Heavenly ] Revelation Of The Mystery" Current Age Of Grace, The Church, the
individual members ( beginning with One apostle, Paul ) of The Body Of Christ, either die /
/ live and are resurrected/raptured In God's Great GRACE Departure! To receive/lose rewards
at The Judgment Seat Of Christ, and To rule and reign in heavens ( Romans - Philemon ).

7 years Prior to the Prophesied Coming Of Christ...

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):

...immediately after The Mystery resurrection/rapture Of The Body Of Christ:

2) ( Daniel, Matthew, and Revelation ):

a) Next is continuation of God's [ now Suspended ] earthly Prophecy, for Israel and the nations,​

to see the man of sin, son of perdition, and to go through Great Tribulation, after which:​

​

b) Christ Returns To Rule and Reign ( with His [ prophesied ] resurrected Twelve apostles "over the

[ resurrected / then living ] Twelve tribes Of Israel" Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30 ), who "enter the​

earthly kingdom," for 1000 years! Then, near the end:​

​

c) There is one more minor Satan-led skirmish, and then the second prophesied resurrection,​

which is all Unbelievers [ not found In The Book Of Life ] of all ages, to stand at the Great​

White Throne Judgment, and cast into the lake of fire, where "death And hell" are also cast.​

After This "Final Defeat Of Death," Then there is:​

d) Christ "Bringing In Eternal Life And Righteousness" in The New Heavens And New Earth! ​

For Ever and Ever!! ♫ ↑​

Precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified In
Christ And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!!!

Amen.

 

[Randy Kluth]

op: ONE new heavens and new earth?
Yes.

Precious friend, I humbly hope and pray this will be helpful:

Timeline of "New Heavens and New Earth"? Before or after the millennium?:

1) In "The [ Heavenly ] Revelation Of The Mystery" Current Age Of Grace, The Church, the
individual members ( beginning with One apostle, Paul ) of The Body Of Christ, either die /
/ live and are resurrected/raptured In God's Great GRACE Departure! To receive/lose rewards
at The Judgment Seat Of Christ, and To rule and reign in heavens ( Romans - Philemon ).

7 years Prior to the Prophesied Coming Of Christ...

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):

...immediately after The Mystery resurrection/rapture Of The Body Of Christ:

2) ( Daniel, Matthew, and Revelation ):

a) Next is continuation of God's [ now Suspended ] earthly Prophecy, for Israel and the nations,​

to see the man of sin, son of perdition, and to go through Great Tribulation, after which:​

​

b) Christ Returns To Rule and Reign ( with His [ prophesied ] resurrected Twelve apostles "over the

[ resurrected / then living ] Twelve tribes Of Israel" Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30 ), who "enter the​

earthly kingdom," for 1000 years! Then, near the end:​

​

c) There is one more minor Satan-led skirmish, and then the second prophesied resurrection,​

which is all Unbelievers [ not found In The Book Of Life ] of all ages, to stand at the Great​

White Throne Judgment, and cast into the lake of fire, where "death And hell" are also cast.​

After This "Final Defeat Of Death," Then there is:​

d) Christ "Bringing In Eternal Life And Righteousness" in The New Heavens And New Earth! ​

For Ever and Ever!! ♫ ↑​

Precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified In
Christ And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!!!

Amen.

You're completely wrong, in my opinion, with the typical Dispensational talking points. It is entirely suspect when you hold to nearly every major point in the Dispensational viewpoint. Why, for example, do you not question whether there will be a "7 year Tribulation?" There is absolutely no mention of a 7 year Tribulation in the book of Revelation, and we are told *not* to add to the contents of that book!

Why do you assume, with Dispensationalism, that the Reign of Antichrist, which is actually 3.5 years, is the same as the Wrath of God that the Bible predicts will take place at Christ's 2nd Coming? Certainly some of the events that are described in Revelation are depicted as "God's Wrath," but what would make you conclude that this is the "Wrath" the Church is immune from? Why, for example, wouldn't you conclude that the Bible is speaking of "Eternal Judgment" when speaking of the Wrath of God we are immune from as Christians?

You assert with apparent "certainty" a Pretribulational "mystery" that indicates it is a "mystery" and not laid out, doctrinally, in Scriptures. This should make a bright red light flash off in your mind! You should, in fact, recognize the danger in holding to a modern position that has little basis in Church history, with the exception that the Church has always expected Christ's return to be "soon."

We should always be "ready" does not translate into "imminent expectation." Rather, just living the Christian life, morally and spiritually, makes us "ready" at all times for Christ's coming, no matter when it comes!

As for the Millennium and the question of when New Jerusalem descends from heaven, we are on the same page with respect to Premillennialism and the Salvation of National Israel. I just don't automatically put a Pretribulational Rapture together with my Premillennialism, as Darby did in the 1830s. All of his beliefs should be scrutinized with Bible in hand. We should not just be trying to find "proofs" for our preconceived eschatological position.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hm. Interesting post. I see a lot of humility in it, which is... awesome; we don't see enough of that on this forum... ... and I would even apply that to myself.

So here's how I would answer you on this, Randy:

Maybe the thing to do is to understand Christ's coming as to the church ~ to claim it and to fully redeem it, once and for all ~ rather than for it, because His second coming is not to remove it or transport it to some other location but to finally... well, in the words of God in Revelation 21, "make all things new," which is to return all of creation (which includes us, of course) to its initially created, unfallen state. If you understand it that way, then... well, in my opinion, at least... backing into this, the unavoidable conclusion is that at that time, the millennial period has come to a close, and if that's the case, the unavoidable conclusion ~ and the correct one ~ is that we are in the midst of the millennial period now.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

Thanks brother. I guess we'll find out when we find out. I still think there are bits of information I don't yet have--not even after many, many years of study. Although I've been interested in eschatology all my life, I don't think I've studied this particular issue enough. I'm firmly Premillennial, but not understanding the Millennium itself, I really can't be dogmatic about anything related to it, or even argue very well for one position or another.

So if there is to be a Millennium I can't say when the New Jerusalem would descend from heaven, at the beginning of the Millennium, or at the end? Of course, if you're Amillennial, the question for you is moot. We are already in the Millennium and New Jerusalem has not yet descended, correct?

I was raised Amillennial as a young person without fully realizing, and became Premillennial after coming under the influence of Premillennialists. But I do think they have a strong argument, despite the extensive history of Amillennialism.

 

[PinSeeker]

Thanks brother. I guess we'll find out when we find out. I still think there are bits of information I don't yet have--not even after many, many years of study. Although I've been interested in eschatology all my life, I don't think I've studied this particular issue enough. I'm firmly Premillennial, but not understanding the Millennium itself, I really can't be dogmatic about anything related to it, or even argue very well for one position or another.

Okay, I mean, points well taken. But... and this is just me... if you say you don't think you've studied this particular issue enough. and not understanding the Millennium itself, and can't argue very well for one position or another, then how can you say you're firmly Premillennial? Just because you've decided you want to be? I mean, with that, I'm really just making a point, rather than really asking you that question, but comments welcome, of course.

So if there is to be a Millennium I can't say when the New Jerusalem would descend from heaven, at the beginning of the Millennium, or at the end?

Hmmm... Well, I think that both premillennial believers ~ historic and dispensational premillennial believers (there is quite a difference; I'm not sure where you'd put yourself) ~ and amillennial (also called nunc(now)-millennial believers) would agree that the New Jerusalem comes down to us from heaven after the millennium itself.

We are already in the Millennium and New Jerusalem has not yet descended, correct?

Right...

I was raised Amillennial as a young person without fully realizing, and became Premillennial after coming under the influence of Premillennialists.

Interesting. I would say the opposite is true for me.

But I do think they have a strong argument, despite the extensive history of Amillennialism.

By 'they,' are you referring here to premillennialists? I'm not arguing that premillennialists have a strong argument, actually. But it requires understanding several things in Scripture differently than they should be, or (possibly) being ignorant of them. Not to be insulting of anyone's intelligence or ability to reason through things, but just not being cognizant of those things.

I would welcome further conversation on these things.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

 

[Davidpt]

Hm. Interesting post. I see a lot of humility in it, which is... awesome; we don't see enough of that on this forum... ... and I would even apply that to myself.

So here's how I would answer you on this, Randy:

Maybe the thing to do is to understand Christ's coming as to the church ~ to claim it and to fully redeem it, once and for all ~ rather than for it, because His second coming is not to remove it or transport it to some other location but to finally... well, in the words of God in Revelation 21, "make all things new," which is to return all of creation (which includes us, of course) to its initially created, unfallen state. If you understand it that way, then... well, in my opinion, at least... backing into this, the unavoidable conclusion is that at that time, the millennial period has come to a close, and if that's the case, the unavoidable conclusion ~ and the correct one ~ is that we are in the midst of the millennial period now.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

Apparently, you likely think the NHNE is instantaneous, that God just snaps His fingers, then just like that everything is brand new? No doubt God is able to do that. But would He do it in that manner? IOW, maybe the NHNE are a process that begins with A), for example, and is not finished in it's entirety until after C), for example, has been accomplished?

Per this scenario, A) meaning the thousand years, B) meaning satan's little season, C) meaning the great white throne judgment. IOW, He begins creating the NHNE at the beginning of the thousand years and doesn't finish until the great white throne judgment has been accomplished.

Even the days of creation didn't involve Him doing all of that instantaneously. He spread that out over time that consisted of 6 days rather than doing that in a snap of the fingers, so to speak. Why would it be any different when He begins creating a new heaven and new earth, that He spreads that out over an era of time rather than doing it instantaneously?

You would think something has to explain the following post Christ's return.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

What I have underlined, I can't see any of that involving the here and now before Christ returns. Especially when Matthew 25:31 is already undeniably telling us when He initially sits upon the throne of His glory. Nor can see I see any of that involving 24 hours or less. Nor can I see any of that involving all eternity. Still, it has to fit something, though.

 

[PinSeeker]

Apparently, you likely think the NHNE is instantaneous, that God just snaps His fingers, then just like that everything is brand new?

LOL! Never heard that before... Me? No.

No doubt God is able to do that. But would He do it in that manner? IOW, maybe the NHNE are a process that begins with A), for example, and is not finished in it's entirety until after C), for example, has been accomplished?

Per this scenario, A) meaning the thousand years, B) meaning satan's little season, C) meaning the great white throne judgment. IOW, He begins creating the NHNE at the beginning of the thousand years and doesn't finish until the great white throne judgment has been accomplished.

Even the days of creation didn't involve Him doing all of that instantaneously. He spread that out over time that consisted of 6 days rather than doing that in a snap of the fingers, so to speak. Why would it be any different when He begins creating a new heaven and new earth, that He spreads that out over an era of time rather than doing it instantaneously?

Hmmm... I guess to this, I would say there are two senses to understand the coming of NHNE:

• in the sense you are saying, and...
• in the sense that it comes down to us after Jesus's return and the final Judgment, with all in very short order.

And it is very possible to believe both of these senses simultaneously; the two senses are not mutually exclusive or opposed to each other or contradictory. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

You would think something has to explain the following post Christ's return.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

What I have underlined, I can't see any of that involving the here and now before Christ returns.

Agree.

Especially when Matthew 25:31 is already undeniably telling us when He initially sits upon the throne of His glory. Nor can see I see any of that involving 24 hours or less. Nor can I see any of that involving all eternity. Still, it has to fit something, though.

Hmmm, well, it all fits, certainly. I think we would all agree on that. I think, though, just between you and me and how we see these things, at the very least it seems we have a different understanding of what it means for Christ to sit upon the throne of His glory. Maybe not, but so it seems.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davy]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

Those who understand the Isaiah 65 Scripture and also that Rev.21 is after... the GWT Judgment, are not creating a contradiction between those 2 Scriptures. They both agree with each other.

The real question for you ought to be, why are you following an old doctrine of the 2nd century A.D. Gnostics which were made up of occultists from the pagan Greeks? That's who got 2nd century Gnostic doctrines like Amillennialism started, which is what you are actually pushing, while trying to deceive with saying you are Premill.

The Amill doctrine falsely believes that on the day of Christ's future return, that day right then begins the NHNE time. It does not. And one of the ways to easily know it does not, is because Christ's future reign over the unsaved, and the leftovers of those who came up against Jerusalem, will still... exist.

The following is for AFTER Christ's future return...

Zech 14:16-20
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowl's before the altar.
KJV

 

[Randy Kluth]

Okay, I mean, points well taken. But... and this is just me... if you say you don't think you've studied this particular issue enough. and not understanding the Millennium itself, and can't argue very well for one position or another, then how can you say you're firmly Premillennial? Just because you've decided you want to be? I mean, with that, I'm really just making a point, rather than really asking you that question, but comments welcome, of course.

That's a reasonable question. I tend to be "opinionated" up to a certain degree in my Premill position because externally it makes sense. The words being what they are, the position appears to be literal.

But this doesn't mean I understand what all of the words mean. I can understand the Revelation saying there will be a thousand years, but I don't understand, "Why 1000?" And why the need for some to be glorified at that point and others not?

I speculate, but what pushes me in the direction of Premill is the fact that OT prophecy seems to speak not just of Messiah coming to "end history," but rather, to establish a final reign for the Son of David over Israel. If so, then I would speculate that the Church is glorified *before* Israel is glorified in order to bring order by glorified men over a still-mortal earth. Angels don't seem to be doing this job at present?

My presumption is that the promises God made to Abraham require a fulfillment of mortal humanity on the present earth. If the "New Earth" comes before all of this prophecy is fulfilled, then God's word failed. And that can't be. Either that, or somehow the present Church Age *is* the fulfillment of all biblical prophecy. I just don't see that...

Hmmm... Well, I think that both premillennial believers ~ historic and dispensational premillennial believers (there is quite a difference; I'm not sure where you'd put yourself) ~ and amillennial (also called nunc(now)-millennial believers) would agree that the New Jerusalem comes down to us from heaven after the millennium itself.

Yes, that's how I've always seen it, being raised up with that denominational position. My 1st commentary on the Revelation was by Lenski, who saw all of the figures as basically symbolic. I liked the commentary very much, but again, it was my very 1st commentary on Revelation. I've read a number of commentaries since.

I'm not a Dispensationalist, though it may appear as such at times because I agree with them that Israel will be restored, nationally, in a future age, after Christ returns.

I would welcome further conversation on these things.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

Thanks, I don't care what your position is--I love discussing Revelation and Biblical Theology. Feel free at any time. My *only* concern when discussing the Bible with others is in maintaining respect and controlling the temper.

I think you have that down!

 

[Davidpt]

Those who understand the Isaiah 65 Scripture and also that Rev.21 is after... the GWT Judgment, are not creating a contradiction between those 2 Scriptures. They both agree with each other.

The real question for you ought to be, why are you following an old doctrine of the 2nd century A.D. Gnostics which were made up of occultists from the pagan Greeks? That's who got 2nd century Gnostic doctrines like Amillennialism started, which is what you are actually pushing, while trying to deceive with saying you are Premill.

The Amill doctrine falsely believes that on the day of Christ's future return, that day right then begins the NHNE time. It does not. And one of the ways to easily know it does not, is because Christ's future reign over the unsaved, and the leftovers of those who came up against Jerusalem, will still... exist.

The following is for AFTER Christ's future return...

Zech 14:16-20
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowl's before the altar.
KJV

Amil means the millennium precedes the 2nd coming. Premil means the millennium follows the 2nd coming. There is no such thing, nor has there ever been, an Amil who thinks the millennium is after the 2nd coming. My position is and always has been, the millennium follows the 2nd coming. It doesn't matter how I might decide to want to try and reason Isaiah 65:17 vs. Revelation 21:1 since it will never make me an Amil, regardless. Not unless I also choose to take the millennium to be meaning before the 2nd coming, which I don't. Therefore, you are talking utter nonsense claiming I'm an Amil pretending to be a Premil. Or maybe you are simply clueless that one can't be Amil unless one agrees that the millennium precedes the 2nd coming. If you were clueless you shouldn't be any more.

 

[Davidpt]

My presumption is that the promises God made to Abraham require a fulfillment of mortal humanity on the present earth. If the "New Earth" comes before all of this prophecy is fulfilled, then God's word failed. And that can't be. Either that, or somehow the present Church Age *is* the fulfillment of all biblical prophecy. I just don't see that...

Here's one sure way to determine when the new earth comes.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


Now ask yourself this. Once Christ returns will it or will it not be wherein dwelleth righteousness? Which could involve a number of things. As in no more crooked courts, no more crooked judges, no more crooked cops, so on and so on. IOW, every single thing regardless what it might involve, will be dealt with fairly and righteously.

Do you seriously think that won't be the case once Christ returns? There you go then. Now take note once again as to what the text states. One can't be dwelling in a place wherein dwelleth righteousness without it involving a new heaven and new earth. You can't have one and not the other as well.

Is one going to seriously argue that once Christ returns that it will not equal this---wherein dwelleth righteousness? That's the only way the NHNE can't begin once He returns, because it won't be a place wherein dwelleth righteousness. Therefore, this verse alone convinces me that the NHNE begin with His return. And if the thousand years follow the 2nd coming it has to mean the NHNE begin with His return, otherwise one has to conclude that it will not equal this once He returns---wherein dwelleth righteousness.

One might argue, what about the rebellion after the thousand years? Does that sound like a place wherein dwelleth righteousness? The fact God devours them sounds like righteousness prevailed to me.

 

[ewq1938]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

Isaiah 65:17 is prophecy and Rev 21 is fulfillment. The NHNE does not begin until after the GWTJ and the LOF.

 

[Davy]

Amil means the millennium precedes the 2nd coming.

Yeah, I know. And Amil also... teaches that the NHNE time happens on the day of Christ's return, when it does not, and why is that? It's because Amil instead teaches that the "thousand years" of Rev.20 is of THIS present world when it is not, because JESUS HAS NOT YET RETURNED TO THIS DAY.

So when you claim things like Jesus is reigning now, that we're already in the 1,000 years, or even NHNE timing, then you are pushing a 'modifed' version of Amil theory, yet it is still Amil theory and is false.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here's one sure way to determine when the new earth comes.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Now ask yourself this. Once Christ returns will it or will it not be wherein dwelleth righteousness? Which could involve a number of things. As in no more crooked courts, no more crooked judges, no more crooked cops, so on and so on. IOW, every single thing regardless what it might involve, will be dealt with fairly and righteously.

I could say that righteousness dwells on the earth now, because there are righteous Christians on earth right now. But that isn't what the passage is saying. It is talking specifically about a "New Earth" in which righteousness dwells in a way that is different from today.

So we both agree that the New earth and the New Jerusalem is not yet here and will come sometime after Jesus comes? Will righteousness dwell then on the New Earth? Of course. But the question is: will the New Earth come immediately, or come after the Millennium?

In my view, Jesus will come and the earth will continue in the way it is now, with a new Christian population on a still-mortal earth, just as we have it today. It will have righteousness on the earth, since there will still be mortal Christians on earth. But will it be the New Earth? I don't think so.

We are indeed looking forward to the New Earth, whenever that will come. That may be at Christ's coming, or it may be after the Millennium. Regardless, we are looking forward to it. It will be, I think, a new kind of righteousness, unlike today and unlike my conception of the Millennium. So it will come either at Christ's coming or at the end of the Millennium.

Do you seriously think that won't be the case once Christ returns? There you go then. Now take note once again as to what the text states. One can't be dwelling in a place wherein dwelleth righteousness without it involving a new heaven and new earth. You can't have one and not the other as well.

I never said the New Earth has to come at Christ's coming. There will be righteousness on earth during the Millennium, and it will be a little different than the present age, because Satan will be bound. But I think the righteousness coming at the end of the Millennium will have a pure righteousness unlike anything we see in mortal humanity.

Is one going to seriously argue that once Christ returns that it will not equal this---wherein dwelleth righteousness?

Right, I think there will be a greater degree of righteousness among mankind, because Satan will be bound. But it still will not be the pure righteousness to come at the end of the Millennium when all mortality goes away.

That's the only way the NHNE can't begin once He returns, because it won't be a place wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Yes, that's a reason why I don't think the NHNE takes place at the coming of Christ. I think it takes place after the Millennium. There will be a greater measure of righteousness on the mortal earth after Christ's coming, but nothing compared to what comes when mortality goes away at the end of the Millennium.

Therefore, this verse alone convinces me that the NHNE begin with His return. And if the thousand years follow the 2nd coming it has to mean the NHNE begin with His return, otherwise one has to conclude that it will not equal this once He returns---wherein dwelleth righteousness.

One might argue, what about the rebellion after the thousand years? Does that sound like a place wherein dwelleth righteousness? The fact God devours them sounds like righteousness prevailed to me.

I never said the Millennium is the fulfillment of "righteousness" on the "New Earth." If you're saying that's my position, you're wrong. I think the fulfillment of righteousness takes place at the end of the Millennium when the NHNE comes.