In case you don't remember, you alluded to the same issue in an earlier post. And I already responded in my post #460 (on page 23 of this thread).
(copy and paste from my post #460)
It's not a case of not remembering if I didn't even read it in the first place, which I'm pretty sure I didn't. Doug, there are now well over 1,000 posts in this thread. It's quite possible that I have not read all of them. I don't recall that particular post.
Peter in 2Peter2:3 was addressing two things.
1. verses 3 - 9 regarding scoffers making light that Jesus had not returned. And those same type of scoffers would be around in the last days.
2. verses 10 -17 that believers should be looking forward to new heavens and a new earth. And to keep hold of God's promises.
I think verse 10 is where you are getting the impression that the day of the Lord coming like a thief in night, results in the immediate destruction of the current heavens and earth.
LOL. This is just a complete joke the way you divide up the passage like this for no good reason.
There is absolutely no reason to think that this (verse 7):
2 Peter 3:6 Whereby
the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
is a different event than this:
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? 13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
There's also no reason to think that "his promise" in verse 13 is a different promise than "the promise of His coming" in verse 4. So, you are clearly, blatantly twisting the passage to make it fit your doctrine.
But I don't think immediate destruction is what Peter is intending.
LOL. Of course you don't because taking scripture in context is not your style. Are you forgetting that Paul wrote about the same event?
1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that
the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
So, using scripture to interpret scripture, we can see that the destruction Peter described happens suddenly. And we already know it happens unexpectedly by the reference to it coming as a thief in the night. So, your claim that Peter isn't intending immediate destruction is a big joke. He most certainly is and it could not be more obvious. Especially when looking at the companion passage written by Paul.
I think Peter was emphasizing that the scoffers would be caught unaware by the sudden beginning of the day of the Lord.
What does this even mean? Please communicate clearly and straightforwardly. This was a rather vague statement.
Peter did reference Paul's epistles in verse 15- 16. So accordingly, we should consider what Paul said about the beginning of the day of the Lord as Paul enlightened the Thessalonians about in 2Thessalonians2:3-4. Those 2 things.
1. the falling away.
2. the revealing of the man of sin by his action of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to have achieved God-hood.
Paul did not say those things marked the beginning of the day of the Lord, he said those things had to happen FIRST before the day of the Lord. You are just blatantly twisting scripture after scripture. Have you no shame?
The day of the Lord is eternal and has segments to it, as shown on my anytime rapture view chart. (Amil cannot make such a chart for the Amil rapture timing view because the Amil view only addresses the day of Jesus's Second Coming. And none of the end times time frames in the bible. If a person wants to know what is going to happen according to a timeline they can't go by Amil.)
Doug, do you think lying is not a sin? Why do you lie so much? Do you have a conscience? To say that Amil has no timeline is a blatant lie. Is the thousand years not part of a timeline of events? Sure, it is. So, the thousand years to us is figurative for the New Testament era starting with the first coming of Christ up to the point when the mass falling away from the faith and increase in wickedness begins, which is what we consider to be Satan's little season (Revelation 20:7-9). So, we see the figurative thousand years as beginning with the first coming of Christ at the time of His resurrection when He began to reign (Matt 28:16-18, Eph 1:19-23, Col 1:12-13, Rev 1:5-6) and then we see Satan's little season as occurring when the figurative thousand years ends, followed by the return of Christ at which point the church will be caught up to Him and then He immediately proceeds to send fire down on all of His enemies (2 Peter 3:10-12, Revelation 20:9).
I personally see all of the time frames mentioned in Revelation as being symbolic, but I'm not going to go into specifics on that right now. I gave you a general Amil timeline above and that should suffice for now.
So, to say that we don't consider any of the end times time frames is an absolute lie. Just because we don't interpret them the way you do doesn't mean we don't consider them.
