2 Peter 3:10-12. Not when but how?

[DavidPT]

Because we can back up our beliefs with scripture. You are required to add to scripture while making unfounded assumptions in order to support Premil. And you have to resort to interpreting clearly literal text as non-literal (such as 2 Peter 3) in order to support Premil as well.

Back this belief up with Scripture then, IOW, prove what you assert---disembodied saints are reigning in heaven while being priests of God and Christ while in that state. And do that without adding to Scripture like you think only I do. That's one of my biggest pet peeves with Amils, is that it is always the other person doing some of these things, it is never any of us as well.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Let's get on the same page here. Though this thread is more about the how than the when, I do not dismiss that that is when the heaven and earth would pass away, that being at His appearing. That is obviously referring to what the title of this OP is referring to, 2 Peter 3:10-12. So in my mind it is not a question of when, it is a question of how. As in, should we take those things in a literal sense, or should we take those things in some other sense, meaning pertaining to 2 Peter 3:10-12?

Some of us have talked extensively already about why 2 Peter 3:10-12 should be understood in a literal sense. So far I have seen nothing about why it should be interpreted in a non-literal sense or how it can be interpreted in a non-literal sense. How do you currently interpret it?

You obviously are well aware that if it's meant to be interpreted literally then that means Premil can't be true. So, you are hoping that it somehow can be interpreted in a non-literal way. Well, in what way can it be interpreted in a non-literal way then? I'm not really seeing anything so far that could be considered a potentially valid non-literal interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Also, shouldn't Matthew 24:35-39 be taken into consideration when determining how to interpret 2 Peter 3:5-7 and 2 Peter 3:10-12? What are your thoughts on that? You wouldn't try to say that Matthew 24:35-39 should not be interpreted literally, right?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Back this belief up with Scripture then, IOW, prove what you assert---disembodied saints are reigning in heaven while being priests of God and Christ while in that state.

I have backed up my view of Revelation 20 with scripture many times before and you know it. Have you forgotten everything I've said about it? I interpret Revelation 20:4-6 based on how I interpret scripture as a whole. My interpretation of that passage does not contradict what I see taught in clearer passages elsewhere in scripture. So, I can show you yet again how I come to interpret Revelation 20 using other scripture to back it up, but I've already done that many times. I'm not going do it again in this thread because this thread is supposed to be about 2 Peter 3:10-12.

And do that without adding to Scripture like you think only I do. That's one of my biggest pet peeves with Amils, is that it is always the other person doing some of these things, it is never any of us as well.

You are the one who insists that Luke 19 says Jesus will return to the earth as if it explicitly says that, which it doesn't.

As for Revelation 20, I don't add anything to it to make it say what I want it to say in regards to where the reigning is taking place. John sees souls. And he says they lived and reigned with Christ. Where else would souls who reign with Christ be except in heaven? You think it says he sees them being bodily resurrected and then reigning with Christ on the earth, but I disagree. It certainly doesn't say that explicitly. How am I adding anything to the scripture with how I personally interpret it? I'm not.

But, the fact is that we all add things to Revelation 20 that aren't explicitly stated there. You and I both agree that all believers have part in the first resurrection regardless of how we understand that it happens. Yet, it doesn't really say that explicitly. It mentions martyrs. It mentions those who are given authority. I'm not sure if that's meant to be understood as two different groups or if it's talking about the same people there. Regardless, it doesn't explicitly say that all believers have part in the first resurrection, but we still believe that. Why? Because we know that Revelation 20 doesn't just spell everything out for us. We need the aid of other scripture to understand it.

What I don't do is try to claim that Revelation 20 explicitly mentions all believers having part in the first resurrection the way you act as if Luke 19 explicitly talks about Jesus returning to the earth. That's what I have a problem with as it concerns you. If you want to believe that Jesus will return to the earth as we know it, so be it. But, don't try to tell me that Luke 19 says so explicitly when it doesn't.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Let's get on the same page here. Though this thread is more about the how than the when, I do not dismiss that that is when the heaven and earth would pass away, that being at His appearing. That is obviously referring to what the title of this OP is referring to, 2 Peter 3:10-12. So in my mind it is not a question of when, it is a question of how. As in, should we take those things in a literal sense, or should we take those things in some other sense, meaning pertaining to 2 Peter 3:10-12?

Jesus is literally going to appear a second time quickly and suddenly- to sit on the throne of his glorious restoration. The old an unregenerate is eternally separated and gone forever when he takes his seat to make all things new.


jeffweedaman said: ↑
The throne of his glory is the final restoration and glorification of Mankind that he himself came to establish.

[ Quote DavidPT ]
Unless you expand on that further, I have no idea what that might mean from your perspective. I agree with the connections you are making, it's just that I don't know what all that might mean from your perspective. I'm guessing it wouldn't mean the same things as from my perspective.]

Jesus sits on his glorious throne over his glorified and restored creation once the old is totally judged and removed

 

[Timtofly]

It seems that you have pretty low standards. Amils believe that He will step foot on a completely perfect new earth where sin and death no longer occur. You have Him stepping foot on a barely inhabitable earth where sin and death will still exist. Think about that.

"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Zechariah 14:1-4

Is this the same barely inhabitable earth where sin and death will still exist? Of course it is. Jesus is stopping an attack against Jerusalem. It is a physical presence, not a remote controlled robot impersonating Jesus.

I accept the earth is in ruins at that point. Yet there is even more ruin to come, so all is not burned up at the Second Coming. Mostly just the effects of the industrial and modern age. The physical works of mankind. The works of earth is a broad sample of phenomenon to choose from. This is not a science fiction treaty attempting to explain technology today to first century readers. Peter, Paul, and John are not going to go into detail about all the works that will be destroyed. But the Second Coming will be a complete devastation to those alive at the time.

I am not sure why amil and pre-mill have any differences of bias to point out the effect of the destruction. You seem to be offended at the thought Christ offers the earth up as a burnt offering, even though that is the state of affairs amil are biased with. Then you complain because Paul (1 Corinthians 15) points out John's 1000 years as handing back a perfect kingdom to God. You call that pre-mill bias.

We both agree the earth is refined by fire. At what point does Jesus hand back the kingdom is the issue. At the point His feet touch down on the Mt of Olives? Does the earth get "cleaned up" in the second prior to the touch down, after being destroyed on the way down? Why then is the mountain still split and people still needing to seek safety?

"And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one. All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited."

Pre-mill still accept that Christ is going to reign on earth. There is still that time of Tribulation that happens, that Zechariah does not cover, and no one seems to agree on the timing or details. Why is Amil bias any more perfect than pre-mill with these verses?

 

[Timtofly]

You obviously are well aware that if it's meant to be interpreted literally then that means Premil can't be true. So, you are hoping that it somehow can be interpreted in a non-literal way. Well, in what way can it be interpreted in a non-literal way then? I'm not really seeing anything so far that could be considered a potentially valid non-literal interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12.

The heavens rolling back as a scroll is literal? That is a huge scroll. The heavens dissolving is the point the angels stop doing their jobs as stars and literally come to earth. At least at the point of the Second Coming all stars come to earth as angels. Will that look like a scroll being rolled back? I always picture a can of sardines being rolled back with those metal keys they used to put on the side of the tin they were in. Never really been to a place of worship where they read out of a huge scroll that rolled up. Later, in some movie theaters they used to open up a darker curtain to reveal the actual screen, seconds before the attraction. Now they just constantly show commercials. The point is when all those stars vanish or approach earth, the heavens are going to look very interesting.

Still not an end to the heavens, but a change of scenery for those stars. Now they will not have to squint to see life on the earth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Zechariah 14:1-4

Is this the same barely inhabitable earth where sin and death will still exist? Of course it is. Jesus is stopping an attack against Jerusalem. It is a physical presence, not a remote controlled robot impersonating Jesus.

I accept the earth is in ruins at that point. Yet there is even more ruin to come, so all is not burned up at the Second Coming.

How does your view line up with what Peter said here:

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.

Peter indicated that the entire heavens and earth will be burned up when Christ returns, not just some of it. That's why he said that we are, according to the promise of Christ's second coming, looking "for new heavens and a new earth". That means we should expect the new heavens and new earth to be ushered in at His return, but what you're saying contradicts that.

Mostly just the effects of the industrial and modern age. The physical works of mankind. The works of earth is a broad sample of phenomenon to choose from. This is not a science fiction treaty attempting to explain technology today to first century readers. Peter, Paul, and John are not going to go into detail about all the works that will be destroyed. But the Second Coming will be a complete devastation to those alive at the time.

If it's complete devastation, then why do you have some surviving it without immortal bodies? You're contradicting yourself.

I am not sure why amil and pre-mill have any differences of bias to point out the effect of the destruction. You seem to be offended at the thought Christ offers the earth up as a burnt offering, even though that is the state of affairs amil are biased with. Then you complain because Paul (1 Corinthians 15) points out John's 1000 years as handing back a perfect kingdom to God. You call that pre-mill bias.

What you said here makes no sense at all. I can't even begin to comprehend whatever it is you were trying to say here. What is the reason that you sometimes say things that are completely incomprehensible? I'm genuinely curious.

We both agree the earth is refined by fire. At what point does Jesus hand back the kingdom is the issue.

Why wouldn't it be immediately? He's already been reigning all this time and will continue reigning until He returns, so I see no reason why He wouldn't hand over the kingdom to the Father when He returns.

If you try to say that He hasn't been reigning yet, then would you also say that you haven't been delivered from darkness, haven't been redeemed by His blood, haven't had your sins forgiven and haven't been translated into His kingdom?

Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

At the point His feet touch down on the Mt of Olives? Does the earth get "cleaned up" in the second prior to the touch down, after being destroyed on the way down? Why then is the mountain still split and people still needing to seek safety?

"And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one. All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited."

Pre-mill still accept that Christ is going to reign on earth. There is still that time of Tribulation that happens, that Zechariah does not cover, and no one seems to agree on the timing or details. Why is Amil bias any more perfect than pre-mill with these verses?

You have no ability to support your interpretation of Zechariah 14 with what New Testament scripture teaches. That's the problem. Your interpretation of Zechariah 14 does not line up with many New Testament scriptures. You, like all Premils, do not recognize that the Old Testament prophecies should be interpreted using the more clear New Testament scripture.

You don't recognize that the New Testament shines light on the Old Testament prophecies. A great example of this is Galatians 3:16-29. Is it clear in the Old Testament that the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Christ (Gal 3:16) and those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile (Gal 3:26-29)? Not at all, right? And, yet, the New Testament makes that clear. Your interpretation of Old Testament prophecies must be confirmed by New Testament scripture. Can you do that when it comes to Zechariah 14? I don't believe so.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The heavens rolling back as a scroll is literal?

No, it isn't. When did I say it was? It doesn't say that in 2 Peter 3:10-12, it says that in Revelation 6:14, which is not literal.

The heavens dissolving is the point the angels stop doing their jobs as stars and literally come to earth.

Angels doing their jobs as stars? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say nonsense like this? You lose all credibility when you say things like that. I didn't bother even reading the rest of your post because I know it's just more nonsense.

 

[keras]

The heavens rolling back as a scroll is literal?

Have you, or anyone ever tried to find out how this could happen?
No; you just use it in your failed attempts to disprove or spiritualize the Prophesies.

There IS a way that our atmosphere could be pushed aside, look at the spaceweather.com site. They have diagrams of how the pressure wave from a big Coronal Mass Ejection can force the atmosphere on the side facing the sun, around to the back side.
This effect is only for a very short time and localized, as gravity quickly restores normalcy.
It doesn't seem to be a cause of deaths; by asphyxiations. Most people will die from the extreme heat, earthquakes, storms and tsunamis.

It will be the Sixth Seal, Rev 6:12-17, the first of the end times events, that will set the scene for all the rest to happen; as prophesied.
Note; that there will be another, smaller; CME at the Fourth Bowl. Revelation 16:8-9 Fire is the main effect of a CME.

 

[Zao is life]

What you bring up is only relevant to the saved and that those things are already true before Jesus confronts the beast and it's armies. What does any of that have to do with after Zechariah 14:12 is fulfilled, which then leads to what Zechariah 14:16-19 is describing, mortals remaining post the 2nd coming? I realize I bring Zechariah 14 up a lot, but it's not like that chapter is not in the Bible. Why would it not be relevant then? How can one testament be depicting survivors post the 2nd coming, then another testament totally contradicting that?

The point is that the whole of creation has been subjected to the bondage of corruption because of the death of Adam, and creation is waiting to be delivered from corruption at the time of the redemption of the bodies of the sons of God at the time of the return of Christ (which hasn't happened yet):

Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.
21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
23 And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruit of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body.

"Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless it dies" 1 Corinthians 15:36

2 Peter 3
7 But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

9 The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance.
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.
11 Then, all these things being about to be dissolved, what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness,
12 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?

13 But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

The biblical type is the flood. Universal destruction. The Ark is a type of Christ. Whoever was not in the ark, perished:

John 3
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.
18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

Hebrews 11:7
"By faith Noah, having been warned by God of things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."

Zechariah 14 is an Apocalyptic vision of the NHNE. I never realized that until @sovereigngrace showed me that in one of his posts long ago with his comparison between the promises contained in Zechariah 14 and the description of the NHNE. I was still full-on Premil then, so at the time I realized I needed to think more about Zechariah 14, and so I placed my understanding of Zechariah 14 "on hold".

I was only Premil while I was convinced that there would be a literal one-thousand years in-between the return of Christ and the NHNE. I believed the burning up Peter spoke about would only take place at the close of the millennium. But that was all before I saw of my own that the multitude who came out of the great tribulation are seen in the NHNE straight afterward, and for a number of other reasons besides, I realized that the notion that there would be a thousand years in-between the return of Christ and the NHNE was just not true.

The fact of the matter is Jesus is our ark, and the flood is the biblical type of what will take place when he returns, and whoever is not in the ark will perish.

As far as infants and children under the age of accountability (or whatever you want to call it) is concerned, we don't know if God maybe will include them in these:

1 Thessalonians 4
15 For we say this to you by the Word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not go before those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall ever be with the Lord.

What I've written above does not mean I now fully understand all things, because I still believe that the 42 months of the Revelation is a literal 42 months, to come at the close of the Age, when the beast ascends from the abyss, and I still believe that the thousand years cannot commence before that time according to the wording of Revelation 20:4-6.

Nor do I believe Satan goes into the LOF before a thousand years have passed since the casting of the beast and FP into the LOF. Nor do I believe that Satan has been bound since Calvary. I believe he was utterly defeated at Calvary, but not bound in the sense that Revelation 20 speaks of his binding, and there are too many New Testament verses warning the church of his activity in the world.

But I also believe that regardless of Revelation 2:26-27 and any other verses like it, we cannot assume that the "reigning" of those who are reigning with Christ in Revelation 20:4-6, means "reigning over others", any more than it means they are "reigning over others" in Revelation 22:5, because Revelation 20:4-6 does not say "they shall reign over the nations with Christ for a thousand years". It says only, "they shall reign with Christ a thousand years". We are to reign over sin. That's one of the things Christ died and rose again to accomplish for us.

I believe we must never divorce what we read from the fact that the blood of Christ became necessary for us to receive grace and have a relationship with God and have eternal life from the moment Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our reigning over others is way down the list in God's list of priorities.

I now believe Zechariah 14 is an apocalyptic vision of the NHNE, and I've believed the same about Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 for many years, even while I was Premil.

As for the nations seen in Zechariah 14 and in Revelation 21 bringing their glory and honor into New Jerusalem, I don't have an answer for all things, but I do believe that 2 Peter 2:5-13 is confirming what Paul said here:

Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.
21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
23 And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruit of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body.

"Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless it dies" 1 Corinthians 15:36.

I'm not like my brother DavidPT. I don't have to have answers for everything, lol. Long ago I used to have to have answers for everything. But now I have total peace with knowing I don't fully understand everything. I ask God to give me the understanding and when He does, I praise Him and thank Him for it, but if He doesn't, I praise Him and thank Him for it, because I know that He will only give to any human what we are able to receive, and maybe He is trying to tell us, but we're blocking the understand through our own misinterpretations and false assumptions, or simply because of a lack of knowledge.

 

[Timtofly]

How does your view line up with what Peter said here:

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.

Peter indicated that the entire heavens and earth will be burned up when Christ returns, not just some of it. That's why he said that we are, according to the promise of Christ's second coming, looking "for new heavens and a new earth". That means we should expect the new heavens and new earth to be ushered in at His return, but what you're saying contradicts that.

If it's complete devastation, then why do you have some surviving it without immortal bodies? You're contradicting yourself.

The universe as science teaches us will cease to exist. Tell me who survives.

What you said here makes no sense at all. I can't even begin to comprehend whatever it is you were trying to say here. What is the reason that you sometimes say things that are completely incomprehensible? I'm genuinely curious.

Why wouldn't it be immediately? He's already been reigning all this time and will continue reigning until He returns, so I see no reason why He wouldn't hand over the kingdom to the Father when He returns.

I asked is the restoration before or after Christ comes to earth.

If you try to say that He hasn't been reigning yet, then would you also say that you haven't been delivered from darkness, haven't been redeemed by His blood, haven't had your sins forgiven and haven't been translated into His kingdom?

Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

Do you consider letting sin have free reign a model kingdom?

You have no ability to support your interpretation of Zechariah 14 with what New Testament scripture teaches. That's the problem. Your interpretation of Zechariah 14 does not line up with many New Testament scriptures. You, like all Premils, do not recognize that the Old Testament prophecies should be interpreted using the more clear New Testament scripture.

You don't recognize that the New Testament shines light on the Old Testament prophecies. A great example of this is Galatians 3:16-29. Is it clear in the Old Testament that the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Christ (Gal 3:16) and those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile (Gal 3:26-29)? Not at all, right? And, yet, the New Testament makes that clear. Your interpretation of Old Testament prophecies must be confirmed by New Testament scripture. Can you do that when it comes to Zechariah 14? I don't believe so.

You have rules that end up making nonsense. Jesus Himself left the Mt of Olives and claimed to return. Zechariah prophesied that return. Do you need symbolism to figure that out?

 

[Timtofly]

No, it isn't. When did I say it was? It doesn't say that in 2 Peter 3:10-12, it says that in Revelation 6:14, which is not literal.

Angels doing their jobs as stars? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say nonsense like this? You lose all credibility when you say things like that. I didn't bother even reading the rest of your post because I know it's just more nonsense.

That is because you are stuck in symbolism and that makes you comfortable. There is more to God's Word than symbolism.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Fire destroys everything in it's path. Water apparently doesn't because if it did, does that mean all plant life and all trees were destroyed in Noah's flood, thus the earth was void of any trees once the flood waters receded, and that they then used seeds they took aboard the ark and sowed them worldwide and waited years for them to grow into adult sized trees, though I'm assuming, that in the beginning God planted adult sized trees throughout the entire planet rather than putting man on a planet with no trees yet and that man has to wait for the trees to grow into adult sized trees because God planted seeds rather than trees already grown? Which leads to my point. If this planet goes up in literal flames, there goes all of the trees, all of the plant life.

I do tend to think outside the box a lot. Maybe that's my problem? Maybe I shouldn't be doing things like that.

Jesus is coming to set up a new eternal creation at the second coming. Why would that not include plant-life?

Society is thinking outside the box a lot today, and look what it is producing.

 

[DavidPT]

Zechariah 14 is an Apocalyptic vision of the NHNE. I never realized that until @sovereigngrace showed me that in one of his posts long ago with his comparison between the promises contained in Zechariah 14 and the description of the NHNE. I was still full-on Premil then, so at the time I realized I needed to think more about Zechariah 14, and so I placed my understanding of Zechariah 14 "on hold".

I was only Premil while I was convinced that there would be a literal one-thousand years in-between the return of Christ and the NHNE. I believed the burning up Peter spoke about would only take place at the close of the millennium. But that was all before I saw of my own that the multitude who came out of the great tribulation are seen in the NHNE straight afterward, and for a number of other reasons besides, I realized that the notion that there would be a thousand years in-between the return of Christ and the NHNE was just not true.

That part is clearly involving the NHNE, and that has been my position for quite some time now. What doesn't make sense is why anyone would be punished or under the threat of punishment if it is only involving what you are referring to in Revelation 21? How can anyone immortally saved then be under the threat of punishment post the 2nd coming? These can't be meaning saved immortals in Zechariah 14:16-19, which means they have to be mortals then. No mortal can live forever, yet mortals could live an entire thousand years and then some, post the 2nd coming, if man almost did that in the beginning of time.

Revelation 20:1-6 is recorded in the NT for a reason. The thousand years meant and the little season that follows, has to be explaining something recorded in the OT. If not Zechariah 14:16-19, nor Isaiah 24:21-22, nor Isaiah 60:12 nor Daniel 7:12, to name a few, what then? Should we assume there is zero recorded in the OT concerning this period of time?

The fact of the matter is Jesus is our ark, and the flood is the biblical type of what will take place when he returns, and whoever is not in the ark will perish.

One problem with this view, how does this solve the problem concerning the animal kingdom?

I'm not like my brother DavidPT. I don't have to have answers for everything, lol. Long ago I used to have to have answers for everything. But now I have total peace with knowing I don't fully understand everything. I ask God to give me the understanding and when He does, I praise Him and thank Him for it, but if He doesn't, I praise Him and thank Him for it, because I know that He will only give to any human what we are able to receive, and maybe He is trying to tell us, but we're blocking the understand through our own misinterpretations and false assumptions, or simply because of a lack of knowledge.

LOL in return. I don't even remotely think I have all the answers. I just can't see some of what is being proposed as the answers by others as actually being the answers. In my mind, whatever view one takes of things, whether Premil or Amil, everything has to work with that view not just some of it. As to Premil it appears that maybe not everything works with that view.

If we then consider Amil as an alternative it also appears that maybe not everything works with that view either. What would be the point of switching from one view to another if both views have their share of problems to begin with? Personally, I wish there was no such thing as these views, Premil and Amil, and that one could just simply stick to what the texts are stating without it having to imply either Premil or Amil.

There was a time, meaning before the internet, where I was unaware of any view, such as Premil or Amil. I simply assumed everyone read Revelation 19-20 the same way I did. I had no idea at the time that that made me Premil and there were other readings of the same texts that made one Amil or Postmil.

 

[DavidPT]

Jesus is coming to set up a new eternal creation at the second coming. Why would that not include plant-life?

Society is thinking outside the box a lot today, and look what nit is producing.

The way I look at things, if God can create plant life all over again, and that He can create animals all over again, why didn't He do any of those things post Noah's flood? The point being, He was able to destroy the world of the ungodly without having to destroy the entire planet in order to do so. Animals still existed after that. Plant life still existed after that. But if this entire planet were to go up in literal flames, there goes all plant life, there goes the animal kingdom. While plant life might survive a flood it certainly isn't going to survive literal fire.

And something else that crosses my mind. During Noah's flood God did not need to remove one single person from the planet in order to destroy the world of the ungodly. Apparently, assuming how some of you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12, this time around He has to literally remove saved ppl from the planet first before He can destroy the world of the ungodly.

 

[DavidPT]

You have rules that end up making nonsense. Jesus Himself left the Mt of Olives and claimed to return. Zechariah prophesied that return. Do you need symbolism to figure that out?

I agree concerning this.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The way I look at things, if God can create plant life all over again, and that He can create animals all over again, why didn't He do any of those things post Noah's flood? The point being, He was able to destroy the world of the ungodly without having to destroy the entire planet in order to do so. Animals still existed after that. Plant life still existed after that. But if this entire planet were to go up in literal flames, there goes all plant life, there goes the animal kingdom. While plant life might survive a flood it certainly isn't going to survive literal fire.

And something else that crosses my mind. During Noah's flood God did not need to remove one single person from the planet in order to destroy the world of the ungodly. Apparently, assuming how some of you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12, this time around He has to literally remove saved ppl from the planet first before He can destroy the world of the ungodly.

As Fullness of the Gentiles stated, and as most informed Bible students see it, the ark Noah built was a type of Jesus. Those who were in the ark survived the judgment of God. Those who were not in the ark perished. It is the same when Jesus comes. Your reasoning above therefore is faulty.

2 Peter 3:5-7 tells us: “by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 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.”

Notably, Peter contrasts the happenings of Christ’s coming and the fate of the Christ-rejecter at His return in this chapter to that of the last global judgment that came in a similar unexpected manner on the wicked throughout this earth in Noah’s day. This solemn day was noted for the fact the judgment immediately destroyed the sum total of the wicked. Peter uses the flood as an example of how swiftly and fully the wicked will be destroyed. He also describes the means by which the Lord will destroy the world this time – at His Coming – by fire.

Whilst Noah’s day was a destructive day for all the wicked, it did not see the obliteration of the earth’s surface – as will happen when Jesus returns. What is more, the rescued saints were not glorified in this ancient judgment – they were merely taken into the ark for protecting until the wrath of God passed over. After the deluge subsided the earth was repopulated by mortal creatures. So whilst there are likenesses between these two days they are not identical. It is a certainly a powerful picture or type of the catching away of the saints and the obliteration of the ungodly but it is not the same.

Obviously there has never before been the end of the world and the termination of time. Also, the righteous have never been perfected to live with Christ for all eternity. The wicked have never received their final judgment and been banished into hell. This doesn’t happen till Christ comes as a “thief in the night” to finally execute righteous judgment on all.

There has never been a global destruction by fire before, but joining Noah and Lot's day we get a preview/picture of the awful judgment that will fall at the end. Noah's day was a global judgment by water, Sodom's was a localized destruction by fire. But in both all the righteous were rescued and all the wicked were destroyed. The 2 joined together reveal the global destruction by fire that occurs at the second coming, and we grasp how there won’t be any survivors.

There has never yet been an end to the first earth! This world has never been regenerated since the fall. Even after the flood it still remained corrupt. This earth is still the same earth from the beginning. It is only at the second coming where corruption, sin, death, the wicked, wickedness and Satan are removed. This occurs at the conflagration. You nullify the whole meaning of the original text and spiritualize it away to allow Premil.

I thought you might have known that there has never before been a glorification which perfects all the elect (that is an elementary Christian fundamental). That is why the world was repopulated in Noah's day. You know in Noah's day all the elect were immediately and totally rescued and all the wicked were immediately and totally destroyed. So it will be when Jesus appears. Noah and his family are a picture of the catching away of the saints. Those left behind will face the same fate as those left behind in Noah's day - total annihilation.

 

[parousia70]

That's not people, but okay.

So, when God said the flood destroyed “every living thing” we’re not to take that literally? The flood did not destroy the fish? Or it did?

We do know that no new living things were created after the flood, as all living things that ever were, and are now, were created by the 6th day, and since Noah was not commanded to bring any fish on the Ark, they must have survived in the floodwaters, rendering God’s declaration that He destroyed “every living thing” in the flood, NOT a literal statement.

 

[Zao is life]

That part is clearly involving the NHNE, and that has been my position for quite some time now. What doesn't make sense is why anyone would be punished or under the threat of punishment if it is only involving what you are referring to in Revelation 21? How can anyone immortally saved then be under the threat of punishment post the 2nd coming? These can't be meaning saved immortals in Zechariah 14:16-19, which means they have to be mortals then. No mortal can live forever, yet mortals could live an entire thousand years and then some, post the 2nd coming, if man almost did that in the beginning of time.

Revelation 20:1-6 is recorded in the NT for a reason. The thousand years meant and the little season that follows, has to be explaining something recorded in the OT. If not Zechariah 14:16-19, nor Isaiah 24:21-22, nor Isaiah 60:12 nor Daniel 7:12, to name a few, what then? Should we assume there is zero recorded in the OT concerning this period of time?



One problem with this view, how does this solve the problem concerning the animal kingdom?




LOL in return. I don't even remotely think I have all the answers. I just can't see some of what is being proposed as the answers by others as actually being the answers. In my mind, whatever view one takes of things, whether Premil or Amil, everything has to work with that view not just some of it. As to Premil it appears that maybe not everything works with that view.

If we then consider Amil as an alternative it also appears that maybe not everything works with that view either. What would be the point of switching from one view to another if both views have their share of problems to begin with? Personally, I wish there was no such thing as these views, Premil and Amil, and that one could just simply stick to what the texts are stating without it having to imply either Premil or Amil.

There was a time, meaning before the internet, where I was unaware of any view, such as Premil or Amil. I simply assumed everyone read Revelation 19-20 the same way I did. I had no idea at the time that that made me Premil and there were other readings of the same texts that made one Amil or Postmil.

True.

 

[Zao is life]

That part is clearly involving the NHNE, and that has been my position for quite some time now. What doesn't make sense is why anyone would be punished or under the threat of punishment if it is only involving what you are referring to in Revelation 21? How can anyone immortally saved then be under the threat of punishment post the 2nd coming? These can't be meaning saved immortals in Zechariah 14:16-19, which means they have to be mortals then. No mortal can live forever, yet mortals could live an entire thousand years and then some, post the 2nd coming, if man almost did that in the beginning of time.

Revelation 20:1-6 is recorded in the NT for a reason. The thousand years meant and the little season that follows, has to be explaining something recorded in the OT. If not Zechariah 14:16-19, nor Isaiah 24:21-22, nor Isaiah 60:12 nor Daniel 7:12, to name a few, what then? Should we assume there is zero recorded in the OT concerning this period of time?



One problem with this view, how does this solve the problem concerning the animal kingdom?




LOL in return. I don't even remotely think I have all the answers. I just can't see some of what is being proposed as the answers by others as actually being the answers. In my mind, whatever view one takes of things, whether Premil or Amil, everything has to work with that view not just some of it. As to Premil it appears that maybe not everything works with that view.

If we then consider Amil as an alternative it also appears that maybe not everything works with that view either. What would be the point of switching from one view to another if both views have their share of problems to begin with? Personally, I wish there was no such thing as these views, Premil and Amil, and that one could just simply stick to what the texts are stating without it having to imply either Premil or Amil.

There was a time, meaning before the internet, where I was unaware of any view, such as Premil or Amil. I simply assumed everyone read Revelation 19-20 the same way I did. I had no idea at the time that that made me Premil and there were other readings of the same texts that made one Amil or Postmil.

Hope you never misunderstood me. I can see you don't think you have all the answers. What I mean is you seem to be trying much harder than me to find the answers. I used to be like, I wouldn't let it rest until I could find the answers, but now I just accept that I don't have the answer.