Should the meaning of Greek words affect the interpretation of the passages they are found in?

[quietthinker]

Take a look at the following three Greek words:

1. érgon (Strongs Greek 02041)

Throughout the New Testament and without exception, érgon (works) always refers to the works of God / Christ, or of men, or of Satan (the vast majority of times it refers to the works of men):-

Works of Christ and of God the Father:-

Matthew 11:2; Luke 24:19; John 4:34; John 5:20; John 5:36; John 6:28; John 6:29; John 7:3; John 7:21; John 9:3; John 9:4; John 10:25; John 10:32; John 10:33; John 10:37; John 10:38; John 14:10; John 14:11; John 14:12; John 15:24; John 17:4; Acts 13:41; Acts 15:18; Romans 14:20; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 1:10; Hebrews 2:7; Hebrews 3:9; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 4:4; Revelation 15:3.

Works of darkness or of Satan:-

Romans 13:12; II Corinthians 11:15; Ephesians 5:11; I John 3:8.

Works of men:-

Matthew 5:16; Matthew 23:3; Matthew 23:5; Matthew 26:10; Mark 13:34; Mark 14:6; Luke 11:48; John 3:19; John 3:20; John 3:21; John 7:7; John 8:39; John 8:41; Acts 5:38; Acts 7:22; Acts 7:41; Acts 9:36; Acts 13:2; Acts 14:26; Acts 15:38; Acts 26:20; Titus 2:14; Romans 2:6; Romans 2:7; Romans 2:15; Romans 3:20; Romans 3:27; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:2; Romans 4:6; Romans 9:11; Romans 9:32; Romans 11:6; Romans 13:3; Romans 15:18; I Corinthians 3:13; I Corinthians 3:14; I Corinthians 3:15; I Corinthians 5:2; I Corinthians 9:1; I Corinthians 15:58; I Corinthians 16:10; II Corinthians 9:8; II Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:2; Galatians 3:5; Galatians 3:10; Galatians 5:19; Galatians 6:4; Ephesians 2:9; Ephesians 2:10; Ephesians 4:12; Philippians 1:22; Philippians 2:30; Colossians 1:10; Colossians 1:21; Colossians 3:17; I Thess 1:3; I Thess 5:13; II Thess 1:11; II Thess 2:17; I Timothy 2:10; I Timothy 3:1; I Timothy 5:10; I Timothy 5:25; I Timothy 6:18; II Timothy 1:9; II Timothy 2:21; II Timothy 3:17; II Timothy 4:5; II Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 4:18; Titus 1:16; Titus 2:7; Titus 3:1; Titus 3:5; Titus 3:8; Titus 3:14; Hebrews 4:10; Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:24; Hebrews 13:21; James 1:4; James 1:25; James 2:14; James 2:17; James 2:18; James 2:20; James 2:21; James 2:22; James 2:24; James 2:25; James 2:26; James 3:13; I Peter 1:17; I Peter 2:12; II Peter 2:8; I John 3:12; I John 3:18; II John 1:11; III John 1:10; Jude 1:15; Revelation 2:2; Revelation 2:5; Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:9; Revelation 2:13; Revelation 2:22; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 2:26; Revelation 2:19; Revelation 3:1; Revelation 3:2; Revelation 3:8; Revelation 3:15; Revelation 9:20; Revelation 14:13; Revelation 16:11; Revelation 18:6; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 20:13; Revelation 22:12.

Example
1 Corinthians 3:13-15
each one's érgon (work) shall be revealed. For the Day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try each one's érgon (work) as to what kind it is.
If anyone's érgon (work) which he built remains, he shall receive a reward.
If anyone's érgon (work) shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss. But he shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

2. stoicheîon (Strongs Greek 04747)

The word stoicheîon refers to the rudiments of this world in Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9; Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20; Hebrews 5:12.

Example
Colossians 2:8:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [stoicheîon] of the world, and not after Christ.

3. parérchomai

In every verse it's found, the word parérchomai is used interchangeably for "passing by" or "passing closeby" (Matthew 8:28; Mark 6:48; Luke 18:37; Acts 16:8), or for "coming near/approaching near" or "seizing upon" (Luke 12:37; Acts 24:7), or to pass, or to pass from, or to have passed (Mat.14:15 & 26:39; Luk.11:42 & 15:29; Acts 27:9; 2 Cor.5:17; Jam.1:10; 1 Pet.4:3; Mat.24:34-35).

Example
Acts 24:7:
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon [parérchomai] us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands."

Here is a short statement that contains all three of the above words:

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away [parérchomai] with a great noise, and the elements [stoicheîon] shall be dissolved [lýō] with fervent heat [kausóō], the earth also and the works [érgon] that are therein shall be burned up [katakaíō].

Should the actual meaning of the words érgon, stoicheîon, and parérchomai in every other New Testament verse they are used affect the way we interpret what Peter said, or not? Because if we use the meaning as all the other verses do, then Peter is saying that the works of men and of darkness and the principles of this world will be burned up when Christ returns.

The whole context of what Peter was saying in the chapters and verses before about false teachers etc, and the fact that he says we will see a new heavens and earth in which only righteousness dwells, should tell us that Peter is not speaking about the burning up of the planet, but of the works of men and the principles of this world.

Intent is brought to our understanding by Spirit. Cognition plays a role only if it is submitted to God's guidance.
The Spirit's guidance points us to one thing; God's revelation of himself in human form.....Jesus. Don't miss it!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So (brother), whether or not you are correct about whether the fire mentioned by Peter is literal and world-wide, covering the entire planet, I don't understand why you assume I believe there will be mortal survivors of the Day of Christ.

Because it seems that you are not seeing what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 as being a physical event. And, just to be clear, the Day of Christ is the day He returns. Agree?

Is your only point in this thread to refute the idea that the earth will be completely annihilated (to the core) at Christ's return? If so, I agree with that. I believe the entire surface of the earth will be burned up (resulting in the destruction of all the people and things on the earth) and regenerated. I see it as being "changed" similar to how our bodies will be changed when He returns. Not annihilated, but changed.

I don't believe it, and I've said so before to you, and to other premillennialists, such as ewqr and our brother DavidPT. (I know David isn't around in this hood, just saying).

You don't believe that there will be mortal survivors of Christ's return? That's news to me. Do you agree that those who do survive will be believers whose bodies are changed to be immortal when He returns? If so, then...how can you not be an amillennialist? I'm sure you can understand my confusion here.

I'm trying to keep away from the subject of the millennium because to me, it's a separate subject. We both believe Peter is talking about God's judgment in 2 Peter 3:10-12. We both agree that the planet is not going to be completely destroyed but what appears out of (the fire?) or whatever it is, is something glorious, a.k.a the NHNE.

Agree. And Revelation 21:1-4 indicates there will be no more death at that point. So, again, I don't know how you can believe this and not be an amillennialist.

However, the battle of Armageddon is going to result in a lot of dead bodies lying around as food for vultures (Revelation 19 - the supper of God). How the birds and the bodies will survive the fire that burned up the entire planet, is something you would have to work into your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Revelation 19 is symbolic language. That should be clear based on the description of Jesus slaying people with a sword coming out of His mouth. You do not believe that's talking about a literal sword, do you? If not, then you should not interpret the birds eating flesh and all that literally, either. There will be physical destruction at that time, as other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 make clear, but that destruction is described in a figurative way in Revelation 19 whereas it is described literally in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Maybe you have already, and can inform me of how and when you believe the birds being filled with the flesh of the dead bodies fits in with everything being burned up (which includes, presumably, the birds?)

I have already explained that many times, but I'm not sure if I have explained that to you directly before or not. Anyway, I addressed this above.

This thread is only talking about what Peter meant by stoichion|elements and ergon|works. Not about "mortals in a millennium".

Well, in my view, determining if anyone survives that or not helps tell us what those words mean in that passage.

But just to repeat this to you again: I don't believe the NHNE follows the millennium, anyway. Most Premils do, and obviously, Amils do too, regardless of when they believe the millennium commences.

I don't understand that at all. Is death still occurring? Yes. Pain? Yes. Crying and mourning? Yes. So, it's not possible that the new heavens and new earth have been ushered in yet.

I believe the thousand years commences with the NHNE, and is round two (and the final round) of mankind eating freely of the tree of life, but the time coming when God one more time permits Satan to test all the (now resurrected) sons of Adam who had never been tested the way Adam had, and the way all martyred saints since then, had been tested

I don't believe that view can be supported by scripture at all. Just being honest here. I guess you must not take Revelation 21:4 to be speaking of the conditions in the new heavens and new earth once they are ushered in, so how do you interpret Revelation 21:1-4?

(Revelation 20:4-6 says nothing about all the others who will be resurrected at the return of Christ, when it says the 2nd death will have no power over those who had been martyred).

Does the second death have power over those who have been martyred now? It doesn't, right? One does not need to be bodily resurrected in order for that to be the case, right? To me, that should tell you about the timing of Revelation 20:4-6.

So obviously I don't believe in OSAS. I never have.

Neither do I.

I don't even believe in immortal bodies not being capable of dying a 2nd death - Adam was capable of dying, though he wasn't dying before he sinned. He was only prevented from eating of the fruit of the tree of life and living forever after he sinned.

I don't understand this at all. How can immortal bodies die? Do you disagree with this definition of the word "immortal"

immortal (adjective): living forever; never dying or decaying

The tree of life is in the paradise of God, i.e the NHNE. In the Garden of Eden Adam sinned, and was prevented from eating from the tree of life following his sin, and hence, death came to all mankind. The last Adam died and rose again, and in Him is The Resurrection and the Life. But there will be a 2nd death (the first death is Adam's death which came to all mankind). There will be no 2nd sacrifice for sins, and no 2nd resurrection from the 2nd death.

The second death will be experienced only by those whose names are not written in the book of life. If you read Matthew 25:31-46, you can see that the timing of people being cast into the fire to experience the second death is just after Jesus comes with His angels.

So I believe the thousand years and the NHNE commence at the same time, and the thousand years is brought to a close by the (second and last time) Satan is allowed into paradise to test all the (now resurrected) sons of Adam - but only those who had never been tested the way Adam had, and the way all martyred saints had (over whom it is said that the 2nd death will have no power over them).

I can't even begin to comprehend what you're saying here. What scripture is this based on? It seems like you believe in something like purgatory, but I'm really not sure what it is that you're saying here.

So yes, I believe those upon whom the fire comes to devour them are resurrected people. NOT mortals. Like you I believe there will be no mortals in the NHNE. Adam was no mortal until after he sinned and was prevented from eating from the tree of life.

An immortal person can't ever die. I am beyond confused as to what you are saying here. Just being honest and not trying to be contentious. I'm just baffled, though.

But all that is completely besides the point of what Peter meant by stoichion|elements and ergon|works, and whose works he was talking about, given the context of what he was saying about false teachers in the churches as well as scoffers who would scoff and say, "Where is the promise of His coming?"

And since the battle of Armageddon is going to result in a lot of dead bodies lying around as food for vultures, how the birds and the bodies will survive the fire that you believe Peter is talking about and which burned up the entire planet, is something you would have to explain, because I have no idea how that would work, or even why the birds first get to feast on all the bodies before everything just burns up anyway.

It makes no sense why the Bible would be telling us about dead bodies and birds feasting on them in both Ezekiel and Revelation, if the bodies and the birds are all going to be destroyed in the flames you believe Peter is talking about.

I think you are making a mistake in interpreting Revelation 19 literally and 2 Peter 3 figuratively. It's the other way around.

 

[quietthinker]

Intent is brought to our understanding by Spirit. Cognition plays a role only if it is submitted to God's guidance.
The Spirit's guidance points us to one thing; God's revelation of himself in human form.....Jesus. Don't miss it!

Evidence that we have missed it is revealed in where our emphasis is.
Are we wanting to introduce folk to a lover or are we wanting to be right? They are not the same.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree with what you are sayinsog, but you spoke about comparing scripture with scripture, so rather than repeat my post #78 that I just made to you, I will wait for you to reply to what I was saying about those scriptures speaking about the last day when Christ returns.

Let's try and leave the millennium or NHNE out of the picture for now. Because we are not talking about what comes after the end, but about the end.

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. For me, understanding those things is necessary for understanding what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is about. Maybe not for you, but it is the case for me. So, I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me to only talk about this from your perspective rather than from my own perspective. But, anyway, I won't say any more until you respond to my post #82.

 

[Christian Gedge]

3. Stars fall to the earth
“The stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.” (Rev. 6:13,14)

IMO in point #1-4 you are conflating metaphor with literal things, which is a mistake many make. Before Babylon was destroyed, the same things were prophesied to occur when Babylon was destroyed. The stars of the sky are a metaphor for the falling away of saints in the great tribulation of the saints.

Hmmm, the book of Revelation can get a bit metaphorical admittedly. Okay, lets take get a little snippet from St. Mark.

“In those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” (Mark 13:24-25)​

A direct quote from Isaiah 13:10, yes? Is Mark being metaphorical too?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hmmm, the book of Revelation can get a bit metaphorical admittedly. Okay, lets take get a little snippet from St. Mark.

“In those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” (Mark 13:24-25)​

A direct quote from Isaiah 13:10, yes? Is Mark being metaphorical too?

I would say yes, he is. If we go back to what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:10-12 then we can see it's talking about fire coming down on the earth, not stars. Stars falling to the earth would completely annihilate the earth. How can the meek inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5) when Christ returns if it has been annihilated and replaced with an entirely different earth rather than being made new? It doesn't say the meek will inherit a completely separate earth from this one, it says the meek will inherit this earth. That doesn't mean they have to inherit the earth in the way we know it now, but it has to still be this earth. If this earth is made new (resulting in the new earth), rather than being annihilated and replaced, then the meek can still inherit this earth.

 

[WPM]

The curse was removed when Jesus was cursed for our sins. What are you talking about?

LOL. Why are people still sinning and dying then? Why are flowers, trees and giraffes still dying?

 

[WPM]

Hmmm, the book of Revelation can get a bit metaphorical admittedly. Okay, lets take get a little snippet from St. Mark.

“In those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” (Mark 13:24-25)​

A direct quote from Isaiah 13:10, yes? Is Mark being metaphorical too?

No. LOL. He is not.

 

[WPM]

I agree. If there's one thing I've learned is that it seems that many Christians are completely ignorant of the way metaphor is used repeatedly in the Apocalyptic literature of the Bible, and the same metaphor.

The Bible is also 100% consistent with its own established metaphor and symbolism (and use of hyperbole). I think that Peter understood Hebrew scripture very well, being a Jew taught by Jesus, so it's not surprising that he would use the same sort of metaphor when talking about the return of Christ and the day of God's judgment ,

and Peter's emphasis in 2 Peter 2 - 2 Peter 3 isn't even on the judgment of the nations, but on the judgment of false teachers and the principles of this world and works of men, along with that judgment.

No one asks what is being burned up in these verses:

each one's érgon (work) shall be revealed. For the Day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try each one's érgon (work) as to what kind it is.
If anyone's érgon (work) which he built remains, he shall receive a reward.
If anyone's érgon (work) shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss. But he shall be saved, yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)

2 Peter 2:3-10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat. And the earth and the works in it will be burned up.
Then, all these things being about to be dissolved, what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness,
looking for and rushing the coming of the Day of God, on account of which the heavens, being on fire, will melt away, and the elements will melt, burning with heat?
But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

The emphasis from 2 Peter 2 onwards is on the rudiments of this world and the wicked works of men in comparison with holiness and righteousness, not on the "burning up" of the planet and the universe. I really don't see why we should assume that 2 Peter 3:1-12 is the first and only place in the New Testament that the words stoicheion and ergon mean something different to what they mean wherever else they are used in the New Testament.

Is the "thousand years" in Rev 20 a literal 1000 years?

 

[Zao is life]

Evidence that we have missed it is revealed in where our emphasis is.
Are we wanting to introduce folk to a lover or are we wanting to be right? They are not the same.

Or are we just wanting to understand difficult-to-understand prophetic portions of scripture by discussing those difficult portions with others who are already saved? There is a time and a place for everything. The eschatology board is not exactly a board for evangelism, since, presumably, all who post in it are already saved.

Don't miss it by just wanting to be right. That makes you unteachable.

Also don't miss it by pointing a finger at what you suppose you perceive in another.

 

[quietthinker]

Or are we just wanting to understand difficult-to-understand prophetic portions of scripture by discussing those difficult portions with others who are already saved? There is a time and a place for everything. The eschatology board is not exactly a board for evangelism, since, presumably, all who post in it are already saved.

Don't miss it by just wanting to be right. That makes you unteachable.

Also don't miss it by pointing a finger at what you suppose you perceive in another.

Where the emphasis a person puts on scripture reveals what they see and don't see.

The Scribes and Pharisee's did not understand the Messiah's mission. How could that have been the case when Jesus showed the guys on the road to Emmaus the things concerning himself from Moses and all the Prophets? Luke 24:27

The Scribes and Pharisee's had Phd's in their scriptures; they sacrificed lambs for millennia; they had the Sanctuary services....all figures of the Messiah to come. Why didn't they see it?

Why would it be any different today with many Christians? There is emphasis on everything that opens and shuts yet they miss the main event when they interpret. How do I know this? because of what they put their emphasis on when they formulate their theologies. They do not understand what the key to understanding the scriptures is.....and if they give it lip service, they don't use it or even know how.......revealed in their emphasis.

Where do you see your emphasis FotG ?

 

[Zao is life]

Because it seems that you are not seeing what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 as being a physical event. And, just to be clear, the Day of Christ is the day He returns. Agree?

Is your only point in this thread to refute the idea that the earth will be completely annihilated (to the core) at Christ's return? If so, I agree with that. I believe the entire surface of the earth will be burned up (resulting in the destruction of all the people and things on the earth) and regenerated. I see it as being "changed" similar to how our bodies will be changed when He returns. Not annihilated, but changed.


You don't believe that there will be mortal survivors of Christ's return? That's news to me. Do you agree that those who do survive will be believers whose bodies are changed to be immortal when He returns? If so, then...how can you not be an amillennialist? I'm sure you can understand my confusion here.


Agree. And Revelation 21:1-4 indicates there will be no more death at that point. So, again, I don't know how you can believe this and not be an amillennialist.


Revelation 19 is symbolic language. That should be clear based on the description of Jesus slaying people with a sword coming out of His mouth. You do not believe that's talking about a literal sword, do you? If not, then you should not interpret the birds eating flesh and all that literally, either. There will be physical destruction at that time, as other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 make clear, but that destruction is described in a figurative way in Revelation 19 whereas it is described literally in 2 Peter 3:10-12.


I have already explained that many times, but I'm not sure if I have explained that to you directly before or not. Anyway, I addressed this above.


Well, in my view, determining if anyone survives that or not helps tell us what those words mean in that passage.


I don't understand that at all. Is death still occurring? Yes. Pain? Yes. Crying and mourning? Yes. So, it's not possible that the new heavens and new earth have been ushered in yet.



I don't believe that view can be supported by scripture at all. Just being honest here. I guess you must not take Revelation 21:4 to be speaking of the conditions in the new heavens and new earth once they are ushered in, so how do you interpret Revelation 21:1-4?


Does the second death have power over those who have been martyred now? It doesn't, right? One does not need to be bodily resurrected in order for that to be the case, right? To me, that should tell you about the timing of Revelation 20:4-6.


Neither do I.


I don't understand this at all. How can immortal bodies die? Do you disagree with this definition of the word "immortal"

immortal (adjective): living forever; never dying or decaying


The second death will be experienced only by those whose names are not written in the book of life. If you read Matthew 25:31-46, you can see that the timing of people being cast into the fire to experience the second death is just after Jesus comes with His angels.


I can't even begin to comprehend what you're saying here. What scripture is this based on? It seems like you believe in something like purgatory, but I'm really not sure what it is that you're saying here.


An immortal person can't ever die. I am beyond confused as to what you are saying here. Just being honest and not trying to be contentious. I'm just baffled, though.


I think you are making a mistake in interpreting Revelation 19 literally and 2 Peter 3 figuratively. It's the other way around.

It was a very long time ago that I believed in the possibility of mortal survivors in the millennium, but scripture taught me otherwise long ago. Until recently I believed the NHNE follows the millennium but scripture taught me otherwise so that for a while I was agnosmillennialist, as you know.

However, I don't believe and do not see in scripture what you say about the timing of the binding of Satan, nor the timing of Revelation 20:4-6, so I cannot accept your view of the millennium.

You do believe that the NHNE follows the millennium, because you believe that the millennium is now.

Premillennialists believe the millennium commences after the return of Christ, and the NHNE after the millennium.

Either way amillennialists and most premillennialists both have the NHNE following the millennium, regardless of when you believe the millennium has already commenced, or is yet to commence. I believe both commence at the same time.

I believe Adam's body was indeed "immortal" before he sinned and became prevented from eating of the tree of life. He was indeed living forever and never decaying.

Yet he died when he sinned.

So it will be with us. The 2nd death has no authority over those who have been, or will be martyred. Only those who had been martyred, because they had been tested, and they overcame, whether we are talking about those who have already been martyred or about those who are yet to be martyred.

However, only Christ is immortal in the sense that you understand the word immortal:

1 Timothy 6:15-16
For He in His own time will reveal who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in light which cannot be approached, whom no one of men have seen, nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

Anyway, to get back to 2 Peter 3:10-12, though I do not believe the universe and earth itself will be completely annihilated, like you I believe that it will be changed, in the same way that human bodies will be changed after the resurrection, or in the same way that those who are still alive on the earth and remain until the return of Christ will be changed without dying, as Paul said in 1 Thessalonians.

And if humans are changed without dying, then the heavens and the earth will be changed without "dying".

I don't know whether or not the "fire" that will destroy the heavens and the earth is literal, or a metaphor for the judgment of God, but I don't believe that the stoichion (order of things) and ergon (works) that Peter mentions is referring to the physical elements or the works of rocks, because the context of what Peter has been saying from 2 Peter 2 onward has everything to do with the works of humans and the current human order of things.​

 

[Zao is life]

Where the emphasis a person puts on scripture reveals what they see and don't see.

The Scribes and Pharisee's did not understand the Messiah's mission. How could that have been the case when Jesus showed the guys on the road to Emmaus the things concerning himself from Moses and all the Prophets? Luke 24:27

The Scribes and Pharisee's had Phd's in their scriptures; they sacrificed lambs for millennia; they had the Sanctuary services....all figures of the Messiah to come. Why didn't they see it?

Why would it be any different today with many Christians? There is emphasis on everything that opens and shuts yet they miss the main event when they interpret. How do I know this? because of what they put their emphasis on when they formulate their theologies. They do not understand what the key to understanding the scriptures is.....and if they give it lip service, they don't use it or even know how.......revealed in their emphasis.

Where do you see your emphasis FotG ?

The question I always ask myself is where do I stand, not where do you stand, or where do others stand. Only God knows where you put your emphasis, and whether or not it's where you believe you put your emphasis.

Only God has the right and ability to search my heart and your heart as to where we place the emphasis in scripture, and only God knows what the real answer is. The rest of the stuff you do and I might do is our prideful assumptions about where the emphasis of others might lie. It's a case of God showing us a spiritual truth and then us, instead of using it to look for a beam in our own eye or asking God to expose it to us if it's there, rather looking for a splinter in the eye of another.

@quietthinker What is your view regarding the OP in this thread as regards to what Peter meant by the words stoichion (ordered tings) and ergon (works)?

 

[Zao is life]

Because it seems that you are not seeing what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 as being a physical event.

I don't know whether or not you are correct. What you say makes sense about the entire planet burning but I'm not too sure all scripture agrees with it being literal rather than metaphor for the judgment of God. Let's leave that part as "you are correct and it's literal", and narrow it down to whether or not Peter's emphasis was on the physical order, or the order of things in humanity, and the works in the earth (rocks?), or the works of humans.

And, just to be clear, the Day of Christ is the day He returns. Agree?

Yes. I agree. Day of judgment too. 7th trumpet. 7th bowl of wrath. "The last trump". The resurrection of the dead. The day Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Is your only point in this thread to refute the idea that the earth will be completely annihilated (to the core) at Christ's return? If so, I agree with that. I see it as being "changed" similar to how our bodies will be changed when He returns. Not annihilated, but changed.

Part of the point but not the only point. We agree on the above.

I believe the entire surface of the earth will be burned up (resulting in the destruction of all the people and things on the earth) and regenerated.

That's possible but I don't know. The other part of it is that I don't believe that Peter is talking about the physical order and the works of the earth but the human order of things as it is now and the works of humans, because those words mean just that in every other New Testament verse they appear in.

You don't believe that there will be mortal survivors of Christ's return? That's news to me.

I don't know why it should be news to you. It's not news to ewqr. I don't blame you for missing it though. It's confusing and complicated remembering every detail of everything everyone believes.

Do you agree that those who do survive will be believers whose bodies are changed to be immortal when He returns? If so, then...how can you not be an amillennialist? I'm sure you can understand my confusion here.

Yes but your understanding of the immortality of Adam's body before he sinned and began to die is not the same as mine. Only Christ is immortal in the way you understand immortality, IMO.

Agree. And Revelation 21:1-4 indicates there will be no more death at that point. So, again, I don't know how you can believe this and not be an amillennialist.

And Revelation 21:8 mentions that there s a 2nd death.

Revelation 19 is symbolic language. That should be clear based on the description of Jesus slaying people with a sword coming out of His mouth. You do not believe that's talking about a literal sword, do you? If not, then you should not interpret the birds eating flesh and all that literally, either.

I agree with that, but I disagree with this:

There will be physical destruction at that time, as other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 make clear, but that destruction is described in a figurative way in Revelation 19 whereas it is described literally in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. For me, understanding those things is necessary for understanding what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is about. Maybe not for you, but it is the case for me. So, I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me to only talk about this from your perspective rather than from my own perspective.

Understood.

 

[Zao is life]

Okay, let's look at this from another angle. It is important to establish the context of any given passage with surrounding scripture and that is what you're trying to do, which is good. And that's what I do when I use 2 Peter 3:3-7 to help establish the context of 2 Peter 3:10-13. But, the other thing that we need to do is use scripture to interpret scripture. We need to take other scripture into account here so that we don't interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in such a way that contradicts any other scripture. Agree? I'm sure you do. So, with that in mind, let's look at this:

1 Thessalonians 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

Just like Peter in 2 Peter 3:10-12, Paul says that the day of the Lord will come like a thief. Clearly, he's talking about the same event. And it's related directly to the second coming of Christ. You have expressed your frustration at there being a chapter break put in after 2 Peter 2 where it shouldn't have been (in your opinion). That's how I feel about the chapter break placed at the end of 1 Thess 4. That was a mistake.

Throughout 1 Thess 4:13 to 1 Thess 5:9 Paul is talking about the second coming of Christ and what will happen on the day He returns. I think you agree with me on this. So, back to the main point I'm making. In 1 Thess 5:2-3 Paul indicates that on the day of the Lord, when it arrives suddenly and unexpectedly like a thief in the night, destruction will come on those who are in spiritual darkness and saying "peace and safety" and "they will not escape". My question for you is do you believe that Paul is talking about physical destruction from which those in spiritual darkness will not escape? If so, then shouldn't 2 Peter 3:10-12 be understood in that same context? Wouldn't it make sense that no one could escape fire coming down upon the entire earth?

I've just realized something. Correct me if I'm wrong. You have the fire mentioned in 2 Peter 3:10-12 linked to the fire coming down from God out of heaven mentioned in Revelation 20:9, which is why you keep linking what Peter said to literal fire.

If that's the case, then we don't agree on that, either. I believe the fire in Revelation 20:9 is the final judgment of the final rebellion at the close of a literal millennium, so I don't see the two linked at all.

 

[Zao is life]

Hmmm, the book of Revelation can get a bit metaphorical admittedly. Okay, lets take get a little snippet from St. Mark.

“In those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” (Mark 13:24-25)​

A direct quote from Isaiah 13:10, yes? Is Mark being metaphorical too?

Yes, Mark being metaphorical too, as I understand scripture. It's apocalyptic, what Mark is saying.

 

[Zao is life]

LOL. Why are people still sinning and dying then? Why are flowers, trees and giraffes still dying?

Paul called death the final enemy to be destroyed. The curse has already been removed.

 

[Zao is life]

No. LOL. He is not.

Metaphorically speaking when I see one amillennialist disagreeing with two others about whether or not something is metaphorical, I dance with the stars.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Is Mark being metaphorical too?

I would say yes, he is.

No. LOL. He is not.

Yes, Mark being metaphorical too

You three guys have got good thinkers. So, please read Mark 13 and tell me: At which verse did St.Mark switch from literal speech to metaphorical speech? (if at all)

Inquiring minds want to know.