2 Peter 3:10 The Big Whoosh

[ewq1938]

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

You always misuse that verse when anyone that knows the story will know it is not a global killing.

 

[GEN2REV]

You always misuse that verse when anyone that knows the story will know it is not a global killing.

The passages that speak of the Day of the Lord are clear that it will be all sinners, all the wicked throughout the world. It will most certainly be a worldwide killing.

"... anyone that knows the story will know ..."

 

[GEN2REV]

Agree. We have some very deceived people on this forum. Some have deluded themselves and some have been deluded by the teachings of their incompetent pastors and teachers.

I was pondering this particular discussion/topic today and God gave me a very interesting perspective that I had not ever seen before in this regard.

This scenario is exactly like the public schools teaching evolution, but not Creation.

Consider:

@CadyandZoe are/is well aware that this is a very controversial topic. They are also aware that most Christians, especially the young ones, do not have a good grasp of the Bible, if any at all. Therefore, it is dishonest, and rather manipulative, to teach only one side of the controversy.

You gotta ask yourself: What is the motivation/intention here?

Is it to glorify God?

Is it to glorify me?

Is it to edify the body of Christ?

If your intent is to glorify God, or edify Christians, it is in your best interest to teach/present both sides of the case, at a minimum, and let them decide what to believe. Show all relevant Scripture on the matter and encourage Bible study on the topic, allowing them to think, pray and decide for themselves.

That is not at all what we're seeing here. What we are seeing is what the Govt's, and public school systems, have been doing for the last near-century or so. They teach only one side, knowing good and well that there is a very considerable other side that is being completely hidden from the intended audience.

That is just dishonest, at best.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Peter indicated that the heavens and earth would be burned up upon the arrival of the day of the Lord. You say it begins with the Second Advent and I agree. But, I disagree that it refers to a long period of time as you believe. Why do you have the heavens and earth not being burned up until 1,000+ years later after the day of the Lord first arrives like a thief in the night? There is no indication of that in 2 Peter 3 whatsoever.

I explained in my video that Peter's presentation is purposefully condensed and abridged. Chapter three opens with the following statement,

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
​

Here Peter alerts the reader that one must rely on previous teaching in order to comprehend his point below. One needs to remember the words spoken beforehand in order to understand the point he wants to make. The doctrine of the millennial kingdom is understood from other passages of scripture.

It is a mistake to take Peter's abbreviated message at face value because one will come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't think you know what the word "consummation" means. It doesn't refer to the beginning of something as you are saying here in relation to the beginning of the day of the Lord. Instead, it refers to the end of something that makes that thing complete. So, the consummation of the day of the Lord would be the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth, not something that occurs 1,000+ years earlier as you believe.

Have you never heard about the consummation of a marriage? In this case, the word "consummate" means "actualize." It refers to a promise realized.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where did Peter indicate that what he wrote in 2 Peter 3 was not meant to be taken literally and straightforwardly?

I already answered this in a previous post. Peter intends to be take literally. Yes, but his presentation relies heavily on a shared body of knowledge as he himself says. If one takes it straightforwardly, one will draw erroneous conclusions from this chapter. He does not intend to give the reader an exhaustive presentation on the Day of the Lord.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Please make a distinction between the Sixth Seal, the Day of the Lord's fiery wrath, and the 7 Trumpets and 7 Bowls, which will be in the 3 1/2 year time of Great Tribulation.
The Bible does, why don't you keep them separate?

A correct translation of Nahum 1:5 The mountains quake before Him and the hills crumble. The earth is in tumult at His Presence, the world and all who live within it.
There will be no universal destruction when Jesus Returns. That idea is wrong and unscriptural.

Well, I haven't spent much time in the book of Revelation* so take what I say here with a grain of salt. As of now, I believe that the Seals represent the events recorded in the Olivet discourse. I have always believed that the first four seals symbolically represent the Jewish/Roman war of 70AD, as seen from within the walls of Jerusalem. Seal five symbolically represents Jewish converts to Jesus who were killed at the hands of their own people ("the earth" symbolically representing the land of Israel.) Seal six refers to the events that take place just before the son of man appears in the sky.

The Trumpets symbolically represent the run-up to the Second Advent. John calls them "trumpets" because the events depicted in six of the trumpets are meant as warnings of his impending return. The Seventh Trumpet symbolically represents the coming of Jesus, who not only places is foot on the earth (Judea) but on the sea (the nations). He will rule over all the nations.

The bowls represent judgments or punishments of the beast kingdom. Judgment begins with the land of Israel (the earth) and continues with the rest of the world (the sea).

You may want to add to what I said. Or you may see it differently. I need a bit more study before I can be definitive.

______________________________
*"The Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey came out about the same year I became a Christian. During my earlier years as a believer I poured over the book of Revelation with my colored pens and my calculator, determined to figure that book out. After much hard work, I decided that the book could not be understood apart from the Old Testament books such as: Exodus, Deuteronomy, Daniel, Isaiah and others. Since then, I have read the entire Bible several times over, but I have not yet done an exhaustive study of the book of Revelation. So if I get something wrong in my answer, I apologize up front.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This happens at the same time. The second advent ushers in Eternity and the hope of a NHNE. Peter in no way has a 1000 gap between the Lords promised second advent and his hope of a NHNE.

I agree, Peter doesn't mention the Millennial period. Peter alerts the reader that his message is only a reminder of a larger body of knowledge contained in the teaching of Jesus through his apostles and the prophets. He expects his readers to have a firm grasp of the full teaching concerning the coming of Jesus and the day of the Lord. Thus, the reader is to know that as it pertains to the Day of the Lord, he will mention only those aspects of the fuller teaching that serve his message in this context.

In terms of Peter's message, the teaching about a Millennial kingdom is beside the point and not relevant, which is why he doesn't mention it. But we will make a mistake if we erroneously conclude that the Day of the Lord is nothing but the destruction of earth by fire and the end of history. The absence of other details in this context does not indicate an exhaustive teaching on the subject. See what I mean?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I was pondering this particular discussion/topic today and God gave me a very interesting perspective that I had not ever seen before in this regard.

This scenario is exactly like the public schools teaching evolution, but not Creation.

Consider:

@CadyandZoe are/is well aware that this is a very controversial topic. They are also aware that most Christians, especially the young ones, do not have a good grasp of the Bible, if any at all. Therefore, it is dishonest, and rather manipulative, to teach only one side of the controversy.

You gotta ask yourself: What is the motivation/intention here?

Is it to glorify God?

Is it to glorify me?

Is it to edify the body of Christ?

If your intent is to glorify God, or edify Christians, it is in your best interest to teach/present both sides of the case, at a minimum, and let them decide what to believe. Show all relevant Scripture on the matter and encourage Bible study on the topic, allowing them to think, pray and decide for themselves.

That is not at all what we're seeing here. What we are seeing is what the Govt's, and public school systems, have been doing for the last near-century or so. They teach only one side, knowing good and well that there is a very considerable other side that is being completely hidden from the intended audience.

That is just dishonest, at best.

For some reason you feel justified in attacking me and insulting me. Okay, I don't think you understand the Trinity Doctrine. Tell me what it is in a couple of sentences. Don't repeat the creed; tell me in your own words. . . . if you can.

 

[GEN2REV]

For some reason you feel justified in attacking me and insulting me. Okay, I don't think you understand the Trinity Doctrine. Tell me what it is in a couple of sentences. Don't repeat the creed; tell me in your own words. . . . if you can.

Nope.

I'm not playing your game and nothing that I have had to say in this thread even almost calls for an explanation of the trinity doctrine.

It's interesting that you:

1. Admit that you are not a Christian
2. Claim that correcting someone with Scripture is a personal attack
and
3. Continue to try to redirect the conversation to a topic that is not even remotely relevant to your thread NOR to anything that has been brought up in this discussion

How do you account for all of that?

Tell me in your own words ... if you can.

 

[GEN2REV]

Well, I haven't spent much time in the book of Revelation*

Yet the very doctrine you are teaching has its only foundation in that book.

Interesting.

Do you hold yourself accountable before God Almighty for what you teach to the world?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nope.

I'm not playing your game and nothing that I have had to say in this thread even almost calls for an explanation of the trinity doctrine.

It's interesting that you:

1. Admit that you are not a Christian
2. Claim that correcting someone with Scripture is a personal attack
and
3. Continue to try to redirect the conversation to a topic that is not even remotely relevant to your thread NOR to anything that has been brought up in this discussion

How do you account for all of that?

Tell me in your own words ... if you can.

Either you answer the question or I will accept your non-answer as an admission of ignorance. Just admit it. You don't know what it is or what it means. And yet you have the gall to accuse me?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yet the very doctrine you are teaching has its only foundation in that book.

Interesting.

Do you hold yourself accountable before God Almighty for what you teach to the world?

No one holds themselves accountable. It doesn't work that way. I teach the truth and maintain my integrity even while under attack. You, on the other hand, stand in judgment of a man based on his refusal to believe an incomprehensible doctrine. Obviously you can't explain it.

 

[GEN2REV]

Either you answer the question or I will accept your non-answer as an admission of ignorance. Just admit it. You don't know what it is or what it means. And yet you have the gall to accuse me?

How many different User Names do you have here, Wrangler, and have you ever had a mental stability assessment?

Is the internet all make believe to you? A virtual world where you can pretend to know stuff and be authoritative over information you pretend to be familiar with?

Do you consider yourself accountable before God Almighty for all that you teach?

 

[CadyandZoe]

How many different User Names do you have here, Wrangler, and have you ever had a mental stability assessment?

Is the internet all make believe to you? A virtual world where you can pretend to know stuff and be authoritative over information you pretend to be familiar with?

Do you consider yourself accountable before God Almighty for all that you teach?

Again, You don't know anything about the trinity doctrine. After this, I will consider the rest of your posts as deflection and avoiding the issue.

 

[Keraz]

Seal six refers to the events that take place just before the son of man appears in the sky.

The rest of your post #87, is roughly correct. But the First four Seals apply to the whole world and they continue to do so.

The Sixth Seal is not at the glorious Return of Jesus. He does not devastate the whole world when He comes to reign over it!
It is a serious mistake to shift the events as given in Revelation.

 

[jeffweeder]

I agree, Peter doesn't mention the Millennial period. Peter alerts the reader that his message is only a reminder of a larger body of knowledge contained in the teaching of Jesus through his apostles and the prophets. He expects his readers to have a firm grasp of the full teaching concerning the coming of Jesus and the day of the Lord. Thus, the reader is to know that as it pertains to the Day of the Lord, he will mention only those aspects of the fuller teaching that serve his message in this context.

In terms of Peter's message, the teaching about a Millennial kingdom is beside the point and not relevant, which is why he doesn't mention it. But we will make a mistake if we erroneously conclude that the Day of the Lord is nothing but the destruction of earth by fire and the end of history. The absence of other details in this context does not indicate an exhaustive teaching on the subject. See what I mean?

you do not agree with me .

I strongly disagree with what you mean. No missing pieces regarding 2Pet 3 and 2Thess 1.

 

[GEN2REV]

Again, You don't know anything about the trinity doctrine. After this, I will consider the rest of your posts as deflection and avoiding the issue.

I don't know anything about the trinity doctrine.

I'm content with what the Bible teaches.

Jesus, ALONE, is God Almighty.

 

[GEN2REV]

@CadyandZoe

Shall we discuss more 2 Peter 3:10 now?

Or more trinity?

 

[Truth7t7]

I am going to interpret this post as one who has no reasons for what he believes, and an ability to interact with another person's ideas.

No problem interacting with your ideas, you deny the deity of Jesus Christ as being God manifest in the flesh, you believe (The Day Of The Lord) is 1,000 years long and not a day?

Your beliefs and teachings are way out in left field, way out there it's that simple, just mentioning a few of your unorthodox ideas

Jesus Is The Lord