HealthyShape
Well-Known Member
Because it is just your opinion, not proved by anything. My addressing would be just "ok, it is your opinion".Why are you not addressing anything I said specifically?
They were not.The NT authors were speaking from God's eternal perspective.
He said what he said. He was either wrong or meant that in the apocalyptic language. But it was "at hand", he did not mean our future, 2,000 years after.How can you think that Peter was saying that the end of all things was literally at hand from the human perspective when he wrote that? Would you agree that 2 Peter 3:10-12 describes the end of all things? Do you think what he described there is already fulfilled? It absolutely is not.
In the Peter's letter, it just represents that the first Christians should wait a little longer. That is it.But, it doesn't symbolically represent nothing. It symbolically represents a large number such as when it talks about God's promises applying to a thousand generations (Deuteronomy 7:9) or that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10). The thousand years, though it is symbolic, clearly has a beginning and ending because it says in Revelation 20:3 and Revelation 20:7 that Satan is loosed when the thousand years ends. So, what time period do you think the thousand years symbolically represents?
Saying it is weak is not proving it is weak. It is just.... (drums) your opinion. Again, nothing to address here.Come on. I don't know who you think I am, but I don't buy weak arguments like this. Is this all you have?
Last edited: