I don’t see God as having, what actually would be “indulgence”, as part of His creation policy. I rather see that whatever He creates is simultaneously both functional/practical (i.e., effectively serving a needs-base purpose) and beautiful. There is really nothing of either sort in ‘a planet full of dung just for flies.’ All the flies that ever existed in this world will have plenty of work to do with the waste of the animals in the new earth, and with the planet probably literally no longer having any sea, thus automatically having 4X its current land area, all of these flies will have plenty of room to roam unnoticed about the earth. And if the redeemed are going to populate other planets in this galaxy, then some of these extra creatures could be taken along for this expansion.

By the way, relatedly, my view on marriages and new births in heaven, is that in the age when the 1000 year review/judgement will take place, the redeemed then will indeed be like angels in heaven (Luke 20:34-36). However, as I view things, when all of the GC questions and issues have been resolved, I am thinking that in the New Earth, and indeed for other uninhabited planets in this galaxy that God could easily make habitable for us humans, the redeemed will again be permitted to be fruitful and multiply to fill up both this earth and these other worlds.

Both NJL and I gave suggestions. If we can be creative, how much more creative can God be? So let's trust him and his creativity to make all right.

Now I am undecided but lean towards no more fruitful and multiply due to the fact that they would have to, like the unfallen worlds and angels, and us on the fallen world need to make a choice about God, I tend to believe in no more new beings. However I am open to the possibility of God showing them in review and our testimomy to help them in making their choice or what ever else God can use.

[That was actually my, i.e., NJK, comment] The danger I see here is that we must deem what God may/will do by what he has done, and I do not see any indication of such merely indulgent, on top of being quite repugnant and gross “creativity” in what God has done. A planet of refuse has no Biblical precedence at all to me. If fact, I see such gross and indulgent “creativity” only in the deprived minds of men who claim such things as art and do highly value them. Flies were created by God for a particular purpose, and they will find their full joy in fulfilling that purpose and not by having a planet of dung to feast on.



The issue of not having had a previous GC experience is indeed crucial to the assurance that the redeem will never want to go through this experience again. However when all of the GC facts are in following the Millennial review and judgement, the redeemed would be in the tangible situation of clearly, transparently and objectively telling any new born human of the futility of wanting and endeavoring to live a life, or even a moment outside of God’s will. It will easily be seen that God’s will alone provides true and perfect happiness.

(In relation to this, as I state in the last paragraph of this post (#131487) (and then further substantiate in several discussion follow ups to it), I see that all humans will indeed be still free in Heaven and if anyone should suggest and aim to pursue a sinful course, God will then have the fully approved authority to immediately judge them and effectuate the deserved punishment, which will probably be death.)

Apparently left behind? Really? How is it apparent? Is apparency up to each individual?

Original breeds? And that would be...?
Non-inherently dangerous? Arbitrarily determined by whom?
This implies that "dinosaur-types" (How is that determined? Some scientists have yet again think the Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur versus a bird), are amalgamations. Who determines such?

And how was it determined dinosaurs or amalgamated animals cannot form relationships?

Really? No havoc before the flood, but only those could cause it afterwards?

That's weird.

What is “apparent” to someone is indeed inherently, primarily in the eye/mind/perception of that beholder. Yet as there are claims of extinct dinosaur fossils today (I haven’t personally verified/studied those claims in depth), and these are said to be the only species not seen alive today or recent recorded/documented times, I am assuming that these are the ‘non-Divinely created, confused species’ which EGW says were left out of the ark. (3SG 75)



Didn’t you read my whole post?? I had indicated what I considered original vs. “cross/ed breeds.



Determined by the cross-breeded animals predominant, (post-fall) demeanor. An, e.g., elephant, though much larger than Man, especially by now, is not inherently dangerous, however an elephant that was genetically manipulated through cross-breeding, with, who knows, a tiger, may have gene that make it an inherent danger as it will then always be hunting after other flesh (vs. the elephants normative non-flesh diet). That’s just one of many possible “dangerous results from grotesque cross-breeding” which I believe most is how dinosaurs were formed.



Well perhaps more exhaustive and accurate scientific study and research needs to be done in this area, nonetheless, from what I have personally encountered on this topic, this is my (working) determination/observations/hypothesis, even theory.

Assuming. Ok, that's what I thought.

So, you have a non-dangerous elephant, cross it with a tiger, and you get something dangerous. That can only mean one of two things. Either the tiger was dangerous, your you can create something from nothing which is classic evolution.

Ok.


Which brings back to if crossings cause amalgamations, then dogs are one of the most crossed animals around and therefore, if assumed amalgamations, then they won't be on the new earth. It is my theory that amalgamations mean something else besides corssings and therefore we'll see dinosaurs on the new earth along with tigers, bears, lions, wolves, Gila Monsters, and even mamba snakes, although they may look slightly different.