The world of the new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem. There is every reason to believe that the progress of civilization will be part of that world, since science, inquiry, and intellectual progress are all part of God's design. Never in the Bible is there the slightest hint, let alone an injunction, to shut down or limit the reaches of what our intellect is capable of. As a matter of fact, the command of Genesis 1.28 to subdue the earth and rule over it is more a scientific mandate than it is a cultural one. We are to advance civilization and discover and regulate natural forces. It's impossible to imagine God will take that away in the end, which is supposed to be an environment even superior to the first one.

Not only that, but several of Jesus' parables indicate that to some extent life will just continue in heaven, but without sin. We will live in cities, have responsibilities, with organization and even government (Lk. 19.12-19). There is no reason to picture a reversion to primitive ignorance. Paul also indicates that our knowledge will be full instead of partial (1 Cor. 13.11-12).

> What if it happens thousands of years from now when many people have left earth and colonized other planets or solar systems? Does the reach of God extend to those planets?

1. The prophecies of Revelation have many elements to them that are universal in scope ("stars falling from the heavens" kind of language). If there are populations of humans on other planets, the Rapture and subsequent judgment will come to all humanity, regardless of location.

2. Remember that with the sin of Adam and Eve, all creation "fell"—not just the earth, and not just human life. The perspective of the Bible is universal, not merely geocentric.

3. Creation in Genesis 1 is written from a geocentric point of view, but that doesn't require that creation only took place here. The apocalypse of Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel are also written from a geocentric point of view, that that won't necessitate that the end of history will be an "earth only" event.

In short, the second coming of Christ will look the same for people on Mars as it does for people on earth. It's a universal occurrence, not just a geocentric one.

Feel free to talk to me more.

Thank you for doing your best to answer all of my questions. This really does paint a more accurate picture of how the rapture would take place in our modern times.

With issue of modernity, will there be any kind of provisions made for the advances made in science? If it were to happen tomorrow would everything we have learned about the human genome, DNA, splitting the atom, metallurgy etc., be a part of civilization, or would it revert back to when the bible was written and when Trephination was still common practice?

What if it happens thousands of years from now when many people have left earth and colonized other planets or solar systems? Does the reach of God extend to those planets?

Very interesting thoughts, and I thank you for sharing them. Paul used "clothed" because something of our earthly bodies will still exist, as you say. We see proof of this in the resurrection body of Jesus, with the nail holes still in his hands and the spear hole in his side. We also see it in 1 Thessalonians 4.17 & 1 Cor. 15.51. The body is changed and still goes with us. Our existence in the afterlife is not solely a spiritual one, but a "transformed physical/spiritual" one.

I think it's a little underwhelming to think that all Paul meant by "imperishable" is "our understanding of existence. His point in 1 Corinthians 15 is that the new spiritual body will be a distinctly different type of existence and different type of body than what we have now (1 Cor. 15.35-44). It's the necessity of being resurrected, because our physical bodies matter and something of our physical bodies will enter eternity with us. In that way I agree with you. There is a "continuity of humankind/creation." Agreed. But to think that food will be **required** does an injustice to the concepts of "imperishable" and "immortality". If food is required, then we need more than God to survive there, and I think that's contrary to the image we read about in Revelation 22.1-5.

But, like I said, Paul says that the perishable will be clothed with the imperishable. This suggests the perishable is still there, which would still require food, but it now in some way "protected" or rendered ineffective by something imperishable.

I personally think the imperishable is purely our understanding of existence. The same way that the past years of my life, while gone, are still a part of me and in that sense "resurrected" in that recognition. I think the analogy makes sense given the repeated assertion that God is the "God of the living, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". The continuity of mankind, of creation, is realized, "re-ified", at the general resurrection. That is the clothing of the perished/perishable - food will still be required, but not necessary to maintain that realization of continuity through death.

I'm glad to talk to you about all of this. I'm from a Baptist background as well, so maybe we have heritage things in common.

THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Old Testament is God-breathed just like the NT (2 Tim. 3.16), and the prophets of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1.21). The OT reveals God just as the NT does (Hebrews 1.1), and the OT is considered Holy Scripture just as the NT is. It concerns me that so many alleged Christians discourage reading the OT. The OT has tremendous value for Christians (2 Tim. 3.16), and we regard it as Scripture (Acts 24.14; Rom. 3.31).

The NT was created to tell the story of Jesus and to show how the OT was fulfilled by Jesus. It contains massive amounts of quotes from the OT. It tells how salvation by grace through faith was always the plan (Gal. 3.6-14), and how the "rivers" of the Eden Problem (sin), the Babel Problem (deity falsely construed), God's covenant, God's presence, redemption, and resurrection are integral to the whole (both OT and NT) to reveal God to us and bring us to salvation.

As Dr. Craig Evans says, "The Old Testament provides the context and framework for understanding the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament wouldn't makes sense to us without the Old Testament." We should never disregard the Old Testament. The whole book, OT & NT, is God's revelation for us. Even Leviticus. : )

I'd be glad to talk to you about any of them. Post a new topic on AskAChristian, and we can talk.

How will the recently undead (the raptured) perceive the changes that have taken place in the faith since they walked the earth? When we see Jesus (whenever we died, whether recently or anciently), our minds will be transformed (1 Jn. 3.2; 1 Cor. 13.12). They will be enlightened by God, and their knowledge will no longer be partial like human knowledge. We won't be omniscient, which is a characteristic of God alone, but we shall know "fully".

DENOMINATIONS. Denominations are actually a strength, and when our minds are transformed, we will suddenly be a true unity, because we will all know fully. One might actually argue that God has used denominational divisions for good. They have allowed the Gospel to reach wider segments of the human population, as different people are attracted to different church bodies. They have also raised questions that have deepened people’s understanding of the Word of God through the study requires to address those questions. One could therefore also affirm that denominations are part of God’s will for His Church so that diversity in secondary matters could exist within the overall unity of the faith. As I said to you yesterday, the varying perspectives create debate and sometimes heated argument, but all in all the diversity and variances enrich our understandings, hopefully challenging us all to think deeper and investigate further.

Note that the unity Scripture advocates is spiritual rather than organizational. Paul’s letters were addressed to individual congregations that were struggling with dissent, and he is encouraging them to live at peace with one another. There are truths that all Christians are unified in their belief over: the existence of God, creation by God, the deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins by the blood of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, to name some. In other words, we will gel when our minds are transformed when we see Jesus.

PRACTICAL LOGISTICS. There is reason to assume division of labor. We see that among the angels and spirit beings (angels, archangels, cherubim, seraphim) as well as in the church (some are apostles, some prophets, some teachers, etc.). The newly resurrected will do what God has given them to do, and he will place them appropriately (1 Cor. 12.11).

Obviously some of the precursors to the end times will be massive interruptions to the economy, food supply chain and global trade. But look at Matthew 24.45 about when Jesus returns. Jesus will create a strategic system that will work.

There are a few things that I would like to touch on, that I'm somewhat unsure of, the first being how different Christianity would appear to somebody from a few thousand years ago. What I studied and grew up with as a Baptist was mostly the gospels, with a bit of end times ministry thrown in.

For the most part, we learned a lot about what would be considered by many to be the "good parts" of the bible, if you will. A few times I would bring up to my Sunday school teacher some of the things that I had read about in the book of Leviticus and how I thought that some of it didn't make sense to me and why we didn't study it and other books of the bible more often.

I was never able to find anybody who would offer any kind of guidance for other books of the bible, as the gospels were something that we were going to focus on. That would make me think now that many Western Christians may only study and adhere to a narrow focus of what is commonly taught among many sects of the Christian faith.

How would the recently undead perceive this? Would it be considered sacrilegious to not have stoned women who were adulterers before the rapture took place? Our society has hammered out many of the beliefs that were once sacred, but may now be considered barbaric.

I wonder how Christians who have split off into many, many denominations are going to gel when they are suddenly thrust together.

Aside from those kinds of challenges, I inquired about the practical logistics of getting possibly billions of newly resurrected people on board with what has taken place in the last few thousand years. Surely there are going to be massive interruptions to the economy, food supply chain and global trade. Wouldn't this cause famine and starvation all over the world?

The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 15.52 for "perishable" is φθορᾷ. It means "able to die; susceptible to ruin and destruction; able to deteriorate." The word for "imperishable" is ἀφθαρσίᾳ, its converse: unable to die; not susceptible to ruin and destruction; incapable of deterioration." Logically speaking, if one were to withhold food from the "imperishable" body, we have to insist that it is incapable of deterioration despite the lack of food. Therefore, food is not necessary for the sustenance of this "spiritual body," even though it has some characteristics in common with the physical body.

> Imperishable means that even with a lack of food, the "organism" will not expire.

Where do you get that definition from? "Enduring forever" doesn't necessarily mean that at all. Paul contrasts it with natural, and says it will be spiritual, but "clothing the perishable" (1 Corinthians 15:55).

It doesn't of course mean that we become disincarnate spirits, we are forever bound by the physical ("the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable"), but we see beyond the limitations of individual lives (eg. see John 12:24). Death no longer holds a grip on us.

Imperishable means that even with a lack of food, the "organism" will not expire. It can't, by definition, and therefore food is not necessary. While Jesus asked for, and ate, food, we learn that his body was not a cloudy specter. It had some physicality to it. But if it's imperishable, food is not a requirement.

Imperishable doesn't mean it doesn't need food. Wasn't Jesus's resurrected body also imperishable? Yet he asked for, and ate, food.