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

[CadyandZoe]

If he's talking about physics at all, he's not talking about the complete destruction of a planet that will be "replaced" by a newly created one in a NHNE.

I believe he did. The Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night (2 Pet.3:10; Rev.16:15). I don't believe the day of the Lord is not referring to the same day that Christ returns. I do believe that the Day of the LORD is a phrase that is used for every time God has brought judgment upon a people or a nation or nations.

I ask because the term stoicheia (spelling) indicates "the elements of an ordered system." In Peter's day, physicists believed there were 4 elements, "earth, air, fire, and water." The term also indicated the letters of the alphabet. Paul uses the term to speak about the "elements" of his own religious system.

The phrase "Day of the Lord" is associated with darkness and gloom, but it isn't as much judgment as the Day when God begins to rule on earth. The "day" is actually an extended period of time that might amount to three or four years time. Jesus probably comes at the end of that time period to rule on earth, just as the prophets predicted. In the middle of the "day", Jesus will meet his followers in the air.

At least, that's how I see it.

I don't believe that "the day of the Lord" ever referred to any other time prior to some time in our future.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In that case the first and only time in the New Testament that those words mean what people say they mean in 2 Peter 3:10-12, is in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

The context of all of 2 Peter 3 is 2 Peter 2, which is talking about the rudiments of this world and the works of men (false teaching etc).

I somehow don't think the saints can legitimately pick and choose what words mean so as to adjust the context to be something other than what the context actually is, which is 2 Peter 2 and 3 together.

I agree. The better approach is to allow the Bible to teach US, rather than the other way around. :)

 

[Zao is life]

VERY TRUE! I wish that more people would understand that basic principle of translation!

The surrounding context is not 2 Peter 3:10-12 like slicing the kidney out of what Peter was saying and saying the kidney is the context.The context is the rudiments of this world and works of men which Peter began to speak about in 2 Peter 2.

 

[Zao is life]

I believe we must begin with clear statements of fact from the Bible...

Psa 78.69 He built his sanctuary like the heights, like the earth that he established forever.
Eccl 1.4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.

Now weigh this against the main focus of OT Prophecy, which assures the removal of Disgrace from Israel and the promise of a final National Restoration....

Isa 25.8 he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. The Lord has spoken.
Isa 51.6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail.

It seems apparent to me that Hebrew poetry here seeks to utilize the metaphor of universal destruction as a kind of hyperbolic expression of God's sovereignty and overwhelming power to change things as they are to allow for Israel's Salvation, which had appeared to be impossible.

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.

 

[Zao is life]

Regarding the OP... Translation is both a skill and an art. I pay no attention to unqualified people who think that by using various aids they are qualified to translate Koine Greek (or ancient Hebrew or Aramaic). The great majority of people who translate the ancient texts are people who have carefully studied the Biblical source languages and have an excellent command of the destination language. And they don't always agree.

Jesus paid no attention to those who claimed to be educated and knowledgeable, but instead chose fisherman and the base things of the world to shame the wise.

Pity you don't pay attention to the things Jesus pays attention to. If you did, you would realize the folly of such a remark.

 

[Jim B]

Jesus paid no attention to those who claimed to be educated and knowledgeable, but instead chose fisherman and the base things of the world to shame the wise.

Pity you don't pay attention to the things Jesus pays attention to. If you did, you would realize the folly of such a remark.

What do you find to be so admirable about ignorance?

And when you make a foolish statement such as "Jesus paid no attention to those who claimed to be educated and knowledgeable, but instead chose fisherman and the base things of the world to shame the wise" you might reconsider what happened in reality. Two clear examples: Jesus spoke clearly to Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews in John 3, and, beyond, that, personally chose the highly-educated Saul/Paul to be the chief apostle to the Gentiles and the author of much of the New Testament.

Pity you don't pay attention to the things Jesus pays attention to. If you did, you would realize the folly of such a meaningless post.

 

[Zao is life]

What do you find to be so admirable about ignorance?

And when you make a foolish statement such as "Jesus paid no attention to those who claimed to be educated and knowledgeable, but instead chose fisherman and the base things of the world to shame the wise" you might reconsider what happened in reality. Two clear examples: Jesus spoke clearly to Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews in John 3, and, beyond, that, personally chose the highly-educated Saul/Paul to be the chief apostle to the Gentiles and the author of much of the New Testament.

Pity you don't pay attention to the things Jesus pays attention to. If you did, you would realize the folly of such a meaningless post.

The religious pride that you are displaying in your remarks is of the same nature as that of the Pharisees, and of Saul when he stood in approval of the martyrdom of Stephen and pursued the murder of the other apostles.

That same religious pride and lack of humility your remarks display always leads to the spiritual blindness of those who do this. Always. It never fails to bring blindness upon those who make that sort of lack of humility and religious pride a home in themselves.

Paul was saved from it only by the grace of God. Nothing else. Not by his education, but only by God's grace.

My prayer for you is that you are saved from it by the same grace.

Then maybe you will be able to offer information that will be of substance to this discussion that the OP began.

By the way, I was only quoting the translation of a scholar of the Greek, namely Strong. Not "my" translation, as you falsely claim.

 

[Jim B]

The religious pride that you are displaying in your remarks is of the same nature as that of the Pharisees, and of Saul when he stood in approval of the martyrdom of Stephen and pursued the murder of the other apostles.

That same religious pride and lack of humility your remarks display always leads to the spiritual blindness of those who do this. Always. It never fails to bring blindness upon those who make that sort of lack of humility and religious pride a home in themselves.

Paul was saved from it only by the grace of God. Nothing else. Not by his education, but only by God's grace.

My prayer for you is that you are saved from it by the same grace.

Again, It's a pity that you don't pay attention to the things Jesus pays attention to. If you did, you would realize the folly of such a meaningless post.

Since I have no respect for you, I am putting you on "ignore" status. Let me know when you become a Christian.

 

[Zao is life]

Again, It's a pity that you don't pay attention to the things Jesus pays attention to. If you did, you would realize the folly of such a meaningless post.

Since I have no respect for you, I am putting you on "ignore" status. Let me know when you become a Christian.

Jesus will let you know when I became a Christian (long before now) when we all stand before Him answering for all our idle words. My prayer is that you are saved from religious pride through the same grace God extended to Paul.

 

[Zao is life]

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).

No one asks why what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is said in the context of Peter having just introduced this subject by speaking about false teachers in the churches, the principles of this world, and the works of men (2 Peter 2).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The earth - the planet itself - was not destroyed by the flood. The ungodly were.

Right. I didn't say otherwise. Everything on the surface of the earth was destroyed by the flood waters and that included all of the ungodly.

And you placed the emphasis not on the ungodly being destroyed by the flood, but on the flood, falsely implying that the planet itself was destroyed by it.

I was not intending to de-emphasize the ungodly being destroyed. You decided that was my intention. It was not. The text itself says the world was destroyed. The entire surface of the earth was covered by the flood waters, was it not? That's my point. And that included the ungodly. Everything and everyone on the earth was destroyed. That is my point. Please stop making assumptions about what I'm saying.

There was a new heavens and new earth following the flood, in which at least for a short time, righteousness dwelt.

Scripture never calls that a new heavens and new earth, though. Are you trying to compare this to 2 Peter 3:13? Are you suggesting that 2 Peter 3:13 is saying we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth where righteousness will dwell only for a short time?

However, while you are ignoring the above fact,

I'm not ignoring everything. I understand that WPM is getting you all riled up in this thread, but I am trying to have a calm, respectful discussion with you about this. Is that okay with you? Please calm down and stop making assumptions about what I'm saying and making accusations about me supposedly ignoring things and let's just discuss this calmly and rationally. Sound good?

do bother to also go to the trouble of checking to see what the verse is talking about every time the same Greek words used in 2 Peter 3:10 & 12 are used, because there can only be one reason why the first and only time in the New Testament that the word stoicheîon means something other than the principles of this world, and why why the first and only time in the New Testament that the word érgon means the works of rocks or whatever (of the earth) rather than the works of God or of angels or of men, is in 2 Peter 3:10-12 - and that reason is because it doesn't mean something else in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Why are you acting as if the word only has one definition and that it has to always be used the same way every single time it's used? I think that is ridiculous. And, again, the context of 2 Peter 3:10-12 can be seen by reading what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:3-7. And the context there is clearly in relation to the actual heavens and earth. The earth as it is now is said to be reserved for fire "by the same word" that the earth long ago was covered by water. That is what Peter said. We can't just ignore that.

The new creation is already come. It's in Christ. It came when He rose again from the dead.

In a spiritual sense that is true, but that is not what 2 Peter 3 is about at all. It does not match the context of what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:3-7. In verses 5-7 he was not comparing a past physical global event with a current or future spiritual event. He was comparing like events (events of the same type and scope) which is why he said "by the same word...".

The New Heavens and New Earth is what will follow after the works of men and the rudiments|principles of this world have been judged and destroyed forever. This time they will be gone, forever. The new heavens and earth will also have been liberated from its bondage to decay:

21 that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now.
23 Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8)

The creation was subject to the bondage of decay only because of (as a result of) the fall of Adam.

20 For the creation was subjected to futility - not willingly but because of God who subjected it - in hope.

The last Adam died and rose again and the new creation is come - in Him. This is the reason for this hope Paul is talking about above. The same hope we have is the hope of the creation.

That heavens and earth - the one that existed in the days of Noah - was destroyed by the flood only in the sense that the principles of that world and works of Satan and of men were destroyed by the flood.

Those are the things Peter is saying will be burned up. He is not saying the planet itself will be destroyed, neither is he saying that the new heavens and new earth will be something that appears after the present planet and universe itself is burned up. If he was, then he would have been also saying that the planet and universe itself was destroyed in the days of Noah.

The only way you can have Peter saying that the destruction by fire is referring to the planet itself is to have him saying that the planet itself was destroyed by the flood (rather than the ungodly destroyed by the flood),

It was. The entire surface of the earth was destroyed by the flood. And in the future when Christ returns the entire surface of the earth will have fire come down upon it. You have been spending all this time making a straw man argument as if I'm saying the earth will be completely annihilated when Jesus returns. I am NOT saying that. Obviously, the earth was not annihilated by the flood and Peter was comparing a future event to that. The entire surface of the earth will be burned up when Jesus returns and all of the ungodly will be destroyed at at that time just as they were in the flood.

and also by ignoring the meaning of the Greek words for rudiments|principles of this world and the works of men wherever else they are used in the New Testament.

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm understanding that the Greek words don't have only one definition and that the definition is determined by the context of any given verse they are used in.

And this is exactly why you emphasized what Peter said about the earth being destroyed in the days of Noah (as though the planet itself was destroyed), rather than emphasizing the destruction of the ungodly by the flood. The emphasis is on the destruction by fire of the ungodly. Their works and the rudiments of this world are not consumed "along with the burning up i.e complete destruction of the planet".

Again, the straw man argument acting as if I'm saying the earth will be annihilated, which I'm not. It will be regenerated and at that point there will be "no more death or mourning or crying or pain" (Rev 21:4) and it will be a place where righteousness dwells (Peter 3:13) and only righteousness will dwell there forever.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Psalm 46
2 Therefore we will not fear when the earth changes, and when mountains are slipping into the heart of the seas.

Matthew 21
21 Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done.

If you cannot acknowledge the metaphor in scripture, you will remain blinded to it, and then you will misinterpret most of prophecy, which includes 2 Peter 3:10-12, of course.

Where is there any hint of metaphor being used in 2 Peter 3? There isn't. Once again, Peter compared the future fiery event directly to a past physical, global event. Would he compare the past physical, global event (the flood of Noah's day) to a future metaphorical event? Of course not. He was comparing events of the same type and scope (physical and global). That is the context. You are going out of your way to dismiss the obvious context here, in my opinion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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).

No one asks why what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is said in the context of Peter having just introduced this subject by speaking about false teachers in the churches, the principles of this world, and the works of men (2 Peter 2).

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume your interpretation was correct. There would still be the question of what mortal people would still be alive at that point? We know all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies when Christ returns. So, even in this scenario that you're talking about, who would be the mortals that would populate the earth at that point keeping in mind that the bodies of all believers will have been made immortal? And what would be the difference between any unbelievers who are allowed to survive His return and those who are not?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You stating this does not change its actual meaning. You did not even address what I wrote. Context is actually talking about the natural physical change that occurs to this creation when it is regenerated by fire to purge creation of the curse at the second coming. You want to spiritualize it away like the Full Preterists.

The “elements” in view in 2 Peter 3 that “melt with fervent heat” when Jesus comes as “a thief in the night” obviously relate to creation. That is the context that Peter is talking about. He’s talking about the removal of the entire fallen visible physical system. The word denotes the “rudiments” of anything; the minute parts or portions of which anything is composed, or which constitutes the simple portions out of which anything grows, or of which it is compounded. Here it would properly denote the component parts of the material world; or those which enter into its composition, and of which it is made up.

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus are believed to be the chief elements because they are the building blocks that allow life to exist. Those are the most common elements used in biology but there are several others that are also essential, like sodium, crine, potassium, iron and magnesium.

• The earth and the works therein are speaking about our habitable globe and everything on it
• The heavens refer to our solar system.
• The elements refer to everything in between.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Would Peter really describe the destruction of "the rudiments of this world and the works of men" as a case of them melting with fervent heat even in a metaphorical way? I think that would be a very strange way of describing their destruction metaphorically. I don't believe he would have done that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Does Peter mention the return of Christ? I don't think he did. The Day of the Lord is NOT the day Christ returns.

Yes, he does. The context of everything he said in 2 Peter 3 is in relation to what he said here:

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

This is talking about people scoffing at the promise of Christ's return. They will suffer the wrath that Peter describes in 2 Peter 3:7 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 when Christ returns. Paul describes that wrath as "sudden destruction" from which "they will not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The surrounding context is not 2 Peter 3:10-12 like slicing the kidney out of what Peter was saying and saying the kidney is the context.The context is the rudiments of this world and works of men which Peter began to speak about in 2 Peter 2.

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?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, It's a pity that you don't pay attention to the things Jesus pays attention to. If you did, you would realize the folly of such a meaningless post.

Since I have no respect for you, I am putting you on "ignore" status. Let me know when you become a Christian.

It's one thing to disagree with someone (I disagree with him, too), but this was completely uncalled for. I would never suggest he's not a Christian just because I disagree with him on this subject. That is ridiculous.

Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

 

[Zao is life]

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume your interpretation was correct. There would still be the question of what mortal people would still be alive at that point? We know all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies when Christ returns. So, even in this scenario that you're talking about, who would be the mortals that would populate the earth at that point keeping in mind that the bodies of all believers will have been made immortal? And what would be the difference between any unbelievers who are allowed to survive His return and those who are not?

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. 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).

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.

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. 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?)

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

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 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

(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).

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

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.

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). 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.

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.

 

[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 scriputre 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 place after 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 agree with what you are saying, 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.

@Spiritual Israelite I have to leave here now and can only be back when your clock says it's tomorrow. My clock has already said it's your tomorrow and my new today. At least Africa is ahead of the USA in something ;)

 

[Zao is life]

I ask because the term stoicheia (spelling) indicates "the elements of an ordered system." In Peter's day, physicists believed there were 4 elements, "earth, air, fire, and water." The term also indicated the letters of the alphabet. Paul uses the term to speak about the "elements" of his own religious system.

The phrase "Day of the Lord" is associated with darkness and gloom, but it isn't as much judgment as the Day when God begins to rule on earth. The "day" is actually an extended period of time that might amount to three or four years time. Jesus probably comes at the end of that time period to rule on earth, just as the prophets predicted. In the middle of the "day", Jesus will meet his followers in the air.

At least, that's how I see it.

I don't believe that "the day of the Lord" ever referred to any other time prior to some time in our future.

I understand why you question the way I'm interpreting stoichion or how however it's spelled when it appears in 2 Pet.3:10-12, and that's a good thing, that we don't agree.

Armageddon and Revelation 19 and Ezekiel 39 have birds feasting on the dead bodies. So is this before or after the elements are burned up? Can't be after. So why give time for the birds to feast and speak about dead bodies etc if the elements are just going to be burned up anyway?