What will we take to heaven....?

[Eleanor]

Can you find an account of a bodiless soul or spirit in scripture?

As in Paul not knowing whether or not his body was caught up to heaven with his spirit, or if his spirit was caught up without his body (2 Co 12:1-2)?

 

[Josheb]

Revelations 21: 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Peter 3: 10 - 12 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

Meh. Anyone can quote scripture. Providing accurate, rational commentary is required.

I am a bit suspicious of your argument that God is evolving creation into "all things new" as it requires so many verses to be interpreted as hyperbolic.

No, it does not.

And you're not addressing the main point which is: God sometimes uses hyperbole.

God could destroy everything and make it all new or even exactly as it is.

Yes, He could. That is not a point in dispute. You're not addressing the primary point: Does God ever use hyperbole, or not? That is the question YOU have to answer. If the answer is, "Yes, God does, on occasion, use hyperbole to reveal divine truth," then we can discuss how to exegetically appraise what is and what is not hyperbole, but that cannot happen between us if you deny hyperbole exists in scripture.

God could create Heaven and Earth.

Yes, He did. That is not a point in dispute. The point in dispute is whether or not God ever uses hyperbole.

He did it, before He can do it again.

No, He cannot. He cannot do it for the reasons I have already explained: 1) All life on the planet would be destroyed and that kind of destruction is irreconcilable with the premise of salvation. Our entire doctrine of salvation is built on the premise that some people will be saved. The last time God destroyed the world He saved eight people. He proved He could destroy the world AND simultaneously save. A literal reading of a new heavens and earth contradicts that truth if and when its consequences are reasoned through to their logicaly necessary outcomes. If God literally destroys the heavens and the earth (which He does possess the faculties to do) then He will not be able to save anyone because everyone would be dead.

And God expects you and I to understand this logical necessity because He gave us a brain with which to reason.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.

That verse is meaningless if we're not supposed to reason with God's word and there is no salvation because everyone is destroyed at the elemental level. You are concerned that God is made a liar if He speaks with hyperbole (and your concern is commendable) but it is the literal reading of verses like this that make God a liar.

It is what the Bible states.

Would you like me to list ten verses that contain hyperbole and, therefore, should not be read literally? 20? 40? 100? Tell me how many it will take and I will provide them (or at least as many as I can find. I have already posted three. They are not sufficient for you. How many will it take before you are persuaded by God's own word?

Galatians 5:12 HCSB
I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves castrated!

Do you really think Paul wants people castrated? I hope not. Paul wishing people would mutilate themselves would go against every word about love, grace, mercy, etc. he ever wrote. If it is understood is expressing his personal frustration in hyperbole then the passage makes sense. otherwise, Paul is a nut case who wants his enemies to mutilate themselves.

Romans 12:19-21 ESV
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.

Galatians 5:12 would contradict Romans 12:20 and Proverbs 25:21 and Paul, the former Pharisee turned to Christ, was NOT going to contradict Tanakh. Paul is using hyperbole. God, in His infinite wisdom saw fit to have Paul express Paul's personal frustration and do so in a hyperbolic manner so as to communicate divine truth in His canon of scripture.

It is a stretch that so many verses about that end event are only hyperbolic.

No, it is not. Apocalyptic literature in the Bible is often extremely figurative. The exegetical rules vary dependent upon the type of book of the Bible being examined. History is treated different than art, and history and art are treated differently that prophecy. Gospels are exegeted differently the epistolary, and both gospel and epistolary are treated differently than history or apocalypse. Look it up. Do not take my word for it. One of the first things an exegete wants to do is 1) identify the author and his purpose, 2) identify the original audience, and 3) identify the type of book being exegeted.

All those verses actually means God is evolving what is old into the new, if not taken literally, but interpreted as hyperbole.

Incorrect. Again. It is not the newness that is disputed. I fully embrace and affirm God making all things new. How God makes all thing new is the question. Literalists will read the verses in question will say God literally destroys the creation He has self-reportedly claimed He intends to save and make new. The problem with that literalism is that there's no life left if everything is destroyed. The minute you say, "Well, Josh, not everything," you have implicitly conceded God spoke with some degree of hyperbole. You cannot have it both ways.

Consider this:

Revelation 21:1-4
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

John sees the new heaven and earth come down out of heaven. What? The new heaven comes down from the existing, old heaven? I thought the heavens (plural) were destroyed? How then can the new heaven come from the old heaven if the old heaven has been destroyed? John sees this in a vision and in this vision there are a bunch of people who will be God's people. Aren't the people in heaven already God's people? Are there some people who are not in heaven that will become God's people when the new heaven and earth come out of (the still existing) heaven? If so, then from where are these people observing the new heaven and earth's descent? Are they standing on earth? How can that be if the earth has been destroyed? There can't be people living on earth watching the descent of the new heavens and earth if the earth and all life on the planet has been destroyed at the elemental level. To what would the new heavens and earth descend if there's still an existing earth on which people are living and watching the new versions descend?

Can you not see that it is the literal reading that makes God a liar? Can you not see that it is the literal reading that creates contradictions within scripture?

When we start claiming verses are hyperbolic....

That is again, another gross misrepresentation of what I posted. No one "claimed" anything. Scripture was examined for what it states and what it can exegetically be made to say as a whole and reasonable, rational, exegetically sound conclusion was reached that does not self-contradict scripture and make God a liar. God is not going to destroy everybody to save them. That is irrational. Could He do it? Sure. Is that what He has said He will do? No. He saves us from destruction, not by destruction.

And, therefore, we see another reason why proper exegesis is critically import because salvation by destruction is completely antithetical to salvation by grace through faith. Salvation by destruction (the logical necessity of literal reading) is a bad soteriology.

, especially so many verses that state the same concept, where do we stop with labeling a concept supported by multiple verses as hyperbole?

Your argument there is one of numbers. You're imply a small number of verses would be okay, but a large number would not be okay. That, logically, means God can use only X number of hyperboles and no more. If a small number is permissible, let's say three verses of hyperbole are permissible, then four verses are not. Aside from the fact we're talking about a book of books that is enormous in size and you're permitting only a few cases of hyperbole, that argument 1) limits God, and 2) makes you the arbiter of God and His word.

The better alternative is to understand God, the Creator of both revelation and language, is free to use language in His revelation of Himself any way He so chooses, and it is incumbent upon the reader to understand every non-literal use of language every time it occurs no matter how few or how many times those figures of speech occur.

 

[QVQ]

The point in dispute is whether or not God ever uses hyperbole.

And who is qualified to sort through the Bible and label verses literal or hyperbole?
Is Luke 3: 8 literal? Could God really raise children of Abraham from rocks?

Now if God is perfecting His Creation gradually, creating a new heaven and earth through evolution because you have explained why He can't raise the dead or create new people from rocks, then the next step is to decide how the resurrected are going to get those new bodies in the new heaven and earth. Transmigration of souls, perhaps?

Every verse in the Bible could be a literary devices, not literal truth, in fact the entire Bible could be a myth.

You see? It is a rabbit hole.
If it is the literal truth then it says a certain thing. God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth.
Now a person can say "Nah, God can't do that." Or it actually means "evolving."

I tend to accept the traditional intepretations, man does have a soul separate from his body and God is going to create a new heaven and new earth, literally rather than examining each verse and deciding if it is literal or a literary device.

This is the literal truth, not hyperbole
Joshua 10: 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

 

[Josheb]

And who is qualified to sort through the Bible and label verses literal or hyperbole?

Hmmm.... you're not really reading my posts with any authenticity, are you? I have already answered that question so what you've just done is ask a question I have already answered, a question to which you have already been provided and answer.


The rules of exegesis are not arbitrary. They are not subjective, either. Neither are the sectarian. You and I can both Google phrases like "rules of biblical exegesis," or and Google will provide us with scores of websites (like this one HERE, or this one HERE) by a very diverse set of authors coming from an equally diverse set of (orthodox) Christian theologies and ALL of those sources will list the same principles. Proper exegesis is not a Reformed thing, or a Dispensationalist thing. It's not Augustinian, or Calvinist, or Wesleyan, or MacArthurian.

Read scripture exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text providing a reason to do otherwise.

That is exegesis 101.

I have already listed other basic precepts like,

1. Identify the author
2. Identify the audience
3. Understand the text as the original author and his original audience would have understood it
4. Identify the genre
5. The explicit interprets the implicit.
6. Scripture renders scripture.
7. Scripture never contradicts itsel.
8. The Old Testament informs the New Testament, and the New Testament explains the Old Testament (this is something DPists dispute and ignore).
9. Work outward from the verse to the paragraph to the passage to the chapter to the book to the Testament to scripture as a whole.

These are some of the most basic precepts in proper Bible exegesis. Others include an examination of the original language (Hebrew or Greek), diagramming the argument, considering historical and cultural contexts, the use of language, etc.
These things are not arbitrary or subjective.

And who is qualified to sort through the Bible and label verses literal or hyperbole?

The person trained in proper exegesis. That person could be you. Join the rest of us, those who've taken the time to learn how scripture is supposed to be exegeted. I will gladly provide a short list of books you can read to learn the basics. One of the most popular books beginners read is "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth," by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. Fee and Stuart are Dispensationalists, and I disagree with the Dispensationalist reading of scripture but the two of them wrote a fairly good entry-level book on how to read the Bible. For all I know you may have already read it.

But if you have read it then you've got no business asking...

And who is qualified to sort through the Bible and label verses literal or hyperbole?

Because the answer is "Anyone who has bothered to learn the science of Biblical exegesis."


If you like, I will post a short list of books from various perspective that will get you started on sound exegesis. I am confident others here will happily post their recommendations, too. After you've read a few, you'll find they do not very much. They simply have their own emphases, not their own teaching. No one is reinventing Bible exegesis. These are precepts that have been held and practiced for centuries.

 

[QVQ]

1. Identify the author
2. Identify the audience
3. Understand the text as the original author and his original audience would have understood it
4. Identify the genre

I will start Revelations 21: 5 And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

"Make" present tense.
When God is addressing the son's of Adam He uses past, present and future tense
When God is talking to Himself, musing, then He would use the Present Tense.
God is always in the Present tense.

As to the list in the quote above

1) The author of the Bible is God for His own good pleasure
2) The audience is all the son's of Adam
3) The text is to be understoood exactly as the original Author and His audience would have understood it. LITERALLY
4) The Genre is the Word of God

Luke 3: 8 would be understood by God and by the son's of Adam as being a literal truth.
God could raise the children of Abraham from the stones
However, I have seen that verse classified as hyperbole.
Then we must, to be consistent, classify Genesis 2: 7 as hyperbole, "Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground"

After we get through classifying all the verses as literary devices and properly catagorizing them as "poetry" "hyperbole" "metaphor" "similie" "symbolism" and tracing all the origins, such as "Son of God" to some obscure pagan cult who worshipped the sun, then we can finally decide what it is that God truly meant and what we should believe.

Thank you for your offer of books to exigist the Bible, but my parents were Master Exegist, scientific, educated, articulate, schooled in Lutheran and Catholic schools. They could take that Bible apart verse by verse, admiring it as a Masterpiece of English Literature but with the credibility of Grimms Fairy Tales. And their child actually believes all those old myths, literally.

 

[prism]

It is simply a person telling what happened when he flat lined in an ambulance on the way to the hospital and was later brought back to life.
I was interested in what he experienced and this is what the person states happened to him while he was flatlined, dead.

The person is not particularly religious. Just an ordinary person who obeys the commandments, doesn't lie or steal or cheat on his wife. Basically content with the world. Doesn't have a "theology" and not much interested in religion other than treating his world decently.
I asked him if he affirmed the Nicene Creed which he wasn't really aware of as a written Creed but after I read it, he said "yes."
Especially believed the Resurrection and the Trinity. The Christian religion just makes sense to him, according to him, the Commandments, the Creed.
So no new agy, or any other denomination or religious tradition

Interesting tale to me, anyway.

In the 1970s I wasI a New Ager before the term became popular' I'm very familiar with terms like White light', 'indescribable love' 'no physical body' 'the light' 'radiated love and peace'. OBTW, look at Hebrews 9:27 to see what happens after a person dies.
No white lights or warm feelings, or even indescribable love (especially for an unbeliever).

Hebrews 9:27 NKJV
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,


I

 

[QVQ]

In the 1970s I wasI a New Ager before the term became popular' I'm very familiar with terms like White light', 'indescribable love' 'no physical body' 'the light' 'radiated love and peace'. OBTW, look at Hebrews 9:27 to see what happens after a person dies.
No white lights or warm feelings, or even indescribable love (especially for an unbeliever).

Yes, I merely posted it as an interesting account of what happened during death to that person.
The OP is What can you take when you die
And this person was taking his soul or awareness although there may have been enough brain activity to account for the light and love.
What would have happened at a later point in the death, say 1 day later, perhaps conscience would have faded to black.