But John had not been martyred when he writes of being in the spirit. He is alive in TIME, he symbolizes a thousand years receiving revelation from God. The martyrs are bodiless because they were beheaded and are living souls. The reason they are alive in heaven is because like John, in TIME, (a thousand years) they lived and reigned with Christ before they died. Nowhere in Scripture can we find any verse that says one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day. You have been repeatedly show how you are abusing this verse that says "one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 'Is' shouldn't even be there, that why the KJB has italicized it. 'Is' was added by the translators, but apparently for some (like you) rather than helping to clarify, it causes confusion?
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV) 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.
Are you not being picky just to prove your own bias?
According to strongs the usage in this verse is not just "as". In the direct Greek translation the word "like" is used.
"makes reference to similarity or equality, in such expressions as εἶναι ὡς τινα, i. e. 'to be like' or 'equal to' one,"
The KJV associates the day is with the Lord. Because the day of the Lord is the focus of an upcoming event. The focus is not on God's longsuffering. The focus is on the destruction when the Day of the Lord comes. What Day of the Lord? The Day of the Lord that is similar to or equal to a thousand years. Besides God has been longsuffering for 6,000 years, even if those 6 thousand years were only 6 Days with the Lord. If God only waited 6 days, how longsuffering is that? The reality is God allowed creation to suffer for their 6,000 years. God did not forget about creation, as the promise was that God was not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance. This being in light of the point that the Day of the Lord could happen at any time as a thief in the night. Peter made that point almost 2,000 years ago.
Peter is telling you not to be ignorant of the prepositional phrase not the comparison of a day with years. The day has a defined point to the subject, because the day has the qualifier "with the Lord". So Peter is not saying the Day is 24 hours. Peter is saying don't be ignorant that the day with the Lord equal to a thousand years is coming like a thief in the night. Even though God is longsuffering, and has permitted thousands of years on earth, that day with the Lord equal to a thousand years is coming like a thief in the night.
Peter is not saying God is longsuffering because 24 hours equals or "is like" a thousand years, and a thousands years equals or "is like" 24 hours, even if that is the case with God.
When you take Peter saying that God is longsuffering and make that your focal point of the explanation that Peter told you not to be ignorant about, then is Peter saying it is OK to be ignorant of the coming destruction, because it is more important to know that God is longsuffering?
Verse 9 is in contrast to verse 10. Peter wants you to know that a Day with the Lord is equal to a thousand years, along with the point God is longsuffering, and that the Day with the Lord is coming like a thief in the night.
Then not only do you attribute verse 8 with verse 9, but you take both verses out of context and claim Peter is talking about eternity. The entire point is to relate the Lord with creation and the creation that God allowed to be under the bondage of sin for 6,000 years. Peter was not saying that eternity is coming like a thief in the night. Yet that is amil's interpretation they refuse to actually state.
All of Amil are wrong about eternity anyway, even if they disagree over Revelation 20. A new heaven and earth is not eternity any more than this current heaven and earth. Souls are not currently waiting in eternity. They are in Paradise where a day may be equal to a thousand years on earth. So this private concept that any Scripture is talking about God's time outside of creation is a misnomer. Eternity is not everlasting time nor "no time", it is simply "outside of creation". Or more succinctly: the Lord in eternity is outside of creation separate from creation. How can you say eternity has no time? You constantly point out some are wrong stating a future millennium or pre-trib for lack of Scripture. What verse states eternity has no time?
Even people without God, relate time directly with light. Who is light? GOD. God declared He does not change, but what makes time, light or change? Change is how we experience time in creation. We have verses that claim God experiences time different than us, not that eternity has no time. What God does not do is change. Malachi 3:6
The next reality or as amil call it the "age to come", another misnomer, is not eternity either. It is simply another creation with a distinct beginning, and more than likely an end at some point. People in the past in Scripture declared this creation as everlasting, and we know it has both a beginning and an end. What would be everlasting is there will always be a heaven and earth, even if each time reality is totally different. Some may even claim and do, that this is not the first heaven and earth. The point they forget is that even if this is not the first, all memory is wiped, so we would never know one way or the other. We won't even have any memory of this creation, after it goes back to God. The eternal nature of heaven and earth would be more like a never ending series of heavens and earths, and the only time we are aware of a change is when God points out one creation is about to end and the next one begins.
No one will be able to describe this creation in the next one, any more than it is possible to state there was one prior to this creation. We may think there was, but Scripture clearly points out all memory of this creation will be removed, so we cannot know if this is the first creation or not. We can assume that if we do come down in the New Jerusalem, it will seem there was always a New Jerusalem, not that it just popped into existence, out of nothing. Even in this creation we were never told the exact history and nature of the beginning prior to the Flood, until Moses was told on Mt. Sinai.
Now we are told that people in this new creation will think they were always in the New Jerusalem and on a new earth, when at this moment, we know we come from a totally different creation. We literally know more now than we will at the start. That is the nature of thinking one always existed, not eternity. Even modern thought claims life in this "universe" has been around for billions of years, which would be "forever" when compared to only 6,000 years.
Now you can dismiss this all as nonsense or overstating a point, but any claim that we enter or that Peter was talking about eternity outside of time in 2 Peter 3 is pure nonsense made up by human bias and not Scripture at all. No Scripture ever puts creation or a part of creation, outside of creation, into eternity, where the creator exists alone, and existing apart from creation. God as the one sitting on the throne is part of creation, just as much as the Holy Spirit, and Jesus. The Lord singular would be the creator outside of creation. Now all, as individuals (the Trinity) as the Lord exist inside and outside of creation, but in relationship to creation they are part of creation. There is no separation of the physical and spiritual within creation. The issue is that humans have been closed off to the spiritual because of the state of death, Adam's disobedience placed us in.
So we don't have to say one day is an exact thousand years and a thousands years is an exact one day. That would be a wrong interpretation, even if true. Peter's point is that the phrase the Day with the Lord is equal to a thousand years. And yes, a thousand years equals or is like that one day with the Lord. The prepositional phrase does not need to be repeated to get the point. The point is the prepositional qualifier. That is what Peter is pointing out not to be ignorant of, because his point was the Day of the Lord is coming. Can we use 2 Peter 3:8 to understand any reference in the OT? Yes we can, even as a specific declared interpretation.
Can a metaphor be used as explicitly making a point? Is comparing the Flood of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah with the Second Coming a metaphor? How different is saying the "Days of Noah" from the "Day of the Lord"? Are either referring to a literal 24 hour day, or somewhat abstract in form? Amil seem to default to the abstract every time they see the word thousand. Why would Peter be comparing two individual and separate abstract thoughts? Noah was a literal person and the Flood was literal, but the general sense is what was going on at the time, compared to the Second Coming. The Day of the Lord is still an abstract prepositional phrase with a literal connotation, but that would not make "thousand" an abstract point. Comparing one Day with the Lord with a thousand, is not explaining God's longsuffering. Peter is defining the Day of the Lord. The longsuffering is closely related because now there is a contrast between God's mercy and the coming destruction. Even if one uses the point one day equals one thousand years and one thousand years equals one day, it would not be wrong nor taking this verse out of context. This verse would be the only proof text of that point. Not sure why any one would take literal words and just dismiss them as if they were not that important?
