Jesus and Peter taught that the earth will be destroyed unexpectedly on the day Jesus returns just as the earth was destroyed in Noah's day

[ScottA]

Why is it that whatever we think is true probably isn't just because we don't know the day or hour He will come?

Perhaps I'll answer one at a time.

It is because Jesus has foretold us that what we will come to expect is not what will be. In other words, our every expectation is suspect, and having been forewarned, we either heed that warning, or blow it off and continue to let our own expectations and understanding carry us where it will.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL.

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

LOL. This certainly doesn't say He is returning to earth. LOL.

And what would like manner look like in reverse? If He starts out being bodily upon the earth then ascending into the sky, and if someone had recorded that on video, for example, then played it back in reverse, it is absurd that in reverse it wouldn't show Him touching down on the earth. Yeah, right. lol

It's saying He will descend from heaven in like manner as He ascended there. In what manner did He ascend to heaven? Visibly and bodily. In what manner will He descend from heaven? Visibly and bodily. It does NOT say He will come back to the same location from where He left. You are reading things into the verse that are not there at all because of your extreme doctrinal bias.

Tell me, why will we meet Him in the air if we end up being on the earth afterwards? Why wouldn't we just meet Him on earth in that case?

It would be like a plane that is on a runway in Dallas, Texas, and it is leaving for New York and that it eventually returns to this same airport in like manner. In like manner would mean after it leaves Dallas and lands in New York, it then leaves New York and returns to Dallas. It is absurd that it can return to Dallas in like manner without ever touching down in the airport it intially left and was expected to return to.

LOL. What a ridiculous analogy. I guess you have decided that you don't want to be taken seriously at all. So be it. A plane does not have to return to the location from where it left and neither does Jesus. You must really be desperate if this is all you have to back up your false claims.

Your idea of like manner is apparently this. Jesus is initially bodily upon the earth then ascends into the sky. And then when He returns in like manner He never touches down on the ground, lol.

LOL! Where does scripture says we will meet Him? On earth or in the air? Obviously, in the air. So, the joke's on you. I can't wait to see what explanation you come up with for why we will meet Him in the air instead of on the earth.

You are cutting that part out because of your doctrinal bias'.

No, I'm cutting that part out because it's made up in your imagination that He will continue to the earth after meeting us in the air. You show your willingness to butcher scripture and make it say what you want it to say with your ridiculous interpretation of Acts 1:11. Nowhere there does Jesus say anything about returning to earth. You act as if "like manner" means "same location". LOL.

BTW, it's easy to debunk the nonsense you come up with from time to time because of your doctrinal bias', such as, Nowhere does Jesus allude at all to returning to earth

LOL. It's easy to just say a bunch of nonsense like you do on a regular basis, but not easy to actually back it up. You're doing NOTHING convincing to back up your ridiculous claims.

BTW. In Acts 1:11 even though Jesus Himself did not say those things, His angels did. Which then means in 1 Thessolanians 1:4, what is coming down must come all the way down.

They did not say He was coming back to the same location from which He left. Nice try at twisting scripture to make it say what you want it to say, but those with discernment can see through that.

Just because they are meeting in the air does not mean that Jesus returns to heaven at the time, which I'm pretty sure you already agree with.

Of course I agree with that. What is your explanation for meeting Him in the air? If you want to be taken seriously, you will answer that question. My answer is very simple. It doesn't make sense to leave us on the earth while it's being burned up.

In the same manner, when Jesus initially left, He did not remain in limbo in the sky wondering where to to go. He continued ascending until He reached His destination, heaven in this case. And when He leaves heaven He will continue descending until He touches down where He initially left. Meaning literally in that same region, meaning on the mount of Olives. IOW, He's not going to be in limbo in the sky above wondering what to do, where to go. Only per your theology would He be confused like that.

Only in your theology do you ignore that He will send fire down upon the earth when He comes rather than landing on it and ruling on the earth for a thousand years.

But, if you want to be taken seriously (not sure if you do or not), then you can tell me how the following passage somehow does not teach that He will send fire down on the earth when He comes and He will instead leave it untouched and then rule on it.

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 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. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Perhaps I'll answer one at a time.

It is because Jesus has foretold us that what we will come to expect is not what will be.

Where did He say that?

 

[ScottA]

Where did He say that?

Luke 12:40

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus mentions two events: Noah's flood and the destruction of Sodom.

I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of what you said because I couldn't possibly disagree more and I know the discussion will go nowhere. But, I did want to address this.

You are obviously not referring to the passage I was talking about that makes no mention of Sodom (Matthew 24:35-39), but this one instead:

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

I believe that Jesus compared the destruction at His second coming to the destruction that occurred with the flood to show that His second coming is a global event just like the flood in Noah's day. But, when He compared the destruction that occurred in Sodom on the day Lot went out of Sodom to the destruction that will occur on the day of His second coming, I believe He was comparing what will cause the destruction on the day of His second coming to what caused the destruction of Sodom, which was fire.

Interpreting Luke 17:26-30 this way lines up with what we see taught in 2 Peter 3:6-7 where Peter compares what will happen at Christ's second coming to what happened with the flood in Noah's day. In that passage Peter indicates that just as the flood waters destroyed the world long ago, fire will destroy the heavens and earth when Jesus comes. That also lines up with Matthew 24:35-39 where Jesus compares the destruction that will occur at His second coming to the destruction that occurred with the flood in Noah's day and relates it to the day when heaven and earth will pass away.

 

[ScottA]

I'm not sure why I need to accept that whatever I think is true probably isn't. I don't accept that.

What I think is from what I see taught in God's Word, so maybe I'm already doing what you're saying we should do? You're not easy to follow.

That is what Jesus said about what we "expect." We either except what He has said, or reject it.

As for what you "see taught in God's Word", Jesus said what He said about what we would wrongly expect, fully aware that many would be studying and have knowledge of what is written. Still, He said what He said, and it too should be considered as true.

Indeed, having followed a twisted path (confused by God Himself until the times are fulfilled), following a straight path is not easy.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke 12:40

Luke 12:40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

This verse does not support your comment "what we will come to expect is not what will be.". This was just another way of Jesus saying we don't know the hour that He will come. I don't try to predict the hour when He will come, do you? Many people don't. So, when you say "what we will come to expect is not what will be", who are "we"? Who are you talking about exactly? It can't be me because I don't even attempt to predict what hour He will come because He made it clear that no one knows that. So, it can't be true of me that what I expect is not what will be. I don't expect anything when it comes to what hour He will come because I don't know what hour He will come.

That is what Jesus said about what we "expect." We either except what He has said, or reject it.

As for what you "see taught in God's Word", Jesus said what He said about what we would wrongly expect, fully aware that many would be studying and have knowledge of what is written. Still, He said what He said, and it too should be considered as true.

You showed that you are basing that comment on Luke 12:40 which has to do with not knowing the hour He will come. How can I wrongly expect the hour He is coming when I don't have any expectations at all of what hour He will come because He made it clear that no one knows the day or hour He will come?

 

[ScottA]

If you're asking who is willing to accept that their interpretations of scripture are not likely true? Not me. If you were asking who was willing to rely on God for understanding and not ourselves, then I would say that I am willing.

That is the problem--the two are not compatible. If we are not willing to accept God's warning and clarification regarding what to expect, then we are not actually relying on God for understanding.

 

[ScottA]

Luke 12:40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

This verse does not support your comment "what we will come to expect is not what will be.". This was just another way of Jesus saying we don't know the hour that He will come. I don't try to predict the hour when He will come, do you? Many people don't. So, when you say "what we will come to expect is not what will be", who are "we"? Who are you talking about exactly? It can't be me because I don't even attempt to predict what hour He will come because He made it clear that no one knows that. So, it can't be true of me that what I expect is not what will be. I don't expect anything when it comes to what hour He will come because I don't know what hour He will come.


You showed that you are basing that comment on Luke 12:40 which has to do with not knowing the hour He will come. How can I wrongly expect the hour He is coming when I don't have any expectations at all of what hour He will come because He made it clear that no one knows the day or hour He will come?

The words are spirit. You are not only reading history, and stories of moral value, or even only prophecy. Jesus' words are not only literary--not only two-dimensional black and white, but the light of the world. Do you think I sound like I am drunk on new wine? This was the lesson of tongues--that words from God need to be spiritually discerned by a translator--by the Spirit.

You have only scratched the surface.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The words are spirit. You are not only reading history, and stories of moral value, or even only prophecy. Jesus' words are not only literary--not only two-dimensional black and white, but the light of the world. Do you think I sound like I am drunk on new wine? This was the lesson of tongues--that words from God need to be spiritually discerned by a translator--by the Spirit.

You have only scratched the surface.

LOL. You are so vague with your comments. Do you have something against speaking straightforwardly? God's words needing to be spiritually discerned, as Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16, has nothing to do with being like speaking in tongues. It's not as if nothing in scripture is straightforward. The discernment we need from the Holy Spirit is in differentiating between when it is being literal and straightforward and when it is being figurative. In your case, you are never literal and straightforward. One can only guess as to what in the world you are ever saying.

 

[ScottA]

LOL. You are so vague with your comments. Do you have something against speaking straightforwardly? God's words needing to be spiritually discerned, as Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16, has nothing to do with being like speaking in tongues. It's not as if nothing in scripture is straightforward. The discernment we need from the Holy Spirit is in differentiating between when it is being literal and straightforward and when it is being figurative. In your case, you are never literal and straightforward. One can only guess as to what in the world you are ever saying.

Yes, kinda like "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you", and "you must be born again." In which case you would do well to consider the error of the Priests and the Pharisees, and their ideas on what was literal and straightforward.

 

[AngelicArcher]

The Earth wasn't destroyed in the event with Noah. It was reset.

And shall be again in God's own time.

The way the Earths people are now, especially in the west, it's understandable that something greater than ourselves has to set things aright.

But when?
God only knows.

As it should be.
And, we've earned it. Two thousand years + AD.
And look at us.
Look at where we are.
And what we've ,as the worlds people, have become.


Marinatha

 

[CadyandZoe]

You are obviously not referring to the passage I was talking about that makes no mention of Sodom (Matthew 24:35-39), but this one instead:

Yes. Since Jesus compares his coming to both events, he intends for us to focus on what they have in common. While the flood affected the entire world, the fires of Sodom were localized. Thus, we have no basis to conclude that he predicted worldwide destruction. But then again, maybe he did.

In addition, and perhaps with greater emphasis, Jesus himself makes a striking comparison, illustrating how individuals perceived the unfolding events. He describes how people were living their everyday lives, fully engaged in their routines, when they were abruptly confronted by unexpected devastation. The essence of Jesus' message centers not on the scale or severity of the destruction—whether it was felt on a global or local level—but rather on the surprising lack of forewarning that accompanied it.

See what I mean? Stick with me here. :)

Interpreting Luke 17:26-30 this way lines up with what we see taught in 2 Peter 3:6-7 where Peter compares what will happen at Christ's second coming to what happened with the flood in Noah's day. In that passage Peter indicates that just as the flood waters destroyed the world long ago, fire will destroy the heavens and earth when Jesus comes. That also lines up with Matthew 24:35-39 where Jesus compares the destruction that will occur at His second coming to the destruction that occurred with the flood in Noah's day and relates it to the day when heaven and earth will pass away.

This will be another point of disagreement between our views. According to my AI helper, "Amillennialists hold that Christ's return will mark the culmination of history, bringing final judgment and the fulfillment of God's kingdom. At that point, all believers will be united with Him eternally, and the new heavens and new earth will be established.

Amillennialists understand "The Day of the Lord" as a pivotal, climactic moment in God's redemptive plan—representing the end of history as we know it. This phrase, found throughout scripture, is interpreted as the final day of judgment and salvation when Christ returns in glory."

It almost goes without saying that I disagree with that interpretation. But I am willing to be wrong and convinced otherwise. For the moment, I see room for both a localized destructive event and a globalized destructive event, separated by a thousand years. (See illustration below.)

{Localized destruction -->> Millennial period -->> Global destruction.} = Day of the Lord.

I'll discuss this more when I respond to your Peter comments.
Thanks for the discussion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why is it that you can't see that the scoffers of the last days who were clueless about what was coming are just like those who are eating, drinking and marrying that Jesus referred to in the days before His second coming?

I fail to understand why the first scenario can't bear a resemblance to the second. Regardless of whether those involved are mockers deriding the message or simply ordinary individuals going about their daily lives, they'll ultimately find themselves unprepared for what lies ahead. Peter interprets the mockery as a direct challenge to the teachings about the Second Advent, viewing it as a form of rebuke. In contrast, Jesus presents a more straightforward perspective, emphasizing that people will be taken by surprise, caught off guard by events they may have disregarded.

Why can't you see that the destruction that Jesus talked about and compared to the flood in Noah's day is the same future destruction that Peter compared to the flood in Noah's day?

I agree with you here. Both Peter and Jesus reference the same destruction event, which will have a global effect, and they both mention another destruction event that will have a local effect.

Yet, Peter clearly indicated that Christ's second coming will be a global event.

Did you ever wonder why Peter seems to repeat himself? He mentions fire and burning in verses 7 and 10. Why do you suppose he did that? (This is not a challenge to you. I'm just thinking out loud.) I'm thinking about the idea that there might be a local destruction event, and then later, there will be a global destruction event.

I postulated that perhaps The Day of the Lord is comprised of two destruction events separated by a thousand years.

Day of the Lord = {local destruction event -->> thousand years -->> global destruction event.}

You even say yourself that 2 Peter 3:7, which is talking about what will happen at Christ's second coming to those who scoff at the promise of His second coming, refers to a worldwide event. Yet, you try to say that the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:37-39, which is the same event as 2 Peter 3:7, only refers to something that will happen in Jerusalem.

Yes, I clearly see 2 Peter 3:7 as a global event. But I can also see 2 Peter 3:10 as a local event. I mean, I can clearly understand why you think that both verses refer to a global event. That is what I have always believed they were the same event until I did a Bible study of the Day of the Lord and noticed how many passages that spoke of fire and burning sounded like local events. To my ears, for instance, Malachi 4 sounds like a local destruction event, when God will judge Israel.

Finally, a Premill who actually interprets this verse correctly. I agree completely. This verse refers to the fact that the Lord exists in the realm of eternity and therefore a day, a thousand years or any amount of time makes no difference to Him. Most Premills try to relate this verse to Revelation 20 just because it references a thousand years, but the context of this verse has nothing to do with the context of Revelation 20.

Right. I still think Peter may have had the Millennial period in his mind when he wrote those words, but I don't think Peter meant to say anything other than God is not bound by time. That is his main point there.

Agree. I figure I might as well agree with any comment you make that I agree with since we normally disagree on almost everything.

I am truly sorry about that. I am making every effort to discuss these subjects with you in a respectful tone.

Where does Peter refer to "the world system" there? He refers specifically to the heavens, the earth (and the works therein) and the elements being burned up and dissolved. How does that equate to this world system being destroyed by fire? What does the world system being destroyed by fire mean exactly?

We must be careful to look for words that might carry an ancient meaning rather than a modern meaning. Both Peter and Paul talk about "the elements," but contrary to a modern meaning, they are not talking about atoms and molecules. During their time, an "element" was the basic tenets, axioms, or letters that formed a complete system. For instance, the letters of the alphabet were "the elements." The ordinances of the Jewish religion were the "elements" of that system. So then, when Peter talks about the destruction of "the elements," he refers to the destruction of religions, political, governmental, and sociological systems.

Paul often defended his Gospel against those who practiced the "Oral Law." This refers to a comprehensive compilation of the teachings and interpretations of the Rabbis, which were initially transmitted orally over generations. Over time, these teachings were codified and evolved into a structured system of precedent law that governs various aspects of Jewish life and legal rulings. This Oral Law served as an essential complement to the written texts and provided a framework for understanding and applying the principles found in the Hebrew Scriptures. For Paul, the Rabbinical writings and opinions were the "elements" of the Jewish religious system.

He often referred to the Stoicheia tou kosmou, which is often mistakenly translated as "elements of the world" but should be understood as "elements of the system," particularly the Jewish religious system.

Why does Peter compare this event to the flood in Noah's day in 2 Peter 3:6-7 if He is not comparing like events in the sense of comparing one literal global destruction event to another?

I am cognizant of the fact that the Day of the Lord begins with a local destruction event, where the land and everything on it is destroyed by fire. Isn't Peter talking about that local event in 2 Peter 3:10. I mentioned Malachi 4, earlier, where the Prophet predicts an event that will incinerate the "evil-doers" but heal those who "fear the Lord."

(I had my study on a former computer that crashed. Someday I should repeat that study and document it on another computer.

What exactly do you think will survive the fires?

If my interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10 is correct, he is talking about the local destruction of the land of Israel, except for those who, by faith, travel to Jerusalem to pray for Israel's deliverance (Joel 2). Isaiah refers to them as "survivors." They survived the fires because they left home before the fires destroyed their houses and their farm animals.

How about where Peter indicates in verse 13 that we look for the new heavens and new earth in accordance with "His promise"? I think it's clear that "His promise refers to "the promise of His coming":

Yes. 2 Peter 3:7 speaks about the global destruction of the earth. In my view, the time difference between the Local destruction of Israel and the global destruction of the entire earth is the Millennial period.

Why do Premills instead look for an earthly millennial kingdom in accordance with His second coming when we should be looking for the new heavens and new earth in accordance with His second coming?

I think we can look forward to both the Rapture of the church and the remaking of the world, even if the two events are separated by 1000 years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes. Since Jesus compares his coming to both events, he intends for us to focus on what they have in common. While the flood affected the entire world, the fires of Sodom were localized. Thus, we have no basis to conclude that he predicted worldwide destruction. But then again, maybe he did.

In addition, and perhaps with greater emphasis, Jesus himself makes a striking comparison, illustrating how individuals perceived the unfolding events. He describes how people were living their everyday lives, fully engaged in their routines, when they were abruptly confronted by unexpected devastation. The essence of Jesus' message centers not on the scale or severity of the destruction—whether it was felt on a global or local level—but rather on the surprising lack of forewarning that accompanied it.

See what I mean? Stick with me here. :)

Are you expecting me to specifically address what you said here when you didn't specifically address what I said about Luke 17:26-30? Why is it that you didn't address what I said about that passage? I'm not interested in a one way discussion where you don't address any of my points while you expect me to address yours. I've told you this many times before.

I pointed out how I believe that He compared His second coming to the flood in the sense of comparing similar global destruction events and compared His coming to the destruction of Sodom by fire to indicate what would cause the destruction at His second coming, which was obviously fire. And that is exactly what is indicated in 2nd Peter 3 and I believe in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 as well. Do you have any thoughts at all on that point?

This will be another point of disagreement between our views. According to my AI helper, "Amillennialists hold that Christ's return will mark the culmination of history, bringing final judgment and the fulfillment of God's kingdom. At that point, all believers will be united with Him eternally, and the new heavens and new earth will be established.

You need AI to tell you that? You haven't discerned that from what Amills here have told you about what we believe? Anyway, what your AI helper says is correct, but I would assume you understand that AI isn't always going to be correct since it just searches the Internet and summarizes and generalizes the opinions that people have, which may or may not be accurate. Or it may be accurate for what some believe and not for others.

Amillennialists understand "The Day of the Lord" as a pivotal, climactic moment in God's redemptive plan—representing the end of history as we know it. This phrase, found throughout scripture, is interpreted as the final day of judgment and salvation when Christ returns in glory."

Correct. I think that is made quite clear in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-13 which are two of the few passages that actually specifically reference "the day of the Lord".

It almost goes without saying that I disagree with that interpretation.

Not almost. It does go without saying. But, you said it, anyway, just in case we might somehow think otherwise, I guess. (I'm kidding).

But I am willing to be wrong and convinced otherwise.

Hmmm.

For the moment, I see room for both a localized destructive event and a globalized destructive event, separated by a thousand years. (See illustration below.)

{Localized destruction -->> Millennial period -->> Global destruction.} = Day of the Lord.

Can you tell me exactly how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13 and how you think it can be supported by this view you described here?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I fail to understand why the first scenario can't bear a resemblance to the second.

It does. That's my point.

Regardless of whether those involved are mockers deriding the message or simply ordinary individuals going about their daily lives, they'll ultimately find themselves unprepared for what lies ahead.

Right.

Peter interprets the mockery as a direct challenge to the teachings about the Second Advent, viewing it as a form of rebuke. In contrast, Jesus presents a more straightforward perspective, emphasizing that people will be taken by surprise, caught off guard by events they may have disregarded.

Right. It's kind of comical that you're saying all this as if I was saying anything different. Oh well. Nothing new for us to misunderstand each other.

I agree with you here. Both Peter and Jesus reference the same destruction event, which will have a global effect, and they both mention another destruction event that will have a local effect.

Where did Peter mention a local destruction event?

I believe the local destruction event that Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse was clearly in relation to what happened in 70 AD because He specifically prophesied that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and they were destroyed in 70 AD.

Did you ever wonder why Peter seems to repeat himself? He mentions fire and burning in verses 7 and 10. Why do you suppose he did that?

Because he just wanted to first introduce the event in verse 7 before expanding on it in more detail starting in verse 10 after first pointing out that the Lord was not slow in fulfilling what is described in verse 7 at His second coming. Notice in verse 7 that after describing the flood he said "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire". I believe he said "by the same word" to show that he was talking about an event that would be the same as the flood in some way and I think it is the same in the sense of also being a global physical destruction event like the flood except that it will be caused by fire this time instead of water.

(This is not a challenge to you. I'm just thinking out loud.)

Wasn't taken as such, but I appreciate you clarifying things like this.

I'm thinking about the idea that there might be a local destruction event, and then later, there will be a global destruction event.

Well, I certainly don't see such a thing described in 2nd Peter 3. I believe 2 Peter 3:7 and 2 Peter 3:10 are clearly referring to the same event with 2 Peter 3:10-12 providing details around the event Peter first references in verse 7.

I postulated that perhaps The Day of the Lord is comprised of two destruction events separated by a thousand years.

Day of the Lord = {local destruction event -->> thousand years -->> global destruction event.}

So, the day of the Lord is specifically described in 2 Peter 3:10-12. Where is there any indication there that it's talking about two different events?

Yes, I clearly see 2 Peter 3:7 as a global event.

Okay. Glad we can agree on that. It seems to me that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is just as clearly referring to a global event. Why would one verse that refers to the heavens and earth being "reserved unto fire" have a different context than another verse talking about the heavens and earth being burned and dissolved by fire?

But I can also see 2 Peter 3:10 as a local event. I mean, I can clearly understand why you think that both verses refer to a global event.

I consider the fact that you can at least see why I believe what I do as progress. So much of the time in discussions between Amills and Premills neither side even understands why the other believes what they do, which obviously does not make for good discussions.

That is what I have always believed they were the same event until I did a Bible study of the Day of the Lord and noticed how many passages that spoke of fire and burning sounded like local events. To my ears, for instance, Malachi 4 sounds like a local destruction event, when God will judge Israel.

So, what I would appreciate you doing is breaking down 2 Peter 3:10-13 and telling me exactly how you interpret it. That way I might better be able to see what you're talking about exactly because right now I cannot see that 2 Peter 3:10-13 could possibly be referring to a local event. Your reference to Malachi 4 does not really help me see that.

Think about this. In 2 Peter 3:13 Peter says "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.". Why does he say "Nevertheless" there? Because he's saying despite what he has just described in 2 Peter 3:10-12, we still can look for new heavens and a new earth where righteousness dwells. Now, if he was referring to a local event in 2 Peter 3:10-12 that would suggest he was only talking in a local sense in verse 13 as well. Is that what you believe? If not, then how do you reconcile your understanding of 2 Peter 3:10-12 with what it says in 2 Peter 3:13?

Right. I still think Peter may have had the Millennial period in his mind when he wrote those words, but I don't think Peter meant to say anything other than God is not bound by time. That is his main point there.

Obviously, I disagree that he had the Millennial period in his mind at all when he wrote 2 Peter 38, but I'll just leave it at that.

I am truly sorry about that. I am making every effort to discuss these subjects with you in a respectful tone.

I appreciate that. I'm trying to respond respectfully in kind.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We must be careful to look for words that might carry an ancient meaning rather than a modern meaning. Both Peter and Paul talk about "the elements," but contrary to a modern meaning, they are not talking about atoms and molecules.

I disagree. I think by saying that then, to be consistent, you should also believe that he was not talking about the literal heavens and earth, either, because I believe you saying this would indicate that you think he wasn't talking about a physical destruction event there in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

During their time, an "element" was the basic tenets, axioms, or letters that formed a complete system. For instance, the letters of the alphabet were "the elements." The ordinances of the Jewish religion were the "elements" of that system. So then, when Peter talks about the destruction of "the elements," he refers to the destruction of religions, political, governmental, and sociological systems.

Nah. He referred only to the literal destruction of literal things there. How can "religions, political, governmental, and sociological systems" be dissolved by fire? No, sorry, I can't buy this line of reasoning. It's not consistent with seeing him as referring to the literal heavens and earth there. Unless you don't think he was referring to the literal heavens and earth there? But, if so, why would you think He was not referring to the literal heavens and earth there, but believe he was only a few verses earlier in verse 7? I don't believe that makes any sense, honestly.

I am cognizant of the fact that the Day of the Lord begins with a local destruction event, where the land and everything on it is destroyed by fire. Isn't Peter talking about that local event in 2 Peter 3:10. I mentioned Malachi 4, earlier, where the Prophet predicts an event that will incinerate the "evil-doers" but heal those who "fear the Lord."

I just don't follow you here. I don't know what else to say in response. I see no basis for thinking that it's even possible that what he referred to in 2 Peter 3:7 is not the same event as 2 Peter 3:10-12. No offense, but nothing you're saying here is changing my mind at all about that.

(I had my study on a former computer that crashed. Someday I should repeat that study and document it on another computer.

That's a bummer. Maybe consider getting an external hard drive to copy your files to in case things like that happen. Or backing up those files to the cloud like on OneDrive or Google Drive.

If my interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10 is correct, he is talking about the local destruction of the land of Israel, except for those who, by faith, travel to Jerusalem to pray for Israel's deliverance (Joel 2). Isaiah refers to them as "survivors." They survived the fires because they left home before the fires destroyed their houses and their farm animals.

So, please explain to me exactly how what you're saying here can fit the text in 2 Peter 3:10-13. I just can't see it at all.

Yes. 2 Peter 3:7 speaks about the global destruction of the earth. In my view, the time difference between the Local destruction of Israel and the global destruction of the entire earth is the Millennial period.

I think it would be good if you showed me exactly how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13 because I see no hint of any reference to Israel there. So, please quote the text and tell me exactly how you interpret each verse.

I think we can look forward to both the Rapture of the church and the remaking of the world, even if the two events are separated by 1000 years.

Yes, we could if that was true. But, my point was in relation to 2 Peter 3:13 where Peter said this...

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Are you then agreeing with me that he was talking about looking for "the remaking of the world" which he referred to as "the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness"? If so, why would he say that we look for what you called "the remaking of the world" despite what he described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 if he was only describing a local event in 2 Peter 3:10-12?

I don't think it makes sense that he would describe a local destruction event in Israel in verses 10 to 12 and then inexplicably switch to speaking in a global sense in verse 13. Why would he say in effect: "Nevertheless, despite what I just said will happen locally in Israel, we still look for the remaking of the world in the form of new heavens and a new earth where righteousness will dwell" instead of saying in effect "Nevertheless, despite what I just said will happen to the entire heavens and earth, we look for the remaking of the world in the form of a new heavens and new earth where righteousness will dwell"?

 

[Keraz]

The Earth wasn't destroyed in the event with Noah. It was reset.

And shall be again in God's own time.

The way the Earths people are now, especially in the west, it's understandable that something greater than ourselves has to set things aright.

The Reset of Civilization:
The Word of God [the Bible] tells us that He is the Creator of all things. He has the ability to do anything that he chooses. He made the earth and set humans upon it.
It’s been nearly 2000 years since the last time we were given Divine instructions, that is: as written in the Bible. Since then, people have mostly pursued their own interests, worshipping false gods, promoting evolution and denying the existence of their Creator.

We are told that thousands of years ago people were in a similar situation, having degenerated into apostasy and sin. Only one righteous man and his family were kept alive as God destroyed all the rest by a worldwide flood. Jesus predicted that ‘once again it will be as in the days of Noah’ and when He comes again, we should be prepared. Matthew 24:37-44

The Creator God ‘reset civilization’ in Noah’s day and now we are facing the same judgement. God promised after the Flood, to never again use water or wipe out life so completely. Genesis 9:11
But in Deuteronomy 32:22 & 34-35, He tells us of a terrible fire punishment stored up for His enemies, on their Day of Doom. Isaiah 54:9-10

There are many descriptions in the prophesies of this sudden and devastating worldwide Day of fire and earthquakes, most are either ignored or allegorized because people cannot see any literal fulfilment. The biggest difficulty that most have, is realizing the difference between the Lord’s Day of vengeance and wrath and the Return of Jesus in His glory.

Isaiah 13:9-13 The Day of the Lord is coming, that cruel Day of wrath and fierce anger, to reduce the earth to desolation and to destroy the wicked there. The sun, moon and stars will give no light. Humans will become scarce, as rare as fine gold and the earth will quake at the wrath of God on the Day of His blazing anger.
This and many other prophesies cannot be reconciled with the glorious Return of Jesus, when ‘every eye will see Him’. It is clearly stated that on the Day of wrath, He will not be seen. Psalms 18:11, Habakkuk 3:4, Psalms 11:4-6

We are told in Revelation 6:17, that the Sixth Seal judgement is the Day of the Lord’s wrath and then the Seventh Seal is an ‘about a 20 year’ time gap when the world recovers, enabling righteous Israel, that is; every faithful Christian, from every race, nation and language, Revelation 5:9-10, to return to the holy Land and the rise of a One World government. Then, after most of the rest of the prophesies are fulfilled, Jesus will Return and commence His Millennial reign.

The main reason that most people fail to get what the Bible tells us, is that the Lord has placed on us a spirit of misunderstanding and ‘If you confuse yourself, then you will stay confused’ Isaiah 29:9-12. Only in the last days, before this shocking event, will a few finally understand what the Lord has planned. Daniel 12:9-10

*Revelation 8:1 The Seventh Seal... there was silence in heaven for about a half hour...
This time period is for ‘about a half hour in heaven’, and Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8, tell us that one day to God in heaven is the same as a thousand years on earth. Therefore, a half hour of heavenly time calculates to 20.8 years of earthly time. So then ‘about 15- 20 years’, is right for all that must happen, starting very soon.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Are you expecting me to specifically address what you said here when you didn't specifically address what I said about Luke 17:26-30? Why is it that you didn't address what I said about that passage? I'm not interested in a one way discussion where you don't address any of my points while you expect me to address yours. I've told you this many times before.

I pointed out how I believe that He compared His second coming to the flood in the sense of comparing similar global destruction events and compared His coming to the destruction of Sodom by fire to indicate what would cause the destruction at His second coming, which was obviously fire. And that is exactly what is indicated in 2nd Peter 3 and I believe in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 as well. Do you have any thoughts at all on that point?

Yes. I apologize for not directly addressing your proposal in a way that might be helpful.

A review of Luke 17 will be helpful to understand Jesus's mention of Noah's flood. Jesus's purpose here is to give further details concerning "the days of the Son of Man," which refers to his rule over the world. The term "son of man" begins with Psalm 8, where David marvels that one of his sons will rule over all creation. This theme is picked up again in Daniel 7, where one like a son of man is given everlasting dominion. In that context, we read,

Daniel 7:27 Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’

The "days" of the Son of Man refer to a future time when all dominions, kingdoms, and powers will yield their allegiance and serve him completely. In this context, it is assumed that whether we envision a catastrophic global flood or a devastating fire that engulfs the earth, the conditions would not allow any dominions to faithfully serve the Son of Man. In such apocalyptic scenarios, the very foundations of authority and dominion would be dismantled, leaving no realm to recognize His sovereign rule. For this reason, it seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus has turned his focus to a localized event of destruction rather than a global event.

If I am right, this would explain why Luke 17 is focused on the revelation of the Son of Man. Phenomenologically speaking, Jesus says, one will be required to look skyward to see the Son of Man rather than look for him on the ground. "For just like the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day" (verse 24). Someone looking for the son of man will not find him by looking here and there. Instead, as Daniel says, he will be coming on the clouds of heaven.

Jesus warns his disciples, "On (the day that the son of Man is revealed) the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one in the field must not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife." Luke 17:31-32

Consider Jesus' warning to remember Lot's wife. The angels were taking Lot and his wife to a place of safety, but she turned back and died. Likewise, when the son of man will be revealed, some people will need to rush to a new location, away from their house, to find safety. Those who stay behind, like Lot's wife, will die. Those who flee will be delivered. This local destruction is predicted by the OT prophets.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I disagree. I think by saying that then, to be consistent, you should also believe that he was not talking about the literal heavens and earth, either, because I believe you saying this would indicate that you think he wasn't talking about a physical destruction event there in 2 Peter 3:10-12.


Nah. He referred only to the literal destruction of literal things there. How can "religions, political, governmental, and sociological systems" be dissolved by fire? No, sorry, I can't buy this line of reasoning. It's not consistent with seeing him as referring to the literal heavens and earth there. Unless you don't think he was referring to the literal heavens and earth there? But, if so, why would you think He was not referring to the literal heavens and earth there, but believe he was only a few verses earlier in verse 7? I don't believe that makes any sense, honestly.

It is important to consider why Peter references both heaven and earth in such close proximity within his writing, specifically in verses 7 and 10. We cannot simply assume that he is reiterating the same idea twice. To draw a meaningful conclusion, we need to investigate whether he is indeed supporting the same point in both instances.

In the first mention, found in verse 7, Peter emphasizes that both heaven and earth are earmarked for a future day of destruction and judgment. This serves as a stark reminder of the inevitable consequences that await. In contrast, when we reach verse 10, Peter introduces a different element by referencing the Day of the Lord. It is worth noting that if Peter's intention were merely to express the same concept with varied phrasing, we could reasonably conclude that the day of destruction and punishment is synonymous with the Day of the Lord. This distinction invites a deeper analysis of Peter’s overall message and the implications of his choice of words.

If Peter's intent is to convey a message that distinguishes between verses seven and ten, then it would be unjustifiable to equate the day of judgment and destruction with the day of the Lord. This suggests that he may be drawing a nuanced contrast between two key events, highlighting that they should not be viewed as synonymous.

I understand that you find my writing hard to follow, so I pray that you have followed what I have said so far.

In verse 10, Peter presents the intriguing concept of "The Day of the Lord," a phrase that echoes the profound imagery found in Isaiah chapter 13 and the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 24. Both Isaiah and Jesus convey a striking vision of celestial phenomena, describing a time when the stars in the heavens and the constellations will cease to shine their brilliant light. Additionally, they paint a vivid picture of the sun emerging in darkness and the moon withholding its glow, creating an eerie atmosphere on the earth below.

This imagery does not imply the literal destruction of the heavens and the earth; rather, it suggests a dramatic and unsettling change in the way we perceive the cosmos from our vantage point on the ground. Although the sun and moon continue to exist, there is an inexplicable loss of their radiance, leaving the skies shrouded in an unnatural gloom. The celestial bodies, once vibrant sources of light and life, seem to fall into a deeper silence, provoking a sense of awe and mystery about what this transformation signifies for humanity.

After careful consideration, it seems plausible to interpret that Peter is alluding to the catastrophic annihilation of the heavens and the earth in verse 7. However, when we arrive at verse 10, he appears to be referencing a different phenomenon—the dimming of their brilliance for reasons that remain unclear. Some scholars have posited an intriguing theory: if the Day of the Lord brings with it an intense fire and incineration, then perhaps the subsequent smoke created by such destruction could explain the profound loss of light that follows.

I just don't follow you here. I don't know what else to say in response. I see no basis for thinking that it's even possible that what he referred to in 2 Peter 3:7 is not the same event as 2 Peter 3:10-12. No offense, but nothing you're saying here is changing my mind at all about that.

Consider the powerful imagery found in Malachi 4. In this verse, the prophet vividly describes a dramatic event characterized by flames and intense burning, specifically centered around the nation of Israel. The passage presents a stark dichotomy in its implications: it contrasts the fate of the arrogant evildoer with that of the individual who holds a deep reverence for God. This distinction underscores the moral consequences of one’s actions and attitudes.

Malachi hints at the immediacy of the situation, indicating that prior to this momentous day, God intends to send Elijah, the prophet, to turn the hearts of fathers back to their children—an urgent plea for reconciliation and a call to spiritual awakening. The purpose of this restoration is to avert a catastrophic outcome: a curse that would befall the land.

Now, let’s entertain a hypothetical scenario wherein Elijah’s mission fails. In such a case, one must consider the gravity of the consequences, as God would then unleash this curse upon the land. However, the paradox lies in the nature of this curse: even if it is enacted, the land itself would still remain, suggesting that there is a persistent reality that endures, even amidst divine judgment.

The destruction recorded in Malachi 4, is not a global destruction event.

That's a bummer. Maybe consider getting an external hard drive to copy your files to in case things like that happen. Or, you can back up those files to the cloud like on OneDrive or Google Drive.

That's a great idea.

So, please explain to me exactly how what you're saying here can fit the text in 2 Peter 3:10-13. I just can't see it at all.

Peter’s argument centers on the skeptics who dismiss the notion of Christ's return. These mockers base their skepticism on the belief that the world has remained remarkably unchanged over time and is unlikely to transform in the future. In response, Peter presents a compelling rebuttal in two distinct parts.

First, he draws attention to the fact that significant changes do indeed occur throughout history, often in ways that are unexpected and profound. He emphasizes that while the present might feel static, dramatic shifts are entirely possible. To underscore his point, he references the account of God’s judgment, recalling how the entire world was once engulfed in a cataclysmic flood, a powerful reminder of divine intervention in the past. Looking ahead, Peter warns that a similar fate awaits the world, not by water this time, but by fire, signifying a future transformation that cannot be ignored.

As Peter continues his discourse from verse 10 onward, he shifts focus to a pressing question concerning God's longstanding promise of redemption for Israel. It has become increasingly evident that this promise remains unfulfilled, raising doubts about its realization. Peter poignantly reminds his Jewish audience that God's impending judgment is inevitable—a threshold that the Prophets have foretold, marked by the ominous phrase "The Day of the Lord." This significant time is portrayed as a divine reckoning, during which God will purge the unworthiness from His people, Jacob.

Within this framework of prophetic warning, Peter elaborates on the impending destruction of what he refers to as "the elements." This term encompasses not just the foundational aspects of the Jewish faith, but also the extensive web of rules and regulations that the rabbis have layered onto it over the years. These additions, which have evolved into a complex structure of religious practices, are seen as obsolete in light of the imminent divine judgment. Thus, Peter emphasizes a crucial shift away from these man-made traditions, highlighting the urgent need for spiritual renewal and authentic faith.

I don't think it makes sense that he would describe a local destruction event in Israel in verses 10 to 12 and then inexplicably switch to speaking in a global sense in verse 13. Why would he say in effect: "Nevertheless, despite what I just said will happen locally in Israel, we still look for the remaking of the world in the form of new heavens and a new earth where righteousness will dwell" instead of saying in effect "Nevertheless, despite what I just said will happen to the entire heavens and earth, we look for the remaking of the world in the form of a new heavens and new earth where righteousness will dwell"?

You bring up an excellent point. It’s important to acknowledge that these two events are deeply interconnected, allowing Peter to discuss them as if they were one continuous occurrence. The book of Revelation further elaborates on this theme by describing not just two, but three distinct events of destruction. The first, represented by the seals, corresponds to the catastrophic events that unfolded in 70 AD. The second, symbolized by the trumpets, refers to localized destruction events that occurred specifically within Israel. Lastly, the bowls depict a more sweeping and global calamity, highlighting the pervasive nature of destruction on a larger scale. Together, these elements weave a complex narrative of judgment and transformation in biblical history.