Search results

Is this a dichotomy? Two Israels. Romans 9 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the...

Thanks for your "yes".

Do you agree that the word "land" appears nowhere in category 4 where 2 Peter 3:10 appears? Yes or no will suffice.

But God's Cause wasn't lost.

The word "land" appears nowhere in category 4 where 2 Peter 3:10 appears. Why are you denying the obvious? 4. the earth as a whole, the world (Latinterrarumorbis); a. the earth as opposed to the heavens: Matthew 5:18, 35; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31...

If you can't quote correctly, you certainly can't interpret correctly. As an erstwhile commercial editor, I can assure you that I know my grammar. I let Scripture have the last word. I let Scripture be the teacher.

They're not synonyms in the Thayer/Strong definitions, otherwise category 4, in which 2 Peter 3:10 appears, would have included "land", as do categories 1,3, and 5. Notice: 4. the earth as a whole The word "land" appears nowhere in category 4.

No. If so, 2 Peter 3:10 would appear in category 1, 3, or 5. It doesn't. It appears in category 4a. Earth. Not land.

Why are you including the material following 2 Peter 3:5, 7, 10, 13; ? The applicability of the set of Scriptures ending with Revelation 21:1; is to their definition, which is: a. the earth as opposed to the heavens: The definitions following 2 Peter 3:5, 7, 10, 13; which begin with "τά ἐπί...

What Thayer/Strong category does that appear in?

Sure. But everything on it will first be "burned up". Israel included. The disciples inquired about Israel's restoration. But Jesus' answer referenced destruction Scripture, not restoration Scripture. An abomination will not be restored thereafter. From 2 Peter 3:10 Greek: 1093 [e] gē γῆ...

Thanks brother for all of your research and insight on this topic; most illuminating.

He just forgot the /sarc.

There is no language in Scripture more literal, global, unambiguous, and unmistakable than 2 Peter 3:10. There is no "certain place", because all certain places are "burned up" along with all else. 2 Peter 3 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens...

The question is not "is it possible?". The question is "is it Scriptural?". It is not. Where do you get "local" from? 2 Peter 3:10 is the final destruction of all. That certainly includes Israel.

There is no "future restoration of Israel in Acts 1.6-7". Explained previously, but you always ignore it. Jesus' response to the disciples' question is instructive. He refers to times and seasons. Exegetically, times and seasons are associated with the day of the Lord, which is the final end...

The point was that 70*7 is 490, so why didn't Jesus say 490 instead of 70*7? Similar to why didn't Daniel say 490 instead of 70 weeks? Just ancient idiomatic expression.

Matthew 18 21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. Why not 490?

You're welcome bro. I'd be interested if you could find any historical exegete up to Newton's time who did not believe in the weeks of years. John Calvin We now understand why the angel does not use the reckoning' of years, or months, or days, but weeks of years, because this has a tacit...

Amen brother. But how do you explain the "he's" in verse 27 who would then be referring to Titus?