A logistical problem for the traditional resurrection belief


My favorite discussion - on page 1 of Google - is at thegospelcoalition.org/article/will-heaven-have-oceans

So, even in a “literal” interpretation - there is much difference of opinion.

Or perhaps we need to look at the “historical context” - like these two chaps are discussing :question:



Randy, I find much evangelical exegesis leaves a lot to be desired.

What do YOU think about the possibility of the ocean existing in heaven / new earth?


Well, if you find that “much evangelical exegesis leaves a lot to be desired” - can YOU do any better?

Ocean in heaven? Probably not. In the new earth? Sure. Why not? There are a lot of different takes, on both the literal and figurative meaning of sea - in Revelations. And why would God leave out bodies of water, when most of the non-human inhabitants - probably live there?

But is what the “sea” means in Revelations - an “earth-shattering” event - you need a definitive answer for? Sounds more like “how many angels can dance, on the head of a pin” - type of question,


Weill, I signed up for BOTH the evangelical and Catholic newsletters at patheos.com/. And here’s what came my way - in today’s Evangelical newsletter:

Half of Protestants Agree With Catholics on Salvation

Am I reading a story, from one of the supermarket tabloids? :astonished: :open_mouth: Let me quote a bit:

And people find me strange. When I call myself a “Charismatic Eastern Anglo-Catholic and Holy Fool”.

Anyway, back to the sea in Revelations.

Let’s do a little experiment. And let’ls look up sea, in a Bible dictionary at biblestudytools.com/dictionary/sea/. If sea has a literal meaning in Revelations, then which one do we apply?


If we believe humanity “started” about 6000 years ago and the end is near and we take Revelations literally that there will be no more sea than numbers like 30-50 billion people could live on the earth, more people have never lived I think, I am not sure about the numbers but you must consider that most of the earth now is covered by water (I think 70%), also imagine the deserts all gone.

Somebody who is better in maths than I am could calculate that:

2 men 6000 years ago, 6 billion now, exponential growth, how many people have lived so far?

Those who would miss the ocean, do you think a large lake wouldn’t suffice? I would miss motorways but I am pretty much sure there will be no more motorways in the world to come, but I’m pretty sure I will not bother then.


Here’s the question:

I asked this of the Calvinist site - Got Questions. Here is their answer:


I think perhaps we may already be in eternity, that is an eternal state of motion and change. I suppose that the only thing that wouldn’t change in this case is that God is always there.


LLC please check your PM mailbox.


Hmm, that is a very interesting conclusion :wink:


I don’t think it rational to predict that “there will be no sea” on the restored earth or the “new” earth for that matter. John is simply describing what he saw in his vision, not prophesying about future events.

I suspect that John’s “there will be no more sea” means that there will no longer be a multitude of nations, peoples and tongues.


Thanks Horan, and welcome to the forum. Our resident preterism expert davo has a similar interpretation: Sea = separation = gentiles.


In Revelation we see a beast that arises from the sea, which is directly interpreted as a multitude of nations, peoples and tongues. I suspect that the sea of glass in Revelation 4 and 15 is a similar expression to John’s use of the word, sea, in Revelation 21. It might be said to be a reversal of Babel, the dispersion of people who were united by their own will, on God’s terms.


One of the interesting points, of reading the Bible…is when they use figurative language…and when they use literal language. Or to use the words of Anglican Bishop and New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright…he uses the terms concrete and abstract language. If we look at this thread, the folks in the video I presented…look at the sea as what is bad - in NT and OT history (i.e. youtube.com/watch?v=NtC1vbuG9Uc)). But the Got Questions Calvinist site - takes it literally. Personally, I don’t think it really matters - in the new creation - whether there is an ocean or not.


To a Hebrew, ‘heaven, earth and sea’ was identified by Josephus, the Jewish historian in this manner.
Heaven was the Holy of Holies
Earth linen was the Holy Inner Court where the priests performed their duties
Sea was the outer court where the unclean, women and the nations worshiped outside the holy places

In the New Covenant their is no more clean/unclean; male or female; jew or gentile divisions.
We are ALL sons and daughters and have equal access to the Father of our spirits. We have 'been raised and seated in
heavenly places and have free access to our HOLY FATHER.
“My kingdom does not come with your observance; it is WITHIN YOU.” Luke 17: 20,21

The old was seen, temporary, external, of the FLESH.
The new is unseen, eternal, internal, of the SPIRIT.

Ask God for wisdom and understanding and he will show you great and marvelous things. The bible is about the dichotomy of
FLESH vs SPIRIT. Two trees, two seeds, two mountains, two women, two cities.

The old SEEN things were types and shadows of the UNSEEN. Now that the NEW has come we no longer should be seeking the SEEN.

Josephus also explains the colors and their meanings. For some strange reason religion discourages inquiry into historical knowledge; however, without it we cannot discern the times that concerned the passing away of the old covenant in the first century and the beginning of all things new. Heb 8:13; 1 Pet 4:7


This appears to be a response to the mini-discussion about the meaning of the word ‘sea’ in Revelation, and how Josephus apparently defines it seems appropriate enough. Revelation defines the sea as a multitude of nations, peoples and tongues, which seems agreeable to likening it to the outer court. When there is no more sea, God will be All in All. The fundamental dichotomy you mention, flesh and spirit, is the story going back to the beginning, my glory or Gods, my will or Gods, etc. “The old SEEN things were types and shadows of the UNSEEN.” I wonder if you have a take on the last plagues. I very much suspect these are not literal plagues, but spiritual, and that they’ve largely already been poured out. Whether that’s entirely accurate or not, it seems to me that they must be spiritual issues. Between the sixth and seventh plagues, Jesus reminds us that he comes as a thief; as it were, unexpectedly, which could hardly be the case of those plagues would be literal. I think they are already with us, in evolution theory, occultism and new age, the ecumenical movement, these varieties of modern thought systems which are essentially anti-Christ and undermining of scripture. The Zeitgeist film is an emblematic expression of these things, being embraced by so many, even many Christians, such that the teaching of Jesus comes to fore, while Jesus Himself recedes, and the whole of scripture is reduced to a variety of metaphors for spiritual growth. I suspect that an appropriate label for the seventh plague is globalism, and that this is being poured out as we live and breath. I suspect that the great earthquake is not liberal, but symbolic of great world upheaval, social, political, economic and religious, every island (nation) and mountain (world power) disappearing, being subsumed, surrendering autonomy and sovereignty to a world system. I suspect the great earthquake is right around the corner, almost any day, and that it will so shake things up that the vast multitude will easily and readily accept a world religion, or a variety of approved world religions, excluding biblical Christianity.


That presumes that the New Earth will be the same size as the present one. It might be a million times as large or more.


qaz, Done. Let me know if my reply did not go through.


Paidion, a planet bigger than earth wouldn’t be earth. Or do you think maybe the earth will expand?


Of course it wouldn’t be the earth (this present earth), if the present earth passed away and was replaced by a new earth.

In his vision, John saw that the first heaven and earth PASS AWAY, and then he saw them replaced by the NEW heaven and the NEW earth. So, of course, the new heaven and earth will be different from the old.


The book is highly symbolic… Why do you think the earth is a symbol for the earth? And why does ‘new’ have to mean physically new, rather than symbolically new?


What ‘on earth’ could a new ‘heaven’ even be??
I’d prefer a restored earth, the way it should have been before we messed it up.

Revelation is so highly symbolic, so first-century in its context, that I put little stock in our ability to understand it as John’s audience did.