The flood was literal. The point Peter is making isn't that the earth will be destroyed by literal fire, but that it will be judged, as it was in the days of Noah: By the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. Peter doesn't sum up his flood reference with the destruction of the earth, just the ungodly.
So...let me get this straight. You believe the flood was literal. You believe Peter when he says judgement and destruction is coming. But it's too much of a stretch to believe said judgement is going to be fire...despite the fact that Peter says it outright a few verses later?
And, it's not really taking the text at face value (or, even, what it just flatly states) to say that he's only talking about the 'ungodly'. Where, elsewhere in scripture, are the ungodly called 'heavens and earth'?
When you read miraculous things in the Bible, you should ask yourself does the context treat the miraculous thing as literal. The Bible never treats new earth and heavens as literal. It doesn't treat "new creation" as literal when you come to Christ and become a new creation. The Bible uses physical illustrations to convey spiritual truths. We're not told that the lion and lamb populations will be taken to safe places while the universe is destroyed, and then returned to the Earth once the Earth is recreated. We're not given any details that tell us the author wants us to take "new heavens and new earth" literally.
It doesn't? How marvellous.
Let me ask you this: if the new heavens and new earth are not "literal"...what are they?
How do you deal with the fact that all creation is broken? Or is that passage not literal either? I suspect there are plenty of people living along the ring of fire who would disagree with you there. Australia is in the middle of another horrendous drought. The fires over in California. Broken. Just like we are. How can you say that when we are resurrected we will not be new? We must be new, or else we will be living, once more, in bodies that will grow old, sick and die. God has promised to make us, as well as the heavens and earth, free from sin...that means making it new.
What's your explination?
It's not an issue of what God can do, it's an issue of what makes sense. It makes no sense that philosophies (elements) and actions (acts) can be burned up. (Actually, it doesn't make sense that for physical elements to burn up. Fire doesn't destroy physical elements.) It makes no sense that physical destruction of the universe means we should live godly lives. But, it makes sense that destruction of worldly philosophies and acts means we will be left with nothing if we don't live godly lives, which is Peter's point.
Yes, it is an issue of what makes sense, and I don't think you're thinking big enough. This is 'end of the world' we're talking about. You think Peter is warning us to "live right" because our government might fall?
Christ says, "don't fear man, but fear him who can cast you into hell".
As Christians we take the gospel forth because we know it's not just a matter of how people live their lives...it's a matter of eternal souls. One day, God will call time on it all, and then people will be in either one place or another for eternity.
And this brings me back to my earlier point. For things to enter into eternity, where there is no more sickness or death, then the imperishable must be put away. That applies not only to us, but to the cosmos as well (Rom 8). It makes no sense, bringing it back to your point, for Peter to be making some half-hearted remark about 'live right' 'cause governments might fall. Who cares! Governments fall all the time, what people find important in this generation is scoffed at in later generations. All these things are foolish and passing away. We need to live with our eyes on the eternal, knowing that a time will come when the new will come and that we've stored our treasures in heaven, so to speak.
There's no justification for that translation, heavenly bodies. But, do you think a star can melt? Hint, they're already way past the melting point. You should reject interpretations that make no sense. You should reject interpretations not supported by context. And, you should really reject senseless interpretations that follow from poor translations (translating a word that means philosophies to heavenly bodies). (I love the ESV, but this is a serious botch by the ESV translators.)
Well, perhaps you should write to all the theologians who spent many years of their life in hard study of the ancient languages and then even more years studying the intent of the texts to keep as true to God's word as possible. I'm sure they'd be interested. You might also tell them that you consider God's word fluff and of no value in conversation.
Also...ever heard of a supernova? It is possible for big burny things to go boom.
Besides, it's kind of funny that you're pointing at the text and going "it can't say that. Science says it can't!" God made science, and science is only what we know up to now, it's always growing as we learn. Which is why all the athiests standing on their science hill are sort of hilarious. If God wants to make the burny things burn hotter, then they will. He made stuff out of nothing, so he's not exactly bound by the laws he upholds anyway.
To you, that sounds like Paul wants you to take it literally? Do you think Paul is trying to educate construction workers? Use precious metal to build a barn? You don't think Paul is trying to convey a spiritual truth with an analogy?
"Anyone's works" is a figure of speech for what they have constructed. You could argue that Peter is using "works" figuratively, meaning what people, but the grammar is diffferent. There's no subject, "anyone's", for the works to belong to, making "works" the subject itself.
No, I don't suppose he does want you to build a barn. Unless you want to. In which case I suspect it will burn. My condolences.
I see what your doing here, and I'm afraid that dog just won't hunt. Sure, Paul is saying that the things we treasure in this world won't last, that we need to focus on the next, live for the next. But it's interesting, isn't it, that he uses the analogy of fire burning those works up? I wonder why he'd do that?
Here's the crux of it: you can demand that Peter's text musn't be taken literally all you like, but there is absolutely nothing about the text, it's content, it context, it's setting or meaning, that gives you leave or exception to do that. We know that the old must be replaced, that it cannot inherit the new...both us, and creation. I dont care if it's by fire or he drowns the world in marshmellows. But every doctrine we can pull together about it points solidly to that...what fell into sin, must be made new. And since Peter was so very thoughtful to outright tell us that it would be fire, and it would be melted, I don't see why the conversation needs to be so long. Since you apparently hate long.