Re: Hebrew Idioms and 2 Peter 3:8

[Christina]

All due respect that is smoke and mirrors I agree with your scripture but it has nothing to do with the subject you brought up and are calling me wrong on ... if you are seeing layers please show them to me. I have no problem being wrong but you must prove it in scripture in Gods Word not mans

 

[AusDisciple]

Christina please.... try a little lateral thinking here. Apostle Paul was extremely good at it and it is evident in the effectiveness of much of the New Testament.Why is it so difficult for you to fathom that Peter could possibly be talking about the timeless and eternal nature of God?Please forgive me if I sound flustered here. I am far from perfect but this really is a very basic concept. It is absurd to me that we are nit picking over something so benign and simple..... and I am not calling you wrong.

 

[Christina]

Because God says differnt as does the Hebrew idioms Paul taught on three differnt levels at once Peter is making a statement he is revealing a mystery that has been hid dont try to side track me please Pauls teaching is not the subject I know my scripture If you are going to say I am a teaching God words wrong I ask you please to show me.

 

[AusDisciple]

QUOTE (Christina;67225)
Because God says differnt as does the Hebrew idioms Paul taught on three differnt levels at once Peter is making a statement he is revealing a mystery that has been hid dont try to side track me please Pauls teaching is not the subject I know my scripture If you are going to say I am a teaching God words wrong I ask you to show me.
That is exactly what I am trying to say (The Blue bold text I mean). I am sure you would agree that there is no requirement for a new Christian to have a certain amount of the Bible memorised or a certain amount of time of study before the Holy Spirit brings the Word to life. I do not have the years of study experience nor have I even finished reading the Bible through fully even once yet but I DO have Jesus Christ as my teacher and the Holy Spirit to guide me just as any dedicated Christian (such as yourself) does.All I have been trying to say is that the Holy Spirit has made it clear to me that Peter was talking about the timelessness of God. As you can see from my original post, I am not the only one this has been revealed to. In fact, I have spoken to some of my Christian friends in person about this and they ALL say the same thing.If someone says to you that a certain bunch of grapes are green and you look at them and see that they are green, do you then need four other people to say to you in various ways that the grapes are green before you will believe they actually are green?Those grapes may have brown spots on them too which reveal something more about them but you may not have seen the brown spots until someone else pointed them out to you. That does not mean the grapes are no longer green. It simply means you have discovered something extra about the grapes that you may not have noticed before.Therefore, someone who says the grapes are brown spotted is not disagreeing with the person who says the grapes are green but the two things combined tell you more about the grapes.....and so it is with 2 Peter 3:8.

 

[AusDisciple]

I feel it is important to add that I have learnt something here that I was not aware of in my first post and that is Peter could very well also be talking about 1 day equalling 1000 years. From the E=mc2 post of Alpha and Omega, I can see how that can make sense.Does that mean I trust science over God? Of course not! It is just one way for God to speak to me as a scientific person.Remember, He speaks to us all in ways that we can understand personally and that may not be a way someone else can understand. What is important is that we understand God in a scripturally sound way.

 

[cedarhart]

It would appear that this "pinata" has been pummeled long enough. It's not that difficult to understand that 1day = 1,000 yrs. with God. Why? Because He said so! LOL He's our parent!II Peter 37 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.10 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 Strong's: "Day"2250 hmerahemerahay-mer'-ah feminine (with wra - hora 5610 implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit; akin to the base of 1476) meaning tame, i.e. gentle; day, i.e. (literally) the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole aganakthsiV - aganaktesis 24 hours (but several days were usually reckoned by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes); figuratively, a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context):--age, + alway, (mid-)day (by day, (-ly)), + for ever, judgment, (day) time, while, years.2094 "Years" etoVetoset'-os apparently a primary word; a year:--year. 5507 "Thousand" cilioichilioikhil'-ee-oy plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand:--thousand.1019 "Slack" bradunwbradunobrad-oo'-no from braduV - bradus 1021; to delay:--be slack, tarry. 3114 "Longsuffering" makroqumewmakrothumeomak-roth-oo-meh'-o from the same as makroqumwV - makrothumos 3116; to be long-spirited, i.e. (objectively) forbearing or (subjectively) patient:--bear (suffer) long, be longsuffering, have (long) patience, be patient, patiently endure.3571 "Night" nuxnuxnoox a primary word; "night" (literally or figuratively):-- (mid-)night.There can be no doubt that time in Scripture was measured and understood, literally. There is ample evidence of this in the Old and New Testaments. They measured space, weight, and time and documented it. Other speculations are fine to entertain but one must be accountable to that which is verifiable. That is the Bible where it is written. Science. Ockham's Razor: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." "In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such; it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation)."In this case, the explanation free of elements is that, 1 day = 1,000 years with God.Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.20 He which testifieth these things saith Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus.Note that Christ stated "quickly"? He is aware of the measurement of time also as He conveyed it to man.Blessing to All who love God,Cedarhart

 

[Jordan]

(cedarhart;67228)
It would appear that this "pinata" has been pummeled long enough. It's not that difficult to understand that 1day = 1,000 yrs. with God. Why? Because He said so! LOL He's our parent!II Peter 37 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.10 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 Strong's: "Day"2250 hmerahemerahay-mer'-ah feminine (with wra - hora 5610 implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit; akin to the base of 1476) meaning tame, i.e. gentle; day, i.e. (literally) the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole aganakthsiV - aganaktesis 24 hours (but several days were usually reckoned by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes); figuratively, a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context):--age, + alway, (mid-)day (by day, (-ly)), + for ever, judgment, (day) time, while, years.2094 "Years" etoVetoset'-os apparently a primary word; a year:--year. 5507 "Thousand" cilioichilioikhil'-ee-oy plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand:--thousand.1019 "Slack" bradunwbradunobrad-oo'-no from braduV - bradus 1021; to delay:--be slack, tarry. 3114 "Longsuffering" makroqumewmakrothumeomak-roth-oo-meh'-o from the same as makroqumwV - makrothumos 3116; to be long-spirited, i.e. (objectively) forbearing or (subjectively) patient:--bear (suffer) long, be longsuffering, have (long) patience, be patient, patiently endure.3571 "Night" nuxnuxnoox a primary word; "night" (literally or figuratively):-- (mid-)night.There can be no doubt that time in Scripture was measured and understood, literally. There is ample evidence of this in the Old and New Testaments. They measured space, weight, and time and documented it. Other speculations are fine to entertain but one must be accountable to that which is verifiable. That is the Bible where it is written. Science. Ockham's Razor: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." "In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such; it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation)."In this case, the explanation free of elements is that, 1 day = 1,000 years with God.Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.20 He which testifieth these things saith Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus.Note that Christ stated "quickly"? He is aware of the measurement of time also as He conveyed it to man.Blessing to All who love God,Cedarhart
Amen Cedarhart. God is 100% our Father and a father is a parent. And the very very very first Father ever can never be wrong with that. Let us take joy in His Word and Work. We need not the word of men!

 

[Christina]

Exactly Cedarhart you nailed itthere is absoulty no proof anywhere it means anything else other than exactly what it says one day = 1000 years...except by some confused mens opinions

 

[Christina]

(AusDisciple;67226)
That is exactly what I am trying to say (The yellow bold text I mean). I am sure you would agree that there is no requirement for a new Christian to have a certain amount of the Bible memorised or a certain amount of time of study before the Holy Spirit brings the Word to life. I do not have the years of study experience nor have I even finished reading the Bible through fully even once yet but I DO have Jesus Christ as my teacher and the Holy Spirit to guide me just as any dedicated Christian (such as yourself) does.All I have been trying to say is that the Holy Spirit has made it clear to me that Peter was talking about the timelessness of God. As you can see from my original post, I am not the only one this has been revealed to. In fact, I have spoken to some of my Christian friends in person about this and they ALL say the same thing.If someone says to you that a certain bunch of grapes are green and you look at them and see that they are green, do you then need four other people to say to you in various ways that the grapes are green before you will believe they actually are green?Those grapes may have brown spots on them too which reveal something more about them but you may not have seen the brown spots until someone else pointed them out to you. That does not mean the grapes are no longer green. It simply means you have discovered something extra about the grapes that you may not have noticed before.Therefore, someone who says the grapes are brown spotted is not disagreeing with the person who says the grapes are green but the two things combined tell you more about the grapes.....and so it is with 2 Peter 3:8.
Your opening quote quote)In reply to this topic and, in particular, Christina's reference to 2 Peter 3:8, we need to keep in mind the context of the entire verse when studying the meaning of Peter's reference to time.What he is referring to is the fact that God exists outside time, therefore, our perception of time is a human limitation not applicable to God. Peter is simply stating that in God's view, one day or a thousand years is irrelevant in the context of eternity..(Quote)AusWhen you make a Thread and single me out as the one you are correcting and then make a statement as if were fact. Then have nothing to correct me with except mens words your opinions and vague referances to unassociated scripture and some mystical level in Peter you do not even see but claim must be there and then turn around and say You havent even read the whole Bible yet You area newbie .. On what basis are you making your arguments... on men? your own opinions? scripture? You are the one that singled me out claiming you had this right knowledge and then claim you dont have knowledge which is it ... Now I dont mind having a conversation about anything in scripture but out of the Blue we have never even discussed this you make a thread calling me in error ... I may be in error according to your science ...but I am not in error as to What Peter says .. The mystery was that God is not slow (slack) in his coming it may seem slow to us ... because its been 2000 years as we we count time... but in Gods Time ..outside earth 1 Day to God is 1000 years to man. So God is saying I am not slow (slack) in my coming .......its only been about 2 days in his time sense he died on the cross ... You can have whatever scientific theroy you like but if it doesnt align with scripture you cant just change the scripture to suit your theroy. And if you are going to say the scripture is wrong you had better come with some firm Biblical facts to support you saying theres is layers you dont see but your sure they must be there because other wise your wrong ??..Thats ridiculous then anyone could say anything If you cant see it cant prove it .. you can not claim its written.

 

[epistemaniac]

what people need to get pastne's interpretation is not equal to God's interpretation, since you are not Goddisagreeing with that interpretation does not make God a fool, because you and God are not the samewhenever you explain why you interpret the scriptures as you do, you are therefore and thereby offering "man's interpretation" or, as the case may be, "woman's interpretation", that is, God did not reach down and whisper in your ear the correct interpretation, did He? A few examples of "man's" or "woman's" interpretations:"This story is unrelated to II Peter 3:8. Those "Jews" you speak of Danni are not of Judah. They are the Jews that calls themselves Jews but are liars. (Revelation 2:9, Revelation 3:9) Peter whom Christ used is a Jew that knows God's timing. 1 Day = 1000 years does not mean its a metaphor. In fact is quite very important to understand prophecy."and"this phrase should be thought to refer, as it is by some, to the day of judgment, and be expressive of the duration of that: it is certain that the Jews interpreted days of millenniums, and reckoned millenniums by days, and used this phrase in confirmation of it."since neither of these are exact statements found in Scripture, they are simply as a matter of fact nothing more or nothing less "men's/women's interpretations"......and of course the same goes for quotes by Barnes, Clarke, etc... the point being, that just like Barnes or Clarke, so too in the case of Jordan and Christiana or ken's or anyone else that explains what the scriptures mean, when we write out what the scriptures mean in our understanding. we are offering "man's words". It is simply sad when people confuse their words with God's words. We may disagree about what the Scripture means, but make no mistake, no one here speaks for God any more than the next person. So when someone says
These are mens interpitations(sp) not Gods there is no presedence(p) for this except modern mens words
I simply cannot understand how one can fail to see that this is, since it is not a direct quotation from Scripture, "men's interpretations" every bit as much as Barnes or Clarke's interpretations.... the question is not whether or not we are offering "man's interpretation, it's impossible NOT to interpret, the question is, who's interpretation is the best interpretation based on the rules of hermeneutics and sound exegesis. It is also a fallacy to say that a propitiation or interpretation is wrong because it is "modern men's interpretation"..... just because something is "modern" it is not therefore false. Christiana and Jordan's words and interpretations are modern too, does this make them automatically wrong? I didn't think so. So then it is likewise a fallacy to say that Barnes or Clarke etc are wrong because they are modern. This is a form of the informal fallacy ab annis:"6. Chronological Snobbery Fallacy: This logical error is committed when someone tries to refute something merely by dating it, usually dating it as very old. (This could be labeled, Argumentum ab Annis, or argument because of age.)" (John N. Moore, M.S., Ed.D., is professor of natural science, Department of Natural Science, Michigan State University; A Check List on Fallacies of Reasoning to be Avoided by Scholarly, Rational Persons)a thing is neither true nor false because it is "modern" or "new" or "ancient".blessings,ken

 

[epistemaniac]

the bit about the theory of relativity is interesting, however it makes a fundamental error here when it says
Reading the verse again (2 Peter 3:8), how fast is the Lord traveling so that a thousand years on Earth is like a day with Him?
The error is in asking how fast the Lord is traveling. The reason this is the case is because He is not traveling at all. How can a being travel that is already everywhere/omnipresent? Of course the Lord Jesus Christ possesses a body. But if He wanted to be somewhere, it does not seem as if He would need to "travel" at all to get there. He did in His pre-resurrection body, but not post-resurrection, He can just will Himself to be wherever it is that He wants to be, as He appeared in the upper room with the disciples. And of the course the omnipresent objection applies tot he Holy Spirit who is, as in the case of the Father, incorporeal. blessings,ken

 

[cedarhart]

"a thing is neither true nor false because it is "modern" or "new" or "ancient".Being truth or falsehood is determined upon fact which Scripture is full of. Some Scripture topics will entertain suppositions but others are as "written in stone" such as the knowledge of time and space measurement and cannot be altered. It's a simple concept that has nothing to do with being modern, new, or ancient. Has to do with just acknowledging and accepting of facts given.Blessings, Cedarhart

 

[tim_from_pa]

(Alpha and Omega;67207)
I found this rather interesting.
The formulas for time dilation can easily be solved using the Pythagorean theorem. Like you said as an object approaches the speed of light, time ceases to exists if light speed could be achieved (or stop whatever one wants to say). Therefore, any small fractional variation that ones puts in the equation near the speed of light can produce any ratio one wants such as 1000 years/ 1 day. So in itself does not tell me anything.Take note that if any matter would go near the speed of light to make the 1000yr/1 day ratio, it's mass would increase 365000 times.

 

[Jordan]

(tim_from_pa;67254)
(Alpha and Omega;67207)
I found this rather interesting.
The formulas for time dilation can easily be solved using the Pythagorean theorem. Like you said as an object approaches the speed of light, time ceases to exists if light speed could be achieved (or stop whatever one wants to say). Therefore, any small fractional variation that ones puts in the equation near the speed of light can produce any ratio one wants such as 1000 years/ 1 day. So in itself does not tell me anything.Take note that if any matter would go near the speed of light to make the 1000yr/1 day ratio, it's mass would increase 365000 times.That's neat. I did something like that in Aus's thread in the deeper study forum about the 1 Day = 1000 years part.

 

[AusDisciple]

(epistemaniac;67248)
the bit about the theory of relativity is interesting, however it makes a fundamental error here when it says The error is in asking how fast the Lord is traveling. The reason this is the case is because He is not traveling at all. How can a being travel that is already everywhere/omnipresent? Of course the Lord Jesus Christ possesses a body. But if He wanted to be somewhere, it does not seem as if He would need to "travel" at all to get there. He did in His pre-resurrection body, but not post-resurrection, He can just will Himself to be wherever it is that He wants to be, as He appeared in the upper room with the disciples. And of the course the omnipresent objection applies tot he Holy Spirit who is, as in the case of the Father, incorporeal. blessings,ken
Excellent point Ken.(tim_from_pa;67254)
The formulas for time dilation can easily be solved using the Pythagorean theorem. Like you said as an object approaches the speed of light, time ceases to exists if light speed could be achieved (or stop whatever one wants to say). Therefore, any small fractional variation that ones puts in the equation near the speed of light can produce any ratio one wants such as 1000 years/ 1 day. So in itself does not tell me anything.Take note that if any matter would go near the speed of light to make the 1000yr/1 day ratio, it's mass would increase 365000 times.
Another good point there too.It is interesting to postulate what may happen if a certain body of mass was to exceed the speed of light too. Only God could answer that question. Perhaps we'll be able to ask Him when we are in His kingdom!As far as arguing any further on the meaning of 2 Peter 3:8, I am done with it. Nobody here has been able to convince me that Peter is NOT using this verse to describe the timelessness of God and it is very unlikely that anyone will be able to convince me otherwise.I will trust what the Holy Spirit guides me in thank you very much.We can all ask Christ about this when we get to meet Him. Until then, as cedarhart mentions, any discussion is the result of speculation based upon belief. IMHO, we are ALL entitled to our beliefs so lets leave it at that shall we?

 

[Jordan]

See, that proves my point of this statement I said a while back ago. We have AusDisciple, shown you numerous scriptures and you ignore them all.It is impossible for men to claim their own interpretations came from Satan.But you are free to believe however and whatever you want. It's YOUR free will.

 

[AusDisciple]

(Jordan;67258)
See, that proves my point of this statement I said a while back ago. We have AusDisciple, shown you numerous scriptures and you ignore them all.It is impossible for men to claim their own interpretations came from Satan.But you are free to believe however and whatever you want. It's YOUR free will.
Jordan, drop it already!!My belief is NOT Satanic simply because it disagrees with a few of you here!! I pray to our Lord that you become a little more open minded than that with time.

 

[AusDisciple]

I hope everyone can accept that nothing I post here is meant as a personal attack. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ here and I love you all as my neighbours even if we have some strong disagreements on fine points sometimes.I think we can all agree that none of us are going to be cast into Hell for having viewpoints on scriptural interpretation.:grouphug:

 

[cedarhart]

Quote:Originally Posted by Jordan See, that proves my point of this statement I said a while back ago. We have AusDisciple, shown you numerous scriptures and you ignore them all.It is impossible for men to claim their own interpretations came from Satan.But you are free to believe however and whatever you want. It's YOUR free will. From Ausdisciples: Jordan, drop it already!!My belief is NOT Satanic simply because it disagrees with a few of you here!! I pray to our Lord that you become a little more open minded than that with time. This topic should have a simple discussion. As with all discussions, there can be an element of "taking something too far". It is one thing to have an open mind to ideas and concepts but one needs to know where to draw the line and back off. Splitting hairs only invites distress and tension. When a discussion has run its course, let it go. Rehashing posts over and over with the same content is non-productive. It is a mature Christian that knows when the point has been made and pushing an idea on someone loses them completely.Likewise, when a point has been shown to be a fact, a mature person concedes that fact. There's nothing wrong with realistic conjecture but when it is applied to Scripture, it must line up. If it doesn't, move on. Discernment is a Spiritually developed skill and it is possible for one to learn to rely upon it. As students of the Word of God, we also know that we are never to pass judgement on another. Discernment is a guide. Judgement is for God. We are not to accuse others of intentions that are not for us to determine, such as being evil. This is a very dangerous thought to act upon. There are concepts that are directly determined for us, by God in Scripture, that are of evil actions and thoughts. Again, these are pre-determined by God. Man cannot judge but can discern as we would run the risk of falsely accusing which is stepping into God's area.Attempting to quench the ambers from firing up, let's move on and put our strengths and knowledge into another topic, please.Thank you,Cedarhart

 

[AusDisciple]

Good post Cedarhart and I apologise to everyone for getting a little too fired up about this. Frustration is tool of Satan and I do not want to be overcome by his little tricks and temptations.I am happy to let this go and agree to disagree on the finer points.