Let's examine Revelation 20:4 yet again.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Besides the fact that Adam learned that living forever; never dying or decaying did not mean that he would not die if he rebelled against the Word of God (despite Satan telling him he would not die),

God is the one who created all things and God is able to destroy anything He created.

The word does not mean "Immortal God like the immortal God, Jesus Christ" - that's only how you have it defined it.

1 Timothy 6
16 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.

John 5
26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

You seem to believe immortality (being alive - zao- forever in non-decaying bodies) for the created man and woman and their descendants = being "Immortal God like the immortal God, Jesus Christ", having eternal life - zoe - in ourselves enabling us to live | be alive - zao - forever

- without GOD providing us with that eternal life [zoe] which He alone possesses in Himself.

Revelation 1:17-18
"Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that is alive / that liveth [zao], and was dead; and, behold, I am alive [zao] to the ages of the ages, Amen; and I have the keys of hades and of death."

1 Timothy 6
16 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.



You agree with what you think is the definition of the word - but not with what that definition truly means.

I agree with both the definition of the word and with what that definition truly means.

Jesus alone possesses His own immortality. The creature (created human beings and their descendants) will not possess the immortality that we will be given through the death and resurrection of the Son of man (Jesus)

- neither did Adam possess his immortality - though he was immortal before he rebelled against the Word of God, nor will we possess what we have been given in Christ - who alone possesses it in Himself.



You apparently believe that we will be "Immortal God like the immortal God, Jesus Christ"

- and you apparently believe that the Almighty God who created us is not omnipotent

- because you believe He is not capable of destroying both soul and body in the gehennah of fire if an immortal whose immortality has been given to him only in Christ - rebels against the Word of God.



It's okay because in so doing you make it clear how you define the word - which is not what the word means.

The word "immortal" does not mean "impossible for God to destroy both soul and (immortal) body in the fire of gehennah or by fire coming down from God out of heaven".

The word does not mean "Immortal God like the immortal God, Jesus Christ" - that's only how you have it defined it.



Just another attempt on your part to imply that what I say is not biblical (which is a usual thing for you with those who disagree with you).

The problem for your implications is that whatever truth God reveals in the scriptures He reveals to all - and what I say is IN scripture and TAKEN FROM scripture

- but some things you are blinded to

- partly because you choose to believe you will be "Immortal God like the immortal God, Jesus Christ"

- and so not even the Almighty omnipotent God who created our ancestors after creating all things, can destroy you - once you have risen from the dead through the power of Christ's resurrection,

and maintain eternal life IN CHRIST

- which is the source of all life and all living - IN HIM - who is THE WORD OF GOD .

Brother, you will only maintain it IF you do not join in the rebellion against the Word of God when Satan is released one last time following the resurrection to deceive mankind with a lie.

God is able to destroy anything He created with fire.

Immortal means you can't die, so you are just wrong. Period. No sense in discussing this any further.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No interpretation necessary = It is exactly as JESUS Stated

LOL! I can't take you seriously when you can't even answer a simple question. You are completely incapable of defending your beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that you sometimes can't answer simple questions, but act as if your beliefs are facts.

 

[David in NJ]

@Zao is life and @Lizbeth

What to Do???

Dilemma on the new pup's name!!!

I liked 'Kyra' , while my son liked 'Zoe'

Found out today that the puppy we bought from the Owner/Breeder has a daughter and this puppy was her favorite.

Daughter's name is Zoe = Is that crazy or purely coincidental or...........???

 

[David in NJ]

LOL! I can't take you seriously when you can't even answer a simple question. You are completely incapable of defending your beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that you sometimes can't answer simple questions, but act as if your beliefs are facts.

You cannot take JESUS seriously???

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here. - John 18:36

What is so difficult for you on JESUS simple and direct words???

@Lizbeth = do you find John 18:36 difficult to understand?

Anyone find this difficult to understand?

 

[Lizbeth]

@Zao is life and @Lizbeth

What to Do???

Dilemma on the new pup's name!!!

I liked 'Kyra' , while my son liked 'Zoe'

Found out today that the puppy we bought from the Owner/Breeder has a daughter and this puppy was her favorite.

Daughter's name is Zoe = Is that crazy or purely coincidental or...........???

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

[David in NJ]

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

OK - my BAD, you responded to the puppy question

 

[David in NJ]

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

OK - my BAD, you responded to the puppy question = THANK YOU Sis

 

[Lizbeth]

You cannot take JESUS seriously???

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here. - John 18:36

What is so difficult for you on JESUS simple and direct words???

@Lizbeth = do you find John 18:36 difficult to understand?

Anyone find this difficult to understand?

I think Spiritual Israelite would like to know what point you were making with posting that verse and how you understand it, to be able to engage with you about it. Why is it so hard to answer him?

I have an understanding, as I said before, that because the kingdom of Israel and old covenant was all about the earthly realm (as types and shadows of the heavenly), including fighting battles with the heathen nations, earthly blessings, outward righteousness, etc, Jesus in introducing the new covenant was trying to bridge them over to the new covenant which is much more about the spiritual/heavenly realm.....new way of the Spirit......blessings are mostly spiritual riches, battles are now spiritual, righteousness is inward. The Lord had been dealing with the kingdom of Israel on an earthly level but "now", beginning with His arrival on the scene, His kingdom is not of this world, it is spiritual/heavenly. That's how I take it. His kingdom was now "the Israel of God", spiritual Israel, as opposed to earthly "Israel after the flesh", in a manner of speaking.

 

[David in NJ]

I think Spiritual Israelite would like to know what point you were making with posting that verse and how you understand it, to be able to engage with you about it. Why is it so hard to answer him?

I have an understanding, as I said before, that because the kingdom of Israel and old covenant was all about the earthly realm (as types and shadows of the heavenly), including fighting battles with the heathen nations, earthly blessings, outward righteousness, etc, Jesus in introducing the new covenant was trying to bridge them over to the new covenant which is much more about the spiritual/heavenly realm.....new way of the Spirit......blessings are mostly spiritual riches, battles are now spiritual, righteousness is inward. The Lord had been dealing with the kingdom of Israel on an earthly level but "now", beginning with His arrival on the scene, His kingdom is not of this world, it is spiritual/heavenly. That's how I take it. His kingdom was now "the Israel of God", spiritual Israel, as opposed to earthly "Israel after the flesh", in a manner of speaking.

Simple and straightforward = "My kingdom is not of this world"

Did you notice anything else?

 

[Zao is life]

@Zao is life and @Lizbeth

What to Do???

Dilemma on the new pup's name!!!

I liked 'Kyra' , while my son liked 'Zoe'

Found out today that the puppy we bought from the Owner/Breeder has a daughter and this puppy was her favorite.

Daughter's name is Zoe = Is that crazy or purely coincidental or...........???

My advice would be to read every Bible verse using G222 Zoe (at Bible Hub),

and then to read every Bible verse using G2198 Zao (at Bible Hub)

See if you can pick up what each one means and if there is any difference in meaning between the two words.

Then ask yourself why both words are used in John 11:25,

but only the word Zao in Matthew 22:32, and why it's contrasted with the word "dead".

Then name the puppy Kyra Zoe-Zao.

(Kyra, she who has the breath of life from God, and is alive).

 

[ewq1938]

Pardon me, I did forgot to post this regarding the GWTJ.

2Ti 4:1
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:

That's not the GWTJ of Rev 20. That is the judgment of the saved, dead and living which is before the Mill.

Do you place the appearing of Christ at the end of a future thousand year reign?

No. He returns at the 7th trump which is immediately after the 42 month trib. The thousand years happens after that.

 

[ewq1938]

Not ignoring....just making the point that you are disconnecting that verse of the "day of God" from the context of the whole passage to try and make it fit your belief, rather than just letting it say what it says.

A passage can have multiple contexts and subject such as the second coming, and then something different like the destruction of the current heaven and Earth. Merging two different contexts to make it fit your belief, rather than just letting it say what it says.

Revelation needs to be understood from a foundation of all the scriptures that came before it, rather than that we work backwards from Revelation to try to make the earlier scrips try to fit how the modern church is seeing Rev from a "dispensationalist" point of view.

There is no backwards or forwards. It's just using all scriptures to have a correct timeline. Any position that contradicts what any part of scripture says is the result of forcing a theological views upon the scriptures.

Try to look at 2 Peter 3 with fresh eyes, without any reference to Rev......

lol, so interpret something by ignoring other scripture? That's how false doctrines get created. Nope. One needs to consider ALL related scripture to have an accurate picture.

Rev hadn't been written yet when 2Peter 3 was written (and 2Peter 3 agrees with the even earlier scrips of the old testament as it even mentions at the beginning of the passage). Though I can't as yet parse (rightly divide) everything that is written in Revelation I'm thoroughly convinced and often see in various places that if/when Revelation is understood properly it reiterates and doesn't contradict the earlier scriptures.

It never contradicts other scriptures. You know the first identified Amill opposed the canonization of Rev right? He did not like what Rev said.

Rev 16:12-16

And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.


There above we see another reference to the day of God….and it is tied in with the beast and false prophet and Jesus coming as a thief and the final battle…….

It's an aside not "tied in" to those other things.

.those things do not happen at the end of a future literal 1000 year reign, but at the end of this age.

No, the vials are all poured after the 7th trump which is when the second coming happens.

Just think and consider (with fresh objective eyes and putting Rev aside for a moment), in 2 Peter 3, what need have we to look for and haste unto the coming of a future day of God a thousand years after we've already gone to be with the Lord? And why would we need to heed what manner of persons we ought to be if the world burns up a thousand years after we have died and been resurrected or raptured to be with the Lord? Are we being told to heed what manner of persons ought we to be after we've gone to be with the Lord, or in this life and this age now?

At the second coming the resurrection and rapture happen, and the nations will be ruled over as Rev 19 declares. Rev 20 shows that rule.

2Pe 3:10-12

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

As I said, the NHNE does not appear until after the GWTJ, not at the second coming so the Amill interpretation contradicts what Rev presents.

Rev also presents two separate resurrections which is something Amill does not accept. This is another reason why they did not want Rev canonized. With Rev removed, Amill is easier to promote.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You cannot take JESUS seriously???

Stupid question. Don't waste my time with stupid questions.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here. - John 18:36

What is so difficult for you on JESUS simple and direct words???

There's nothing difficult for me about John 18:36 at all. If this is easy for you to understand His words, then just tell me your understanding of them. Should be very easy for you to do. Why would you refuse to do so? Do you have something to hide?

Do you think Jesus was saying that His kingdom was not in the world when He said it was not of this world? If so, is that your understanding of what He meant when He said He is not of the world and His disciples were not of the world while they were in the world?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Simple and straightforward = "My kingdom is not of this world"

Did you notice anything else?

Simple and straightforward = "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." (John 17:16).

Does your understanding of what He meant when He said His kingdom is not of this world similar to your understanding of what He meant when He said, in relation to His disciples, "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think Spiritual Israelite would like to know what point you were making with posting that verse and how you understand it, to be able to engage with you about it. Why is it so hard to answer him?

Exactly. His unwillingness to answer makes it seem like he has something to hide for some reason.

I have an understanding, as I said before, that because the kingdom of Israel and old covenant was all about the earthly realm (as types and shadows of the heavenly), including fighting battles with the heathen nations, earthly blessings, outward righteousness, etc, Jesus in introducing the new covenant was trying to bridge them over to the new covenant which is much more about the spiritual/heavenly realm.....new way of the Spirit......blessings are mostly spiritual riches, battles are now spiritual, righteousness is inward. The Lord had been dealing with the kingdom of Israel on an earthly level but "now", beginning with His arrival on the scene, His kingdom is not of this world, it is spiritual/heavenly. That's how I take it. His kingdom was now "the Israel of God", spiritual Israel, as opposed to earthly "Israel after the flesh", in a manner of speaking.

Agree. I started a thread about this topic and would appreciate if you shared your perspective there. Here is the link: This is what Jesus meant when He said "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)

I created the thread because I have noticed some people on this forum, including @David in NJ , who seem to not understand the meaning of John 18:36.

 

[Hillsage]

The New Covenant through Christ was ordained in heaven from before the foundation of the world. That's when God provided HIMSELF the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world. All the promises of God are 'yes' and 'amen', so according to promise whosoever from the beginning of creation to the sounding of the last trumpet believe on Messiah, The Christ promised by God belong to the New Covenant through the blood of the Lamb.

The first New Covenant promise given to mankind is found in Genesis.

Genesis 3:15 (KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

These words have been appropriately called the "Protevangelium," the first gospel. This passage tells us that though mankind, because of sin, will be burdened and persecuted by the great adversary of mankind, the seed of evil (Satan), the Seed (Christ) of life shall come and through Him the curse of death might come to all who believe on Him.

I don't believe; ""Protevangelium," the first gospel."" (quoting you above), was the first gospel in Gen 3:15. It was the CURSE for breaking the 'first covenant' of 'don't eat of the tree of good and evil'. They Adam/Eve both did eat, and they both lost immortality. IOW they both were going to "surely die" BECAUSE they were kicked OUT of the Garden and no longer had access to the fruit of the tree of life and they were going to die in the flesh, as a consequence.

Yes, there was more in store for all of humanity which was created BEFORE Adam was removed from WEST EDEN by God. The same God who placed the 'spirit of Christ' in Adam ONLY and not the rest of the Pre Adamic race ("host") which were created in Gen 2:1.

"host" = SRN 6635 tsaba': a mass of persons (or fig. things),espec. reg. organized for war (an army); by impl. a campaign, lit. or fig. (spec. hardship, worship).

The first 'son of God' was "formed" by God out of that 'mass of persons' Gen 2:7. And God put a christos/anointed spirit into Adam making him the FIRST 'son of God' (not born of a woman Luke 3:38). God THEN went farther EAST in Eden and planted a garden Gen 2:8. Then God went back and got ADAM out of the pre Adamic race "host" and put him in the "Garden.." which was farther "..eastward in Eden" Gen 2:8.

This is already plenty to deal with, if you've never heard or studied it before.

Why is Christ the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world if God had not prepared and ordained before creation the way/means for which mankind might be eternally saved through the Lamb slain?

Because when the 'first Adam' sinned, the 'christos spirit' in Adam left he lost access to the life available from the tree of life.

NB....I honestly am still trying determine if 'the tree of life' provided the immortality life or the eternal life....mentioned in

Rom 2:7. to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Hebrews 11:39-40 (KJV) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

The promise the Old Covenant saints had not received was a place, eternal in heaven.

Can you support that from the OT? I ask because I believe; God's promise to Abraham, detailed in Genesis, centers on three core blessings: a great nation (Israel) from his descendants, a promised land (Canaan), and universal blessing through his lineage, culminating in the Messiah (Jesus Christ) for all families on Earth. IOW. a people, a land, a world.

They weren't looking for an eternal home in the land of promise on this earth. They sought something far better! They died in faith waiting to receive the promises they knew of and were persuaded of them, and embraced them understanding the promises would not be found on this earth of which they saw themselves as strangers and pilgrims. The place they desired and had not yet received is an heavenly place where God hath prepared for them the holy city, New Jerusalem unto mount Sion the city of the living God. They believed and patiently waited to be the general assembly and church of the firstborn, being spirits of just men made perfect. And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant which speak of better things that that of Abel.

I see in scripture a plan that this visible earthly world was to manifest visibly what God was doing FROM the invisible heavenly or spiritual realm. I don't think heaven is a physical place beyond some black hole in outer space with literal streets of gold etc. etc.

I'm just going to stop now RWB. It would take a lot of fellowship to wade through all the theological positions of 40,000 denominations to ever agree 100%. And I'd rather 'get along' with you/others/ALL as we all search for TRUTH; Rather than argue who's right and who's wrong until the day of judgment.

Plus, a dear 88 yo brother just died this morning. Been visiting him every day he has been in the hospital for the last three weeks.

Hebrews 11:9-10 (KJV) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Hebrews 11:13-16 (KJV) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Hebrews 12:22-24 (KJV) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

[David in NJ]

Simple and straightforward = "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." (John 17:16).

Does your understanding of what He meant when He said His kingdom is not of this world similar to your understanding of what He meant when He said, in relation to His disciples, "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world"?

AGREE

 

[David in NJ]

Stupid question. Don't waste my time with stupid questions.


There's nothing difficult for me about John 18:36 at all. If this is easy for you to understand His words, then just tell me your understanding of them. Should be very easy for you to do. Why would you refuse to do so? Do you have something to hide?

Do you think Jesus was saying that His kingdom was not in the world when He said it was not of this world? If so, is that your understanding of what He meant when He said He is not of the world and His disciples were not of the world while they were in the world?

Since you call my question 'stupid' i will take your advice and now apply it to our discussion.

K.I.S.S. is an acronym often used to solve problems.

The K.I.S.S. design principle stands for « Keep It Stupidly Simple » or « Keep It Simply Stupid ».
It originated from the US Navy in the 1960s when the Navy was facing a problem with overly complicated systems and processes that were costing time, money, and lives. The solution was to simplify things as much as possible. It’s about stripping away anything that doesn’t add value or serve a clear purpose.

Had Eve used this simple truth, she would of not listened to the Serpent.

JESUS used this principal in His teachings because we have all been 'dumbed down' due to the influence of sin in our hearts and minds.

Here are JESUS words on this very thing = Luke 11:13

If you(us) then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

Here is another perfect description given to us by JESUS = Matthew 18:1-5

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Now the choice is Open for you, @Lizbeth and everyone on here to either be real 'smart' or to acknowledge that God's Wisdom is Given to us when we apply the KISS principle and obey the LORD = Luke 11:13 , Proverbs 30:5-6 , Revelation 22:18-19

 

[Lizbeth]

Since you call my question 'stupid' i will take your advice and now apply it to our discussion.

K.I.S.S. is an acronym often used to solve problems.



Had Eve used this simple truth, she would of not listened to the Serpent.

JESUS used this principal in His teachings because we have all been 'dumbed down' due to the influence of sin in our hearts and minds.

Here are JESUS words on this very thing = Luke 11:13

If you(us) then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

Here is another perfect description given to us by JESUS = Matthew 18:1-5

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Now the choice is Open for you, @Lizbeth and everyone on here to either be real 'smart' or to acknowledge that God's Wisdom is Given to us when we apply the KISS principle and obey the LORD = Luke 11:13 , Proverbs 30:5-6 , Revelation 22:18-19

Some real simple wisdom that Jesus gave is that His kingdom is not of this world that we may say here it is, or there, but is within/among us. A correct understanding of the reign of Christ will not contradict that.

Do you have an answer for the question I asked you yesterday brother?

 

[Lizbeth]

A passage can have multiple contexts and subject such as the second coming, and then something different like the destruction of the current heaven and Earth. Merging two different contexts to make it fit your belief, rather than just letting it say what it says.




There is no backwards or forwards. It's just using all scriptures to have a correct timeline. Any position that contradicts what any part of scripture says is the result of forcing a theological views upon the scriptures.





lol, so interpret something by ignoring other scripture? That's how false doctrines get created. Nope. One needs to consider ALL related scripture to have an accurate picture.





It never contradicts other scriptures. You know the first identified Amill opposed the canonization of Rev right? He did not like what Rev said.




It's an aside not "tied in" to those other things.





No, the vials are all poured after the 7th trump which is when the second coming happens.





At the second coming the resurrection and rapture happen, and the nations will be ruled over as Rev 19 declares. Rev 20 shows that rule.




As I said, the NHNE does not appear until after the GWTJ, not at the second coming so the Amill interpretation contradicts what Rev presents.

Rev also presents two separate resurrections which is something Amill does not accept. This is another reason why they did not want Rev canonized. With Rev removed, Amill is easier to promote.

I'm not saying to remove Revelation. Just that we need to first grasp the earlier scriptures to be able to start seeing Revelation in light of them. Having a preconceived wrong understanding of certain things in Rev causes us to start trying to force earlier scrips to fit our preconception. Put aside Rev long enough to let the earlier scrips just say what they are saying in themselves.

Do you have an answer to the question I asked you? Why God would have us looking for and hasting unto a day that is a thousand years after we have already gone to be with the Lord? And why He would admonish us to take care what manner of persons we ought to be when we have already gone to our reward and are with the Lord those thousand years? It is for this life now that we are looking for and hasting the day Christ returns that we may go to be with Him.....and knowing that this world is going up in smoke when He returns what manner of persons ought we to be......looking for a new home that is heavenly. The way you and other interpret that verse about the day of God in 2 Peter 3 doesn't hold water. It is an example of trying to make that verse fit a preconceived idea about something in Rev instead of just letting it say what it is saying.