Does the “Whole Earth” mean the “planet” in scripture?

Planet Earth

Revelation 13:7
It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

Verses like this have made many believe that the Beast to come will rule over the whole planet. But is this really the case?

Let’s look at verses that say “Whole Earth” but didn’t mean the whole planet. These open up a big possibility that the last beast just like the others, will not rule actually rule the whole planet as many think. Does the usage of the phrase, ‘the whole earth’ and ‘every tribe, tongue and nation’ in the Bible mean ‘the entire globe or planet’? It actually doesn’t mean that at all as the following scriptures demonstrate.

Daniel 4:1
King Nebuchadnezzar, To the nations and peoples of every language, who live in all the earth: May you prosper greatly!

Did Nebuchadnezzar write to the Chinese too? Obviously no.

Daniel 5:18, 19
All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him

Did Norway or Indonesia serve Nebuchadnezzar? Obviously no.

1 Kings 4:34
And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

Did the people of Peru come to hear King Solomon? Obviously no.

2 Kings 17:29
But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the houses of the high places which the people of Samaria had made, every nation in their cities in which they lived.

Did the Australian Aboriginals make gods and place them in the houses of the high places that the people of Samaria made? Obviously no.

Isaiah 37:18
“It is true, LORD, that the Assyrian kings have laid waste all these peoples and their lands.

Did the Assyrian kings lay waste to the Japanese and Japan? Obviously no.

Daniel 8:5
As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground.

Did this goat which is widely recognised as Alexander the Great, sweep across the whole planet in his military campaign. Did he cross Australia? Obviously no.

So now, what about these verses?

  • Zechariah 14:2 “For I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for battle”
  • Joel 3:2 “I will gather all nations”
  • Matthew 25:32 “I will also gather all nations”

Once we realise what some of these terms mean in prophecy, it can change our view of end-time events substantially.

Many say that the Ottoman Empire for example cannot be the seventh king after the sixth which we know is Rome. They cite that it was not a global empire or that it wasn’t significant enough. As to the last point, the Ottoman empire ruled for centuries over the Middle East and great parts of Europe. It wasn’t any less than any Middle Eastern empire (head) before it. in fact it was greater than all of the previous empires that made up the Beast, even the Roman Empire.

So, the belief that the Beast or Antichrist will rule over the whole planet including USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand just doesn’t hold up. Sure this could happen, but not because the Bible says ‘ the whole earth’ or ‘every nation’. In fact we are told that the Beast rises out of ‘The Great Sea’ which we know is the Mediterranean Sea.

So when considering the yet to be fulfilled prophecy of the end times, you need to look to the Middle East.

For further research on this topic, read The Beast Revealed →

Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 115 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #790023
    kerwin
    Participant

    As a point of interest the city Eridu is one of several post flood cities according to the religion of Sumeria. Archaeologist have discovered it and done digs there. It is considered the first city of the world and is of the Ubaid period which is said to have started in 6500 B.C.

    I pieced this together by various Wikipedia articles.

    Let’s assume Eridu is Cain’s city he named after his son and therefore Enoch is the Hebrew equivalent of Eridu.

    #790047
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @kerwin

    I agree that the source I used was biased, as am I, towards the truth as given in scripture. I believe scripture although mistranslated and misunderstood is still our best source to understand the truth of the world around us.

    Wm

     

    #790132
    kerwin
    Participant

    SeekingTruth,

    I get tired of sites like that making claims they know are not true, instead trusting that will reveal the truth when the time is right.

    Question who believe foolishness such as evolution but don’t make something up.

    I get the feeling that some people choose to lie just for the excitement is causes, not even out of misguided attention.

    I am not just speaking about sites like that.

    I trust that you so if you have something tested and believe is true please put it forth.

    #790153
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @kerwin,

    Your sure that this line of thought is a lie, not even just mistaken? So you judge the intent.

    I went back and watched it again but I’m not sure what you believe is the “lie” or what “facts” you’re basing it on.

    What is your point of disagreement?

    Wm

    #790170
    kerwin
    Participant

    SeekingTruth,

    I have not tested that particular site but I am tired of those that lie in the name of God and of his Son.

    As I said, if you see something that you have tested then post it and support it. I can cross examine you but not them.

    #790180
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @kerwin

    I may not agree with everything in a video I’ve posted, but I will certainly answer any inquiries and discuss the topic. Please be specific as to what you believe are “lies”.
    Wm

    #790212
    kerwin
    Participant

    SeekingTruth,

    I have no watched it and do not intend to as I have my own line of inquiry. I am trying to trace the story to the time before Abraham and so far it seems to be paying off. The Sumerians, who were the people that lived in the area Abraham came from. Assuming he is a Semite as his descendants now are he was not one of them though they were later conquered by Semites. He might have been an Akkadian , as they were Semites and in the same region.

    #790228
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    So to ignore plainly written claims such as “only eight survived” or “all creatures breathing air died” is choosing to stand on shifting sand.

    No one here is denying that only eight survived a flood that covered the world. What is up for debate is the definition of the world. As we know, that can and often does mean the known world. The heads of the Beast for example conquered the world, but there is no evidence of Greek or Roman civilisation in Australia or New Zealand.

    Of course even if the known world was flooded, it could still mean that it flooded too the unknown world so to speak.

    Not denying anything here, just questioning definitions using the Bible’s own definitions.

    Also, the point of the topic was not to discuss the flood although that is entirely relevant here, but to show that the Beasts ruled the world which was the area around the Great Sea, (Mediterranean), and not the whole planet. Thus, what evidence is there that the Beast to come is going to rule the whole planet.

    #790253
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    @seekingtruth

    I found this scripture and it seems to point to a planet wide flood IMO.

    2 Peter 3:5-7
    For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.…

    Surely the Middle East is not made from water alone. Further, the day of judgement is accompanied by not only the whole Earth, but the Heavens. Slightly bigger than the ancient known world. It says elsewhere that the world was destroyed once by water then by fire putting each on par perhaps.

    #790306
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @t8,

    As I stated earlier, when the Scriptures state “the whole world” it need not necessarily include all countries in the whole world, but only the known world.

    I was only responding to your opening example that the flood was only “a regional flood” and was providing scriptures I felt in this case to support the whole world.

    I’m just very concerned if we’re challenging rather clear scriptures, because it doesn’t take very long before everyone’s just left doing what’s right in their own eyes (left with no foundation for truth).

    My opinion – Wm

    #790315
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @t8,

    I believe the Middle East and most other land areas were “formed” out of the water at creation.

    Genisis 1:9 Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so that the dry land will appear.” And it happened.10 God named the dry land “earth,” and he named the water that was gathered together “seas.”

    #790316
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @kerwin,

    Your sure that this line of thought is a lie, basically inferring both the video makers and myself are liars! Yet you have not even watched it! Not very Christ like.

    Wm

    #790332
    kerwin
    Participant

    SeekingTruth,

    Unless I made an error I did not say either the site or you were liars. You could say I implied it as I was saying sites of the same type lied. It was not my intention. I said I trust you.

    #790496
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @kerwin,

    I apologize, I took your statement of “obviously false claims” to something I had stated close alignment with, combined with your other references, I had not intended to put words in your mouth so sorry that I added to what you meant.

    Wm

    #790580
    kerwin
    Participant

    Seekingtruth,

    That was a very humble apology and I thank you for it and I forgive you.

    #790720
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @kerwin,

    Thank you

    #791193
    seekingtruth
    Participant

    @t8,

    You said “If the whole earth can mean the known world of the time, then it could possibly mean all flesh in that area. And if God told Noah to take “EVERY” LIVING THING OF “ALL” FLESH” into the ark as you say, then did he come to New Zealand?”

    But scriptures tell us in Genesis 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every  shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

    He did not have to go looking for them where they were, but they came after him.

    Wm

    #791381
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hi seekingtruth.

    Yes he made the animals come to him. But every species alive today as well as extinct species? Probably not IMO. But it certainly says every kind which is different. That could be one pair of cats instead of all the species of cats. Variation followed from them perhaps. We see for example many races of human, even though they came from a single pair. Yes I know that races are not different species. But if a species can produce another species while remaining in their kind, then that would be allowed or disallowed by the DNA code. In other words that is God’s prerogative.

    #791382
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    As far as all flesh and every kind goes, that doesn’t on its own merit mean planet wide. It just means all flesh or kinds in the area that is being defined as the whole earth. Context is everything here and of course I am not telling you what the context is, but the possibilities is all.

    Genesis 7:19
    And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

    Genesis 13:9
    Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

    Genesis 13:17
    Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.

    These scriptures all use the same Hebrew word for land and earth. Its obvious by the text that while Abraham did walk the entire earth according to the text, he did not leave any footsteps in New Zealand or walk around the whole planet. Likewise while the flood did cover the entire earth it may not have covered the entire planet. There are other instances of the phrase “whole earth” predominantly being used in reference to the known earth rather than the entire planet in scripture.

    In short while the word literally says “whole earth” concerning Noah, we are allowed to question what the context of ‘whole earth’ is being referenced.

    However, while the whole earth may or may not mean whole planet, Genesis 7:19 does also say: “that were under the whole heaven“. Does that mean the whole Heaven visible to the known world or the whole Heaven meaning the universe. Back to square one. But that is not really a concern for me. There are many events in the Bible that have scant detail or multiple interpretations and I personally believe if we fill in the gaps ourselves, then we open ourselves up to possible error.

    The point of the Bible is not to give us a book of science or minute historical detail, it is about God’s redemption of man and the events that surround this plan are given to show his plan. So just as the Pharisees were critical on the detail of the Law, yet ignored the spirit of the Law, likewise we may be critical of the detail of scripture (which is okay), but as long as we consider the more weightier matter of the spirit of what is happening and why. It is possible that one day we will know all the detail, but for now, that is not priority.

    I believe that too many Christian teachers have made statements that are derived from personal opinion. Then they spend way too much time defending these personal interpretations.  I think if more people just admitted there really are a number of possible interpretations, then we could focus more on the message and not force ourselves into a corner where we end up fighting to get out of.

    This is not pointed at you Seekingtuth. Absolutely not. Just making  a general statement pertaining to all believers.

    A perfect example that I am talking about are those that say the Earth is 6000 years old. It is unnecessary and it only makes many people doubt the Bible. Yet the Bible does not actually say anywhere that the Earth is 6000 years old. We should be more focussed on the message IMO. God created the Heavens and the Earth in the beginning. Then the Earth was formless and void. How long was the gap between the creation of the Earth that would have been good and the formless and void stage? We just don’t know do we. Scripture does talk of many ages to come as well as many ages beforehand.

    Jude 1:25
    to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

    #791383
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    I found this interesting article and may give it a full read when I have some time. It basically says that the Bible doesn’t not fix the age of the earth, so we shouldn’t do that ourselves.

    http://godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 115 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account