Should the meaning of Greek words affect the interpretation of the passages they are found in?

[Christian Gedge]

Well, I need to rethink this. I saw the reference to Revelation 6:12-17 which talks about stars falling to the earth. That can't be literal because that would mean the earth was annihilated even before the wrath of the Lamb came down on the earth, which obviously makes no sense. But, looking at the Mark 13 passage again more carefully, I see that it doesn't say that the stars fall from heaven to the earth. So, that could very well be literal even though I'm not sure what stars falling from heaven means in a literal sense. It could be a reference to them being dissolved and 2 Peter 3:10-12 does talk about the heavens being dissolved, which would include the planets and the stars.

On a fine evening here in New Zealand, we can see Venus shining brightly up there. Yes, I used to have questions about stars “falling.” However, someone told me how the ancients called everything in the sky “stars.” So, I think the scenario in Mark refers to meteorites and asteroids and finally the dissolution of the solar system.

When all this begins God calls his people up (rapture/resurrection) That’s how I see these verses. Literal, especially verse 31 when Jesus explicitly says, “heaven (stars) and earth will pass away.”

 

[Zao is life]

Our spirits have been redeemed, but our bodies are not redeemed until the second coming. The bondage of corruption - all the result of the Fall - is not lifted till Jesus comes to glorified His elect and all creation. So, you are going to have to qualify what you say.

Everything takes place in Christ, who died and rose from the dead. It is in Him. He is the resurrection, and He is the Life.

Colossians 1
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell.
20 And through Him having made peace through the blood of His cross, it pleased the Father to reconcile all things to Himself through Him, whether the things on earth or the things in Heaven.

17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

And He rose from the dead.

The bondage of corruption has been reversed in Him. It's already done. We wait in hope (full assurance of faith) to see the fullness of it.

 

[Zao is life]

You are totally selective at your spiritualizing. You literalize what is spiritual and spiritualize what is literal. Talk about convulted hermeneutics.

so you've been waiting and waiting to say that, but because I never took the bait, you said it anyway. The first part of your movie is missing, brother. I never allowed the cameraman to film anything.

IMHO, literalizing what is spiritual and spiritualizing what is literal. it's your forte.

 

[Zao is life]

Preach?... is that how you hear it?
Holier than thou?.... what a bizarre conclusion.
Subtly or directly in accusative attack mode?.....a rebuke heard as an attack? what strange ears!

Your "rebuke" is like the clouds that bring no rain. It exists as a "rebuke" in your imagination only to call those who study the Bible and discuss it and dissect it and look for the meaning of the Greek and the Hebrew - in an eschatology board in a Christian forum - "immature", while talking about your holiness.

The person who isn't interested in the subject and enters the discussion not to bring an argument against the post or any post in the thread, but only to insult @quietthinker or to attack with words like "immature", or "unqualified" etc, is not very mature. He or she could have stayed out of it. So easy, but when they don't stay out of it and enter the discussion only to attack, then their words are meaningless. The clouds that bring no rain. A real rebuke has substance, because a rebuke is always called for. What you have been doing is only "called for" to you in your enthusiastic desire to make others look bad (while you claim to be holy).

Those who love Christ will study and dissect scripture and argue and discuss and debate its meaning - every part of it. We all understand that in Christ we are all one.

I'm not going to answer your posts about this anymore @quietthinker . It's like the most unnecessary and uncalled for type of post to respond to, IMO. It's totally not Christian to get into this kind of back-and-forth with another blood-bought child of God, anyway, no matter who started it, or who attacked whom.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

On a fine evening here in New Zealand, we can see Venus shining brightly up there. Yes, I used to have questions about stars “falling.” However, someone told me how the ancients called everything in the sky “stars.” So, I think the scenario in Mark refers to meteorites and asteroids and finally the dissolution of the solar system.

Well, in that case, in terms of meteorites and asteroids falling, then it's not literally talking about stars falling. You talked about being consistent and taking all of it literally, but turning stars into meteorites and asteroids is not a case of taking it literally. I'm just saying. I do lean towards thinking it's being literal throughout Mark 13:24-25 even if the description of stars falling from heaven isn't completely literal in the sense of stars literally falling (seems that they will be dissolved which can be described as them falling). But, if it's meant to be taken literally, which I do believe it is after giving it more thought, then I see no reason to think it's not talking about literal stars there.

When all this begins God calls his people up (rapture/resurrection) That’s how I see these verses. Literal, especially verse 31 when Jesus explicitly says, “heaven (stars) and earth will pass away.”

I agree. There's no question that the gathering of the elect referenced in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 is a reference to the catching up of God's people to Jesus "in the air".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your "rebuke" is like the clouds that bring no rain. It exists as a "rebuke" in your imagination only to call those who study the Bible and discuss it and dissect it and look for the meaning of the Greek and the Hebrew - in an eschatology board in a Christian forum - "immature", while talking about your holiness.

The person who isn't interested in the subject and enters the discussion not to bring an argument against the post or any post in the thread, but only to insult @quietthinker or to attack with words like "immature", or "unqualified" etc, is not very mature. He or she could have stayed out of it. So easy, but when they don't stay out of it and enter the discussion only to attack, then their words are meaningless. The clouds that bring no rain. A real rebuke has substance, because a rebuke is always called for. What you have been doing is only "called for" to you in your enthusiastic desire to make others look bad (while you claim to be holy).

Those who love Christ will study and dissect scripture and argue and discuss and debate its meaning - every part of it. We all understand that in Christ we are all one.

I'm not going to answer your posts about this anymore @quietthinker . It's like the most unnecessary and uncalled for type of post to respond to, IMO. It's totally not Christian to get into this kind of back-and-forth with another blood-bought child of God, anyway, no matter who started it, or who attacked whom.

I absolute agree with your take on how this person is behaving here. He or she thinks he or she is holier than the rest of us because of supposedly having better things to do than discuss eschatology with other believers. But, I guess he or she doesn't have better things to do than to act condescendingly towards those who do think it's worthwhile to discuss these things. Why are these things we're talking about in scripture if they are not meant to be studied and discussed? I wonder if this person has ever thought about that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

so you've been waiting and waiting to say that, but because I never took the bait, you said it anyway. The first part of your movie is missing, brother. I never allowed the cameraman to film anything.

IMHO, literalizing what is spiritual and spiritualizing what is literal. it's your forte.

I do believe that is exactly what you are doing with Revelation 19:11-21 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. I have yet to see you give a convincing explanation of why Revelation 19:11-21 should be taken literally.

 

[Zao is life]

I don't understand this. What is described in Revelation 20:9 occurs before what is described in Revelation 20:15. So, why are you (seemingly) equating those two verses? Do you not think that God's enemies will be physically destroyed? He's done it before. Why not again?

He will do it at the time of the return of Christ, and He will do it once more a thousand years later. I still don't know whether you are correct or incorrect about the fire being literal (God is a refining fire, He's also a fire of judgment, and of benevolent actions too, such as the tongues of fire on the Day of Pentecost). The Holy Spirit is described as fire many many times in scripture.

But at least I know I don't know. At leas I know you could be right. The words used in 2 Peter 3:10-12 if we go only according to their meaning in every other New Testament verse they are found in, might not be referring to the physical elements of the earth (IMO). It's humans who are being judged, not the planet.

Yes, the waters of the flood that covered the earth destroyed the humans on it ,and you believe that that means that the fire Peter is talking about is a literal fire that will cover the whole earth. You probably would prefer me to say "I think you are right" but then I would be being dishonest. I think you may be right. You're not going to get more out of this rock seated on my shoulders, I'm afraid.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He will do it at the time of the return of Christ, and He will do it once more a thousand years later.

It's so strange to me that you say some things that it only makes sense for Amils to say and some things that only Premils would say. Very confusing. Yet, Amil and Premil can't both be true. Anyway, why would He destroy all unbelievers in the world twice in the future? Why wouldn't doing that once be enough?

I still don't know whether you are correct or incorrect about the fire being literal (God is a refining fire, He's also a fire of judgment, and of benevolent actions too, such as the tongues of fire on the Day of Pentecost). The Holy Spirit is described as fire many many times in scripture.

I absolutely agree that fire is sometimes used in a figurative sense in scripture, which is why we have to look at the context of any given verse or passage in order to see whether it's figurative or literal. In the case of 2 Peter 3:10-12, what Peter had just said a few verses prior very clearly indicates that he was talking about literal fire, in my opinion. And that is because he relates that future event directly to a past, literal, physical event. Surely, he would not have directly compared a future non-literal or non-physical event to a past literal, physical event, right? Unless he wanted to confuse people for some reason.

But at least I know I don't know. At leas I know you could be right.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that. This has been a good, respectful discussion and I want you to know that I do appreciate that. I know things get testy at times in these discussions, but I'm enjoying this discussion since we are keeping that kind of thing to a minimum in this thread.

The words used in 2 Peter 3:10-12 if we go only according to their meaning in every other New Testament verse they are found in, might not be referring to the physical elements of the earth (IMO). It's humans who are being judged, not the planet.

Of course the planet is not being judged (can planets sin?), but it seems to me that the way in which God has decided to punish the humans who have rebelled against Him is to send fire down on them. And, obviously, that fire will affect things around those humans as well (man-made buildings, trees, plants, animals, etc.). It seems to me that God would like a fresh start after ridding the world of not only wicked humans, but wickedness itself. Which is why Peter said in 2 Peter 3:13 that we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells and this is in according with the promise of Christ's second coming.

It's very clear to me that Jesus will rid the world of wicked humans and wickedness itself forever when He returns. And why wouldn't He? Enough is enough. Let's get on with eternity already and be done with sin and death forever. That is part of what makes me excited about Christ's return. The end of sin and death forever.

Yes, the waters of the flood that covered the earth destroyed the humans on it ,and you believe that that means that the fire Peter is talking about is a literal fire that will cover the whole earth. You probably would prefer me to say "I think you are right" but then I would be being dishonest. I think you may be right. You're not going to get more out of this rock seated on my shoulders, I'm afraid.

Of course I would prefer that you say you think I am right, but that is entirely up to you to decide what you believe and I would never try to force you to believe what I believe or pressure you into that. But, if Peter wasn't talking about a literal fire there then why did he mention the flood and immediately afterwards say "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire"? What is your understanding of the phrase "by the same word" there? To me, that phrase indicates that he was comparing like events in terms of comparing a past literal, physical global event to a future literal, physical global event. What else could he have meant?

 

[Zao is life]

I have to point out what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:5-7 again because that establishes the context of what he wrote in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

First, Peter references the flood waters that flooded the earth and destroyed all of the ungodly in the world. So, he referenced a past global, physical event. No room for debate here, right? I would hope not. Then, he said what he did in verse 7 which I quoted above. To me, it's very clear that he compared a past global, physical event to a future global, physical event. What basis is there for seeing it any other way? And if seen this way, it should be clear that what he was saying there is that just as the flood waters covered the entire surface of the earth and destroyed all of the ungodly in the past, the same will happen in the future, only this time by fire. Please address this. If you disagree, please tell me exactly how you interpret that passage.

Yes, I agree, but what is that fire? Jesus will destroy the man of sin with the breath of His mouth (the Holy Spirit) and the brightness of His coming (2 Tess.2:8).

I.O.W, by fire. So what is that fire that Peter is talking about? The substance we know and understand as fire, or the Holy Spirit (the breath of Christ's mouth)? We don't know yet, because it has not occurred yet.

Sorry to be a broken record, but I believe 2 Peter 3:5-7 makes it clear that his emphasis was on physical destruction and the fire that will come down on the earth (and that will affect the heavens and the elements as well) which will destroy all of the ungodly (unsaved). And, that will result in the destruction of the works of humans as well since the point of it all is to end up with "new heavens and a new earth where righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:13).

Do the rudiments and principles (stoichieon) of this fallen world have any part in the destruction? If you believe they do, then we agree, because you sad that the works of men will be destroyed by the fire (whatever the fire consists of).

@WPM pointed out that the word used for "earth" is ge, which is different to kosmos, and refers to the earth itself. Peter says the earth AND its works in it will be destroyed, but the earth has no works of itself, so that means it's the works of humans. But we both agree that it's not the complete annihilation of the planet but it is something bigger than anything that came before or will ever come again after. A complete change. Though we both struggle to put it into words I have the same understanding of that as you, I think.

And yes, the earth cannot be changed into a NHNE unless it "dies" in the same way that no one can be resurrected from the dead without dying. I get that.

That simply does not matter. The fact of the matter is that the Greek words have multiple definitions and not just one. So, how they are used in other verses does not dictate how they need to be used in 2 Peter 3:10-12. It's good to compare how they are used elsewhere, but that alone does not dictate what they should mean in any given verse. It depends on the context.

I admit you could be right but I won't pretend I'm convinced, either way, that the stoichion and ergon is referring to the earth itself. In fact it still does not make sense to me, especially given the fact that the rudiments of this world and works of humans indeed will be destroyed by the "fire".

Is it something you have said to me directly before? I don't read all your posts to ewq and other people. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

I don't know. In the back of my mind I remember saying that to you, and actually posting scriptures that show - almost word for word - those mentioned in Revelation as coming out of great tribulation (at the close of this age) as receiving the exact same blessings and having the exact same "environment" (for want of a better word) as those in the NHNE (among other scriptures that prove the same thing). I.O.W no thousand-year wait between the return of Christ and the NHNE - and no premil believes there will be mortals in the NHNE (at least I hope not).

But like you say, it doesn't matter.

I don't see how Adam has anything to do with this. In the future, those who are changed and have immortal bodies will have an immortal body like only Christ has now. How can they later die? We know Christ cannot die again. So, I am completely baffled about your view on this.

I doubt I will ever find anyone agreeing with me on that. I stand alone. Christ is Creator. Adam and the sons of Adam are creature, resurrected or not. Only Christ the Creator is immortal in the sense you understand immortality, not Adam the creature, nor the sons of Adam, resurrected or not. The proof is that we are all sons of Adam according to the flesh - sons of Adam whose body was immortal before he sinned and began to die, being prevented from eating the fruit of the tree of life (but not in the sense of the immortality of Christ, our Creator).

Yet Adam died, and his death came to all mankind until the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.

I do not believe the creature was ever (before the fall of Adam) nor ever will be immortal in the sense of Christ the Creator's immortality. Christ is alive forevermore. He will never die again. The 2nd death is only for those who had part in the resurrection (Christ's resurrection), which is THE resurrection of mankind (Adam).

"You shall surely die". "You shall not surely die". Yet he died, though his body had been immortal up to that point.

Anyway, I don't expect you to agree with me. I doubt I will ever meet anyone who does.
We don't agree on the timing of the 2nd death:

Only for those whose names are not written in the book of life. The unsaved dead will all be resurrected at the same time and then judged and cast into the lake of fire. But, no one who Paul says in 1 Cor 15:51-52 will be changed to have immortal bodies will be among them.

I'm a premillennialist (just not like any other premillennialist whose statements and assertions I ever heard or read anywhere), so we don't agree on the timing for the 2nd death.

There will be physical destruction at that time, as other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 make clear, but that destruction is described in a figurative way in Revelation 19 whereas it is described literally in 2 Peter 3:10-12. You say you disagree with this, but then didn't say why or comment any further. Can you please explain why you take Revelation 19:15-18 literally

No I don't disagree. I'm almost 100% sure I said after your 2nd post about that, that I do agree that it's metaphor in Revelation 19.

But the metaphor's purpose is to show us the extent of the death, the death toll. Nothing more. What I don't agree on is that the metaphor of Revelation 19 and the extent of the death it points to, has anything to do with the destruction of the earth being mentioned in 2 Peter 3:10. The one (2 Peter 3:10) might come immediately after the other (Revelation 19), I don't know for sure (note, I don't know for sure), but I don't see how, if 2 Peter 3:10 is referring to the destruction of the planet, and Revelation 19 only to the death of humans, we can put the two passages together as though they are "most certainly" talking about one and the same thing. I believe Revelation 19 is referring to the battle of Armageddon. I don't believe that 2 Peter 3:10 is necessarily taking place at the same time - but for sure, if not at the same time, then immediately afterwards. Same day.

Do you believe that Jesus will be slaying people with a literal sword coming out of His mouth when He returns?

No, I don't take Revelation 19:11-19 literally. I never have. I was trying to make the point that the one refers to dead bodies and the other to the complete destruction of the current order. I don't somehow see humans left to kill by the time 2 Peter 3:10 is taking place. It will all have been done in the battle of Armageddon, immediately before 2 Peter 3:10 takes place. Same day.

 

[Zao is life]

Why would He destroy all unbelievers in the world twice in the future? Why wouldn't doing that once be enough?

Not unbelievers.

If Adam was tested and failed, and the martyred saints had been tested and had overcome, then ALL the sons of Adam who were never tested before they died in Christ and before Christ returned (and before the resurrection), will be tested too. Just like Adam was, and all the martyred saints had been.

Only resurrected saints will be around then. They are the ones who are going to rebel when Satan is released again into the NHNE (not all of them, but many), just like Adam did when Satan was released and permitted to deceive Adam in the Garden of Eden.

Only those who had been martyred for their testimony to Christ are promised in Revelation 20:4-6 that the 2nd death will have no authority over them. The verses are silent about all the other saints who had never been tested before they died in Christ, but whom we know will also be resurrected when Christ returns.

I don't blame you for not being able to follow me.

I absolutely agree that fire is sometimes used in a figurative sense in scripture, which is why we have to look at the context of any given verse or passage in order to see whether it's figurative or literal. In the case of 2 Peter 3:10-12, what Peter had just said a few verses prior very clearly indicates that he was talking about literal fire, in my opinion. And that is because he relates that future event directly to a past, literal, physical event. Surely, he would not have directly compared a future non-literal or non-physical event to a past literal, physical event, right? Unless he wanted to confuse people for some reason.

I understand why you say this. Fully understand. Unfortunately my mind questions every assumption before I believe it.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that. This has been a good, respectful discussion and I want you to know that I do appreciate that. I know things get testy at times in these discussions, but I'm enjoying this discussion since we are keeping that kind of thing to a minimum in this thread.

I agree. Thank you too.

But, if Peter wasn't talking about a literal fire there then why did he mention the flood and immediately afterwards say "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire"? What is your understanding of the phrase "by the same word" there? To me, that phrase indicates that he was comparing like events in terms of comparing a past literal, physical global event to a future literal, physical global event. What else could he have meant?

"By the same word" meaning God decreed judgment of the world in the days of Noah and what He has decreed will come to pass. By the same word God has decreed judgment of the world at the time of the return of Christ. The complete annihilation of all the wicked.

By fire. But to me, that does not necessarily mean by the kind of fire we use for our barbecues. "By the same word" - the word of God - the breath of Christ that will destroy the man of sin - is the Holy Spirit, and is Fire.

 

[Zao is life]

Not so fast. Revelation 6:12-17 was referenced first and I had my mind on that and then read the Mark 13 passage, but probably not as carefully as I should have. The Revelation 6 passage specifically mentions stars falling to the earth. In a literal sense that would result in the complete annihilation of the earth, so it can't be literal since it talks about that occurring just before the wrath of the Lamb comes down on the earth. Obviously, the wrath of the Lamb can't come down on a non-existent earth.

But, the Mark 13 passage does not mention stars falling to the earth. It just mentions stars falling from heaven. So, that can be literal.

Uhm ..

Shucks.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not unbelievers.

You think He will destroy believers? I could not possibly be more confused than I am right now. Please explain.

If Adam was tested and failed, and the martyred saints had been tested and had overcome, then ALL the sons of Adam who were never tested before they died in Christ and before Christ returned (and before the resurrection), will be tested too. Just like Adam was, and all the martyred saints had been.

I was talking about people being destroyed/killed, not tested. Have we gotten our wires crossed?

Only resurrected saints will be around then. They are the ones who are going to rebel when Satan is released again into the NHNE (not all of them, but many), just like Adam did when Satan was released and permitted to deceive Adam in the Garden of Eden.

Resurrected saints with mortal bodies? That is not taught anywhere in scripture. Instead, scripture teaches that we will all be changed to have immortal bodies at the last trumpet when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:22-23;51-52). Regardless of this, at the point when these people are destroyed they would be unbelievers, would they not? Regardless of whatever they may have believed before?

Only those who had been martyred for their testimony to Christ are promised in Revelation 20:4-6 that the 2nd death will have no authority over them. The verses are silent about all the other saints who had never been tested before they died in Christ, but whom we know will also be resurrected when Christ returns.

Yeah, this is the kind of thing I run into constantly on this forum (and on that other forum we're both on). But, what we need to remember is not every passage regarding an event or period of time is going to contain the same details. So, just because a passage may only refer to certain people that will be part of a certain event it doesn't mean other people are are not specifically mentioned can't also be part of that event. I don't know if I worded that as well as I would have liked, but do you understand my point here?

Scripture teaches repeatedly that all believers will be resurrected at the same time. So, Revelation 20:4-6 should be interpreted accordingly rather in a way that contradicts those other passages.

I don't blame you for not being able to follow me.

Oh, good. So, I don't need to feel bad about it.

I understand why you say this. Fully understand. Unfortunately my mind questions every assumption before I believe it.

That's fine. You try to be thorough. That's a good thing. But, at some point I think you should make up your mind about what you believe about these things. That's just my opinion. You currently believe some things that only Amils typically believe and other things that only Premils typically believe. But, Amil and Premil can't both be true. Not that Amils and Premils can't agree on anything, but there are some things that they obviously disagree on, such as the timing of Christ's reign and the timing of the thousand years in relation to Christ's return.

"By the same word" meaning God decreed judgment of the world in the days of Noah and what He has decreed will come to pass. By the same word God has decreed judgment of the world at the time of the return of Christ. The complete annihilation of all the wicked.

By fire.

Well, we agree on this and that is encouraging. But, to me, the clear conclusion to draw from this is that this must happen after the thousand years and after Satan's little season. I say that because if all the wicked are killed when Christ returns and all the righteous are changed to have immortal bodies when He returns, as scripture teaches (1 cor 15:22-23;51-52), then that does not leave any mortals to populate the earth during the thousand years, many of whom end up being destroyed by fire after the thousand years and at the end of Satan's little season.

But to me, that does not necessarily mean by the kind of fire we use for our barbecues. "By the same word" - the word of God - the breath of Christ that will destroy the man of sin - is the Holy Spirit, and is Fire.

I just can't see that as being a viable interpretation of what he was saying there. Again, to me, it means he was comparing like events. He was comparing one literal, physical global event to another. And I believe Jesus did the same thing in the same way in Matthew 24:35-39.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Uhm ..

Did you forget to...

Shucks.

Oh, now I see that addition. LOL. Sorry. Hey, don't be discouraged. We still agree on a lot of things. Just not some of these things we're talking about in this thread.

 

[Zao is life]

Resurrected saints with mortal bodies?

It's not a mortal body.

This is what I believe - and it's not the traditional theology or understanding of the church, or of pre-millennialists, and I'm probably going to be called a heretic by some posters here, soon, because you've never heard this "theology" before:

Firstly, bear in mind that I do not see in scripture either the thousand years or the NHNE as commencing before the return of Christ, but neither do I see the NHNE as commencing only a thousand years after the return of Christ, nor do I see mortals after the return of Christ in the NHNE or the first millennium following the return of Christ.

Note: Only Christ (Creator) is immortal in the sense of never being able to die a 2nd death:

-- He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen. --- (1 Timothy 6:15-16, NETfree version).​

The bodies of resurrected saints will be as immortal as Adam's body was before he sinned and became mortal. Adam was immortal before he sinned and began to die:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

".. you will most definitely die." (Genesis 2:17).

"You will NOT most definitely die. You will be like God" (who alone is immortal, and cannot die). (Genesis 3:3-4).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

1. Death:

Mankind's first death is Adam's death. It came to all the children of Adam:

Through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned Romans 5:12

2. Resurrection:

Mankind both has already, and will yet experience one resurrection from death - Christ's resurrection, which takes place in Him just as much as death took place in Adam:

-- I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die -- John 11:25

3. 2nd death

The 2nd death will be experienced by those who had been resurrected, but turn away at the close of the millennium (like Adam did in the Garden of Eden),

because mankind is a created being. We cannot be immortal in the same sense as Christ's immortality. The bodies of resurrected saints will be as immortal as Adam's body was before he sinned and became mortal. Resurrected saints can become mortal again, and die a 2nd death. We are not the Creator.​

Whoever lives and believes in Jesus shall never die. Only those who live and believe in Jesus shall never die (John 11:25-26). Not those who turn later.

So I believe that at the close of the (literal) millennium some resurrected saints will sin again, and follow Satan. They will turn and follow Satan just like Adam did in the Garden of Eden.

I do not see in scripture either the thousand years or the NHNE as commencing before the return of Christ, but neither do I see the NHNE as commencing only a thousand years after the return of Christ, nor do I see mortals after the return of Christ in the NHNE or the millennium.​

 

[CadyandZoe]

In my view there is no question whatsoever that He was speaking about the second coming of Christ.

Do you think that Paul was not speaking about the second coming of Christ here:

1 Thessalonians 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

Paul already spoke about the second coming of Christ in chapter 4. Here is talking about times and epochs, specifically "The day of the Lord." According to the prophets, the Day of the Lord, which is attended by destruction, takes place years before the coming of Jesus, which is why Paul treats it like a different subject.

It does not matter if they did or not. This is a NT prophecy.

It's not NT prophecy. It's commentary on OT prophecy.

 

[Truth7t7]

Context is actually talking about the natural physical change that occurs to this creation when it is regenerated by fire to purge creation of the curse at the second coming. You want to spiritualize it away like the Full Preterists.

Your claim of this earth being "Regenerated" is "False", it will be a completely "New Creation"

Revelation 21:1-5KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Isaiah 65:17KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

 

[Zao is life]

The bondage of corruption is going to be removed from creation when He appears (Romans 8:19-23 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-55). What is more, this earth will not be eliminated. It will be regenerated at the coming of Jesus.

That's what I believe, and that is part of what Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:10-12, but the other part is that the rudiments|principles (stoicheion) of this world and the works (ergon) of humans is also being spoken of, which is the part that you claim that 2 Peter 3:10 is not talking about, or even mentioning.

 

[WPM]

That's what I believe, and that is part of what Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:10-12, but the other part is that the rudiments|principles (stoicheion) of this world and the works (ergon) of humans is also being spoken of, which is the part that you claim that 2 Peter 3:10 is not talking about, or even mentioning.

This is describing the full gamut of the fallen natural physical realm. This includes the works of God and of man. It is all going up in a puff of smoke when Jesus comes. The spiritualization of literal passages and the literalization of highly figurative passages is wrong. All to support your opinion of one lone passage of Scripture. This is terrible hermeneutics.

 

[WPM]

Your claim of this earth being "Regenerated" is "False", it will be a completely "New Creation"

Revelation 21:1-5KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Isaiah 65:17KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

When you were saved did He make all things new?