City-Data Forum Size Matters (Jesus, Bible, verse, translate)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

10-09-2009, 03:26 PM
 Location: Seattle, Washington 8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times Reputation: 1690

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mike555 All church age believers, both who are alive at His coming and those who have died and are in Heaven are a part of the Church and will inhabit the New Jerusalem. Nowhere did I say that only those who are alive at His coming go into the New Jerusalem. You continually invent things in your mind and then present it as though someone else said it and then you debate against it. A furlong is said to be 1/8 of a mile, and 12000 furlongs converts to roughly 1500 statute miles. I'll take their word for it.
The furlong you state is from the decree in England in the 1300's but what of the 1st century definition?

"In the Roman system, there were 625 feet to the stade, eight stade to the mile, and three miles to the league. A league was considered to be the distance a man could walk in one hour, and the mile (mille, meaning one thousand) consisted of 1000 passus (paces, 5 feet, or double-step)."
(Furlong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So how many miles is that? It would translate to 1,420 miles... still not 1500 miles using the Roman system, and not necessarily the Greek stade.

In the 1st millennium bc commercial domination of the Mediterranean passed into the hands of the Greeks and then the Romans. A basic Greek unit of length was the finger (19.3 mm, or 0.76 inch); 16 fingers equaled about 30 cm (about 1 foot), and 24 fingers equaled 1 Olympic cubit. The coincidence with the Egyptian 24 digits equaling 1 small cubit suggests what is altogether probable on the basis of the commercial history of the era, that the Greeks derived their measures partly from the Egyptians and partly from the Babylonians, probably via the Phoenicians who for a long time dominated vast expanses of the Mediterranean trade. Roman linear measures were based on the Roman standard foot (pes). This unit was divided into 16 digits or into 12 inches. In both cases its length was the same. Metrologists have come to differing conclusions concerning its exact length, but the currently accepted modern equivalents are 296 mm, or 11.65 inches. Expressed in terms of these equivalents, the digit (digitus), or 1/16 foot, was 18.5 mm (0.73 inch); the inch (uncia or pollicus), or 1/12 foot, was 24.67 mm (0.97 inch); and the palm (palmus), or 1/4 foot, was 74 mm (2.91 inches).
Larger linear units were always expressed in feet. The cubit (cubitum) was 11/2 feet (444 mm, or 17.48 inches). Five Roman feet made the pace (passus), equivalent to 1.48 metres, or 4.86 feet.
The most frequently used itinerary measures were the furlong or stade (stadium), the mile (mille passus), and the league (leuga). The stade consisted of 625 feet (185 metres, or 606.9 feet), or 125 paces, and was equal to one-eighth mile. The mile was 5,000 feet (1,480 metres, or 4,856 feet), or 8 stades. The league had 7,500 feet (2,220 metres, or 7,283 feet), or 1,500 paces. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref796593

So you see that a mile to the Romans was equivelant to 4856 feet and a stade is an eighth of that mile. That would make it less than our current term "mile" which is 5280 feet. This makes it closer to 1379 miles by today's version of "mile." 1379, 1420, 1500, or 1200....but according to the history of ancient geography, Eratosthenes estimated the earth measured 250,000 stadia which is equivalent to 25,000 geographical miles. He was darn close... "His measurement of 250,000 stadia (the immediate result of his calculation) would be equivalent to 25,000 geographical miles, while the actual circumference of the earth at the equator falls very little short of 25,000 English miles." A history of ancient geography among ... - Google Books

Truly 1200 geographical miles would be more accurate than 1500 no matter how you look at it.

But the point is that there is no way to have a city 1200 miles high. That would be well beyond the earth's atmosphere and still more than 3 times the distance from earth's surface to the space station.

You still hold that the New Jerusalem is being described literally but you have to say that the bible is just kidding when it says the city is that high. Is it built that high or is it like our current airspace regulations? That so many miles of airspace above a country belongs to that country.

Tell me truly... do you think the New Jerusalem extends upward into the solar system? or is there no solar system in the New Heaven and New Earth?

Also, I would like to know if you think the city will contain 1500 or 1200 miles of living space. If it is just calculated airspace then we cannot use the area cubed to calculate how many people will indeed fit in the New Jerusalem but if you believe that there will be 1500 or 1200 miles of living space then we can figure how many people will be residing smack dab in the earth's atmosphere being burned alive or rather burned resurrected.

10-09-2009, 04:00 PM
 3,067 posts, read 3,486,807 times Reputation: 241
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mike555 it is a city that currently is in Heaven and will in the future decend from Heaven and be suspended over the earth. ....... When measurements are given, there is nothing symbolic about it. Revelation is giving us the description of the New Jerusalem.
again, I dont believe any of that stuff.

Juts as I do not believe in the earth's 4 corners...

and where is this rule that says a measurement is never symbolic?

Take the 6 days of Genesis for example.
While the measure of time is clearly a "Day" I believe it's just a symbol.

Just as when someone says that America will have a "Day of Reckoning" I dont believe thats talking about one measure of time limited to just 24 hours.

Just as when Jesus toled us to forgive 70x7.....

So my view is that when dealing with the book of Revelation, you should NEVER assume anything is not a symbol...heck the whole book might be just one long symbol...

10-09-2009, 04:01 PM
 Location: Rome, Georgia 2,657 posts, read 3,199,356 times Reputation: 1837
Quote:
 Originally Posted by lifesigns64 Size matters to me regarding Heaven that is!!!!! I remember one of my kids doing a project and getting the measurements of heaven (cubits) and coming to the conclusion that heaven was approximately the size of the state of North Carolina. They are not here right now for me to ask. Does anyone know the dimensions I think in Ezekial and Revealations that were given . . . . and what we can compare it's size to?
If heaven ain't alot like Dixie, I don't wanna go.

10-09-2009, 04:02 PM
 Location: Seattle, Washington 8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times Reputation: 1690
Quote:
 Originally Posted by lifesigns64 I'm spending some time researching the "size" of heaven. Thank you for your responses, as it has helped in how and where to seek some of the information. I had a conversation with a pastor here on the car rider line for school pick up today . . . . I do believe it is a physical place, and respectfully disagree with Reverend, because it literally has been given measurement, and description as some of the above poster's presented. I am not well informed enough, to comment on what rings true to me yet, but thank you for all the replies. There was another reason for asking it . . .as one poster, I forget who know, referenced . . . the number of people born, yet to be born and alive today . . . . in comparison to the size of it. Thanks.
I am glad the responses helped you. I would ask your pastor if he/she believes that the New Jerusalem is built 1200-1500 miles upward into the solar system. That would be over 3 times the distance from the earth's surface to the space station. How can a city be built that high and still be on earth?

I would love to know the answer to that.

This is why I see it as an estimation of the greatness of the city not it's actual earthly measurements.

Check out some other sects theory of a New Jerusalem.

Catholics: "Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject."

2nd to 6th century Christian Montanists: "For the Montanists, the high plane between Pepuza and Tymion was an ideal landing place for the heavenly New Jerusalem."

Protestant: Many schools of thought, most fall in line with the Catholic view.

Lutheran: "Lutheran minister John Christopher Hartwick unsuccessfully attempted to establish the intentional community of New Jerusalem in Otsego County, New York and elsewhere."

Puritans: "The Puritans were inspired by the passages in Revelations about the New Jerusalem, which they interpreted as being a symbol for the New World. The Puritans saw themselves as the builders of the New Jerusalem on earth. This idea was foundational to American nationalism."

Liberation Theology/Emerging Church: The New Jerusalem symbolizes a way of life, or future goal of the world for peace and harmony. Some believe that Jerusalem is the symbol of the Church and so the New Jerusalem is the prophetic description of a New Church.

Latter day Saints: "God will establish the New Jerusalem at the site of the Temple Lot in the present-day city of Independence, Missouri. Smith drafted a detailed plat of Zion based on the biblical description of the New Jerusalem."

Jehovah's Witnesses: " New Jerusalem is the number of anointed Christians serving as Kings and Priests (144,000)."

Islam: "The Kaaba is a large cuboidal building located inside the mosque known as al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. Even though Kaaba is an asymmetrical and imperfect cube, Muslims believe it is comparable to Biblical explanation of perfect cube of 12,000 x 12,000 x 12,000 stadia."

Christian Socialists: "Christian Socialists drew on this inspiration to envision an explicitly socialist society that could be built in the here and now through political work."

New Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now this is just what I gleaned from Wikipedia so I'm not endorsing its accurateness by any means...just trying to show that there are many thoughts about the location and dimensions of the New Jerusalem.

However, none of them address why the dimensions given in Revelation 21:16 describe a cube that is 1200-1500 miles high yet that is impossible given the travel in space we have done unless it is taken to mean something other than literally 1200-1500 miles high.

10-09-2009, 04:15 PM
 3,067 posts, read 3,486,807 times Reputation: 241
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mike555 The principle is that the Bible is to be taken literally unless the context is obviously symbolic. .
Who invented that rule?
That does not sound like something a bible student would support, nor a bible translator..

There is nothing in the front of my bible that tells me that I have to take something to mean only a non-symbolic understanding unless there is something "obviously" symbolic about it.
And the term "Obviously symbolic" ...I mean really?, when dealing with the book of Revelation, I got to tell you that that book is not the one I would look at if I were searching for a non-symbolic text.

The truth is that every verse in that book of the Bible may have a true symbolic understanding, with several layers of meanings.

It's foolish to twist the things that appear in the book of Revelation to be non-symbolic when it is clear to anyone that that book is written in a style that is heavy with symbolic images...

10-09-2009, 04:25 PM
 Location: UPSTATE SC 1,405 posts, read 2,108,702 times Reputation: 636
Quote:
The pastor was not "my" pastor, just someone I am acquainted with through baseball, and on the car rider line, but I run into him alot and will ask.

I love all the information you gave me and will go back and re-read. Thank you for this post, I appreciat it. Blessings,

10-09-2009, 04:43 PM
 Location: Indianapolis 4,325 posts, read 5,131,452 times Reputation: 666
So what about all the other species created by God? Where do they fit into heaven if this heaven of yours is material? God is soul and energy. Why would He create billions of planets and make earth the place of heaven? Why would He leave His own home in the spirit world to live here in the material world when He is a soul and not material?

Where are all the other planets inhabitants going to dwell if heaven is going to be here? Don't you think they have a right to live in their own heaven?

God's home is in the middle of all His creations. Earth is just a little speck in there with the rest of the planets. Heaven will never be here in the spiritual God sense. We will reach heaven on earth in the material sense when all wars stop, we know peace, and the two commandments that Jesus taught are in play 100% of the time. I'm pretty sure no one on earth now will be here to see it from earth, not even our great grand children. We'll view it from heaven but not from here.

10-09-2009, 05:34 PM
 20,292 posts, read 15,638,239 times Reputation: 7403
Quote:
You don't give God very much credit do you!!! Do you not think that the God who spoke the universe into existance with the word of His mouth and who completely renovates it in destroying the present heavens and earth and then recreates them in a state of perfection, can also bring the New Jerusalem which is now in heaven down to the earth. And do you seek to impose your logic and your extremely limited understanding of God ON God?

Here's what God has to say about it:

Job 38:1 THEN the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2) Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
3) Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4) ''Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth! Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5) Who set its measurements, since you know? Or who stretched the line on it?
6)''On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone
,
7) When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8)''Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9) When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band,

10) And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors,
11) And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall you proud waves stop'?

12)''Have you ever in you life commanded the morning, And caused the dawn to know its place;
13) That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?

16)''Have you entered into the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep?
17)''Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
18)''Tell Me, if you know all this.

And you think to question God's ability regarding any detail of the New Jerusalem???

10-09-2009, 05:41 PM
 Location: Seattle, Washington 8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times Reputation: 1690
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mike555 You don't give God very much credit do you!!! Do you not think that the God who spoke the universe into existance with the word of His mouth and who completely renovates it in destroying the present heavens and earth and then recreates them in a state of perfection, can also bring the New Jerusalem which is now in heaven down to the earth. And do you seek to impose your logic and your extremely limited understanding of God ON God?
Same way you say that it is 1500 miles! How, then, do you know since OUR view of measurement is not the same as the 1st century? Same way you do when you say that God wants ALL to be saved but somehow will not save everyone.

Quote:
 Here's what God has to say about it: Job 38:1 THEN the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, 2) Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3) Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4) ''Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth! Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5) Who set its measurements, since you know? Or who stretched the line on it? 6)''On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7) When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8)''Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; 9) When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band, 10) And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors, 11) And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall you proud waves stop'? 12)''Have you ever in you life commanded the morning, And caused the dawn to know its place; 13) That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it? 16)''Have you entered into the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep? 17)''Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? 18)''Tell Me, if you know all this. And you think to question God's ability regarding any detail of the New Jerusalem???
I question how you can say the New Jerusalem will literally be 1200-1500 miles high! Do you understand how high that is? Yet there will literally be a city that reaches that height? Reminds me of the tower of Babel!!!!

10-09-2009, 06:12 PM
 20,292 posts, read 15,638,239 times Reputation: 7403
Quote:
 Originally Posted by alanMolstad Who invented that rule? That does not sound like something a bible student would support, nor a bible translator.. There is nothing in the front of my bible that tells me that I have to take something to mean only a non-symbolic understanding unless there is something "obviously" symbolic about it. And the term "Obviously symbolic" ...I mean really?, when dealing with the book of Revelation, I got to tell you that that book is not the one I would look at if I were searching for a non-symbolic text. The truth is that every verse in that book of the Bible may have a true symbolic understanding, with several layers of meanings. It's foolish to twist the things that appear in the book of Revelation to be non-symbolic when it is clear to anyone that that book is written in a style that is heavy with symbolic images...
That's just what the preterists say, and look at their confusion.

Taking the Bible literally except when it's obviously presenting something symbolicly is an accepted rule for approaching the Bible. Except for those who want to spiritualize everything. It's easy enough to research it.
 Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over \$68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.