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?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.
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?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?
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.
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:
Rev 19 describes symbolically what is described literally in 2 Peter 3. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:Originally Posted by divaD
A case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger
If one is broken on this road of gravel,
That we travel:
He can fix him. Nothing licks Him.
It was never a mistake to trust the Lord.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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?
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?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.
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.A serious question. In general, how do you envision eternity? Will there be anything physical in this eternity?
I don't know, but it's possible.Will folks still build house, plant gardens, etc?
We are visual and physical creatures and I don't see any reason why that would change in eternity.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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)