Why many premils might be wrong about the new heavens and a new earth.

[John146]

I'll tell you what, I'll have to do some digging in the Scriptures, but I'm certain there's a few places where this same sense is used, but it's talking about Jerusalem, which is a literal city. If I can find those passages, you then tell me how such and such can be the literal city Jerusalem, and I'll try and tell you how such and such can also be a literal city, even if it's called the bride. The point being, both answers are probably going to be the same. But I have to do some digging first.
It might take me a bit, so you'll have to be patient.

I highly doubt there's anywhere where the city itself (not the people, but the city itself) is referred to as the bride. But I won't say any more until you get back to me on what you found.

[John146]

I simply don't take that literally.

This is incredibly ironic. I don't know how you can be so insistent that all of Zechariah 14 is literal when at the same time you don't take 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally.

All one has to do is go back to the OT, maybe in Isaiah. We see the same kind of language. It was descriptive language using figures of speech, such as it's raining cats and dogs.

I can say the same about a verse like Zechariah 14:8. Living water flowing out from Jerusalem? You take that literally, right? But look at John 4 and John 7 and see how Jesus describes living water. He doesn't refer to it as being literal water, right? Since you don't read a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally I wonder how it can be that you don't seem to think there's even any possibility that at least some of Zechariah 14 might be figurative as well?

If I took the above as hyper literal, then yes, it would be kind of difficult to explain how anyone could survive. Unless I'm mistaken, I seem to recall you not taking literal about the feast of the birds in Rev 19. That kind of puzzles me, since I would think that would be the same timezone as this passage in 2 Peter 3. You apparently take that literal, but apparently don't see much of anything in Rev 19 in the literal sense. And besides, why would Jesus even need to kill the remnant of the army with His sword, considering the entire planet should be ablaze by then?

You actually think Rev 19 is saying that there will be a literal sword coming out of Christ's mouth when He returns? If so, I find that to be unbelievable. I think it's very clear that Rev 19 is speaking figuratively when it refers to the fowls of the air and the sword out of Christ's mouth. If 2 Peter 3 was figurative then why would the fire that it speaks about be compared directly to the flood in 2 Peter 3:5-7?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This text says that just as the earth was destroyed by water long ago, it is "by the same word...reserved unto fire". It seems clear to me that this text is saying that just as the earth was destroyed by water long ago, it will be destroyed by fire in the future. I believe that makes a lot of sense, whereas thinking that a description of a sword coming out of Jesus' mouth is literal does not make any sense at all.

[John146]

I agree with you to a degree, at least about the book of Revelation being chock filled with symbolic imagery and allegorical language. , but we still have to use logic and reason. If 2 Peter 3 was literal, then there would be no army, nor anyone for that matter for Christ to destroy when He comes.

He is the one who would be sending down the fire upon the earth so He would still be the one destroying His enemies when He returns. The reference to the sword and such is just symbolic language

2 Thess 1:7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

This fervent heat, the entire earth being ablaze..well that would do them in of by itself. But that's not the picture we see in Rev 19. We see an army being depicted, whether literal or not. The question is, how are they still alive after the events in 2 Peter 3? It doesn't add up.

Rev 19 describes symbolically what is described literally in 2 Peter 3. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

[John146]

Coming from the typical premil pov, I would say you have a valid point. But me, I'm not the typical premil, since I don't take 2 Peter 3 literal in the 1st place, and the fact that I tend to think the new heavens and a new earth occur when Christ returns. I tend to think of it as Christ and the saints now taking control of the entire planet..that would be the new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, since there would no longer be crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked courts, etc. Everything would now be according to God's standards.

If everything was according to God's standards at that point then how could it ever be after Christ returned that Satan would be able to have followers that number as the sand of the sea join him in going up against "the camp of the saints" at a later time?

[divaD]

This is incredibly ironic. I don't know how you can be so insistent that all of Zechariah 14 is literal when at the same time you don't take 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally.

If you go back and read my recent posts, then you could know why. The scene in Rev 19 hardly depicts a world that is ablaze and elements melting, etc, when Christ returns. Nobody could survive events like that if they were literal. Even you seem to acknowledge that. So how is it that folks are still alive and kicking when Jesus returns, but no one seems to be complaining about the raging fires that have engulfed the earth, nor the fervent heat, etc?

If for some reason we now want to conclude the events in 2 Peter3 happen after Christ has returned and killed everyone, then why the overkill? The only way to square the Scriptures, 2 Peter 3 is not to be understood in the literal sense, since this creates absurdety overall, especially from the perspective of Rev 19.

I can say the same about a verse like Zechariah 14:8. Living water flowing out from Jerusalem? You take that literally, right?

It doesn't have to be taken as literal in order for it to still be future. I think we need to do another Zech 14 thread, verse by verse, lol. Of course this has been attempted in the past, but I don't really see where anything was accomplished from either position. But it's still an interesting subject IMO.
That ch is basically what keeps me holding on to premil. No one has ever given a convincing argument as to why this wouldn't be future still. Only IMO of course. And I have read a lot of commentaries on the subject. The only commentaries that were convincing were the ones who saw this as yet future. And I'm not being biased because I'm premil. The non premil commentators simply did not prove their case according to the text.

You actually think Rev 19 is saying that there will be a literal sword coming out of Christ's mouth when He returns?

Why would I think that? I never said I thought that was literal. I only quoted what the Scriptures stated about it. And the Scriptures say..And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth.

This text says that just as the earth was destroyed by water long ago, it is "by the same word...reserved unto fire". It seems clear to me that this text is saying that just as the earth was destroyed by water long ago, it will be destroyed by fire in the future. I believe that makes a lot of sense, whereas thinking that a description of a sword coming out of Jesus' mouth is literal does not make any sense at all.

Once again, just to set the record straight, I'm hardly the type that would believe a real sword is coming out of Jesus' mouth. Actually it was a bit hard to type this since I was laughing so hard. But it's all good tho. I was in kind of a bad mood earlier(personal problems at home)..well this kind of snapped me out of the mood I was in.

Getting back to what you stated about the flood. When the flood happened, that took care of them all..that did the job..the water that is. God didn't have to look for survivors afterwards so that He could finish off those those the deluge didn't get. So I wonder why Jesus still has to kill some, since like the flood, the fire should have already accomplished the same thing by then? But instead, Rev 19 depicts no such scene as folks literally burning up, etc when Christ has returned. ***SIGH***..I suspect this is probably still going over your head the point I'm trying to make here.

[divaD]

If everything was according to God's standards at that point then how could it ever be after Christ returned that Satan would be able to have followers that number as the sand of the sea join him in going up against "the camp of the saints" at a later time?

Look at what happened to satan. he was well aware of God's standards, yet he still rebelled. A serious question. In general, how do you envision eternity? Will there be anything physical in this eternity? Will folks still build house, plant gardens, etc? Or do you find all of that to be nonsensical, even tho God apparently thought it a good idea, since He kind of created us to do tings like that from the beginning?

[Cyberseeker]

I have read a lot of commentaries on the subject. The only commentaries that were convincing were the ones who saw this as yet future. And I'm not being biased because I'm premil. The non premil commentators simply did not prove their case according to the text.

In times past the Amill view was not put forward with as much energy as it deserved. Times have changed and I would recommend that you get this book:

A case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger

[DurbanDude]

If you go back and read my recent posts, then you could know why. The scene in Rev 19 hardly depicts a world that is ablaze and elements melting, etc, when Christ returns. Nobody could survive events like that if they were literal. Even you seem to acknowledge that. So how is it that folks are still alive and kicking when Jesus returns, but no one seems to be complaining about the raging fires that have engulfed the earth, nor the fervent heat, etc?

If for some reason we now want to conclude the events in 2 Peter3 happen after Christ has returned and killed everyone, then why the overkill? The only way to square the Scriptures, 2 Peter 3 is not to be understood in the literal sense, since this creates absurdety overall, especially from the perspective of Rev 19.

.

I am one who takes 2 Peter 3 literally , and from a premill perspective, and yet I do not see the absurdity. The problem with that chapter is that the old languages, having less vocabularly, generally had a wider range of meanng for each word than today. In nearly every word used in the english translation of 2 Peter 3, the translators chose the most dramatic meaning, rather than the most common meaning. Thus if you read the Greek, the more common meanings are less dramatic. I think the other translations took the lead from the old King James Version.

2 Peter 3 is just saying that land will burn, and basics will melt (basics being rocks, sand etc). It is not saying that ALL land will burn. This is completely confirmed by many other chapters that describe entire regions being burnt. Certain land is specifically reserved for fire and desolation:

Ezekiel 38: 2And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:

Ezekiel 38:6And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

Joel 3: 19Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

Isaiah 34: 8For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
9And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. 10It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever

If the entire earth is burnt,why does the bible describe a specific region that is to be burnt, that none pass through?

And so my argument stands that 2 Peter 3 can be translated literally, land is reserved to be burnt, but this does not imply the whole planet. The second coming will be a day of fire, rather than water like the flood. Every survivor will have lost everything, except their own lives.

[mattlad22]

I am one who takes 2 Peter 3 literally , and from a premill perspective, and yet I do not see the absurdity. The problem with that chapter is that the old languages, having less vocabularly, generally had a wider range of meanng for each word than today. In nearly every word used in the english translation of 2 Peter 3, the translators chose the most dramatic meaning, rather than the most common meaning. Thus if you read the Greek, the more common meanings are less dramatic. I think the other translations took the lead from the old King James Version.

2 Peter 3 is just saying that land will burn, and basics will melt (basics being rocks, sand etc). It is not saying that ALL land will burn. This is completely confirmed by many other chapters that describe entire regions being burnt. Certain land is specifically reserved for fire and desolation:

Ezekiel 38: 2And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:

Ezekiel 38:6And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

Joel 3: 19Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

Isaiah 34: 8For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
9And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. 10It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever

If the entire earth is burnt,why does the bible describe a specific region that is to be burnt, that none pass through?

And so my argument stands that 2 Peter 3 can be translated literally, land is reserved to be burnt, but this does not imply the whole planet. The second coming will be a day of fire, rather than water like the flood. Every survivor will have lost everything, except their own lives.

What if 2 Peter 3 isnt Christ's coming but the Fathers in judgement?
It would then fit in with the occurance of the end of Rev 20:7-10, with the heavens passing away and the earth and the works being burnt up in it.
Peter says "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."
Why would Peter mention that in the end if he wasnt literally speaking about the passing of heaven and earth?

Rev 21 in event after the last judgement shows us right off the start heaven and earth are passed away at that point and a new heaven and earth are created and 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 shows us that when death, the last enemy is destroyed the Son will subject Himself to the Father, that God may be all in all and Rev 21 shows us the Father dwells among men when this occurs after the last enemy is destroyed.

[DurbanDude]

What if 2 Peter 3 isnt Christ's coming but the Fathers in judgement?
It would then fit in with the occurance of the end of Rev 20:7-10, with the heavens passing away and the earth and the works being burnt up in it.
Peter says "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."
Why would Peter mention that in the end if he wasnt literally speaking about the passing of heaven and earth?

Rev 21 in event after the last judgement shows us right off the start heaven and earth are passed away at that point and a new heaven and earth are created and 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 shows us that when death, the last enemy is destroyed the Son will subject Himself to the Father, that God may be all in all and Rev 21 shows us the Father dwells among men when this occurs after the last enemy is destroyed.

I have looked into that view, but to me 2 Peter is about the second coming. The word "earth" that we nowadays would associate with "planet earth" cannot be referring to the planet because in verse 5 it says the earth was standing in water and out of water. The greek word "ge" means land, not planet earth.

So what the chapter is saying is that land will pass away, land will be burnt up. Which land? Those countries that looked after Christians will survive, those that persecuted Christians will be destroyed.

[divaD]

I am one who takes 2 Peter 3 literally , and from a premill perspective, and yet I do not see the absurdity. The problem with that chapter is that the old languages, having less vocabularly, generally had a wider range of meanng for each word than today. In nearly every word used in the english translation of 2 Peter 3, the translators chose the most dramatic meaning, rather than the most common meaning. Thus if you read the Greek, the more common meanings are less dramatic. I think the other translations took the lead from the old King James Version.

2 Peter 3 is just saying that land will burn, and basics will melt (basics being rocks, sand etc). It is not saying that ALL land will burn. This is completely confirmed by many other chapters that describe entire regions being burnt. Certain land is specifically reserved for fire and desolation:

Ezekiel 38: 2And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:

Ezekiel 38:6And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD.

Joel 3: 19Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

Isaiah 34: 8For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
9And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. 10It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever

If the entire earth is burnt,why does the bible describe a specific region that is to be burnt, that none pass through?

And so my argument stands that 2 Peter 3 can be translated literally, land is reserved to be burnt, but this does not imply the whole planet. The second coming will be a day of fire, rather than water like the flood. Every survivor will have lost everything, except their own lives.

DD, I too believe things will be land specific, and not necessarily global.
So in that regards, I think we're on the same page. You have to keep in mind that I was coming from a non premil perspective in regards to the absurdity. They tend to believe the entire planet is engulfed in flames, folks are burning to death, babies and all, not to mention the fervent heat that slould have done everybody in. But when we look at the scene in Rev 19 when Christ arrives, we see no such thing. That's what I'm meaning by absurd. Their conclusions are not agreeing with Rev 19. It's absurd to think there would still be survivors for Christ to kill, if 2 Peter 3 was as literal as they're making it out to be. When I stated that I didn't take 2 Peter 3 literally, I was mainly meaning like in the same sense they do, IOW nothing global about it IMO.

[DurbanDude]

DD, I too believe things will be land specific, and not necessarily global.
So in that regards, I think we're on the same page. You have to keep in mind that I was coming from a non premil perspective in regards to the absurdity. They tend to believe the entire planet is engulfed in flames, folks are burning to death, babies and all, not to mention the fervent heat that slould have done everybody in. But when we look at the scene in Rev 19 when Christ arrives, we see no such thing. That's what I'm meaning by absurd. Their conclusions are not agreeing with Rev 19. It's absurd to think there would still be survivors for Christ to kill, if 2 Peter 3 was as literal as they're making it out to be. When I stated that I didn't take 2 Peter 3 literally, I was mainly meaning like in the same sense they do, IOW nothing global about it IMO.

OK I get you, as usual I'm misunderstanding posts again, I should read more carefully. You make a good point, for example Jesus destroys those armies, and then according to Rev 19 the birds start their feast, so where is this universal destruction of all the earth if the birds are busy eating? Sounds like a quick charred burnt snack to me , then even the birds are burnt up. Not much of a feast for those poor birds. Or maybe Jesus comes twice for the amills like he comes twice for the pre-tribs (I'm being nasty now) once to destroy the army and all the nations, and then after he lets the birds have this fantastic feast he comes again to destroy them and the whole land surface of earth. At least they will die with full stomachs.

[John146]

If you go back and read my recent posts, then you could know why. The scene in Rev 19 hardly depicts a world that is ablaze and elements melting, etc, when Christ returns. Nobody could survive events like that if they were literal. Even you seem to acknowledge that. So how is it that folks are still alive and kicking when Jesus returns, but no one seems to be complaining about the raging fires that have engulfed the earth, nor the fervent heat, etc?

You have completely missed my point so I'm going to have to try to spell it out. I don't believe the fire comes down before Christ returns. I believe it will come down on the day He returns. So, I'm not saying the earth would already be burned up even before He returns. I'm not sure where you were getting that from.

If for some reason we now want to conclude the events in 2 Peter3 happen after Christ has returned and killed everyone, then why the overkill? The only way to square the Scriptures, 2 Peter 3 is not to be understood in the literal sense, since this creates absurdety overall, especially from the perspective of Rev 19.

I never said the events in 2 Peter 3 happen some time before or after He returns. I believe they will happen on the day He returns. I believe on the day of His return He will descend from heaven, then we (believers) will be changed and caught up to Him. This will happen very quickly, as evidenced by 1 Cor 15:51-52. Then right after we are caught up to Him He will destroy the unbelievers remaining on the earth with fire. They will then be resurrected right after that along with the rest of the unbelieving dead and the judgment will take place.

So, as I already pointed out I believe Rev 19 describes the destruction that will take place on the day of His return symbolically while 2 Peter 3 describes it literally. I don't know how to explain my view any more plainly than that.

It doesn't have to be taken as literal in order for it to still be future. I think we need to do another Zech 14 thread, verse by verse, lol. Of course this has been attempted in the past, but I don't really see where anything was accomplished from either position. But it's still an interesting subject IMO.
That ch is basically what keeps me holding on to premil.

That is true for many premils. I believe premil would completely crumble if it could be proven that chapter is not meant to be interpreted in a literal and future sense. That's how much premil depends on Zech 14, IMO.

No one has ever given a convincing argument as to why this wouldn't be future still. Only IMO of course. And I have read a lot of commentaries on the subject. The only commentaries that were convincing were the ones who saw this as yet future. And I'm not being biased because I'm premil. The non premil commentators simply did not prove their case according to the text.

I believe the future interpretations were convincing to you because you have a strong tendency to see most Bible prophecy as being futuristic. I'm not calling you a liar when you say you're not being biased, I'm just saying you are biased but don't even realize it because of your strong tendency to see most Bible prophecy in a future sense.

Why would I think that? I never said I thought that was literal. I only quoted what the Scriptures stated about it. And the Scriptures say..And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth.

Okay, so if that is not literal and only a symbolic description of the destruction of unbelievers at Christ's return then why can't the literal way in which they are slain be by fire?

Once again, just to set the record straight, I'm hardly the type that would believe a real sword is coming out of Jesus' mouth. Actually it was a bit hard to type this since I was laughing so hard. But it's all good tho. I was in kind of a bad mood earlier(personal problems at home)..well this kind of snapped me out of the mood I was in.

That's how you came across. Again, if the description of the destruction that occurs upon Christ's return in Rev 19 is not literal then I'm not sure why you try to use Rev 19 to prove that 2 Peter 3 can't occur upon His return. That makes no sense, IMO.

Getting back to what you stated about the flood. When the flood happened, that took care of them all..that did the job..the water that is. God didn't have to look for survivors afterwards so that He could finish off those those the deluge didn't get.

Where are you getting this idea that God would have to find some to finish off? You are way off base in your understanding of my view.

So I wonder why Jesus still has to kill some, since like the flood, the fire should have already accomplished the same thing by then?

Where are you getting that? I never said the fire would come down even before He returned. If you just paid closer attention to what I actually said instead of reading things into what I've said we'd have better discussions.

But instead, Rev 19 depicts no such scene as folks literally burning up, etc when Christ has returned. ***SIGH***..I suspect this is probably still going over your head the point I'm trying to make here.

That's because it doesn't depict the destruction literally. It depicts it instead in a symbolic fashion. That's my point. Are you getting the point now?

[John146]

Look at what happened to satan. he was well aware of God's standards, yet he still rebelled.

Hey, if you want to believe that a vast number of people will rebel despite Christ having been on the earth in all His glory for a thousand years that's your choice. I personally don't find that to be reasonable at all.

A serious question. In general, how do you envision eternity? Will there be anything physical in this eternity?

I believe so, but not exactly as it is now. I believe the new earth will be this earth made new and will be physical. Our immortal bodies will be physical but minus the limitations our bodies currently have.

Will folks still build house, plant gardens, etc?

I don't know, but it's possible.

Or do you find all of that to be nonsensical, even tho God apparently thought it a good idea, since He kind of created us to do tings like that from the beginning?

We are visual and physical creatures and I don't see any reason why that would change in eternity.

[John146]

Their conclusions are not agreeing with Rev 19. It's absurd to think there would still be survivors for Christ to kill, if 2 Peter 3 was as literal as they're making it out to be. When I stated that I didn't take 2 Peter 3 literally, I was mainly meaning like in the same sense they do, IOW nothing global about it IMO.

Can you show me where anyone said that fire will burn up the earth even before Christ returns? It seems you have made up a doctrine in your own mind that you are criticizing despite the fact that no one is claiming to believe in it. I (and many other amils) believe 2 Peter 3:10-12 is literal and will occur on the day Christ returns, not before that day. Is that plain enough?