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

[sovereigngrace]

Let's say that I was someone who didn't have a clue that there is such a thing as Premil or Amil. I would still be concluding from my readings of the texts, that the thousand years are after the 2nd coming and that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming. As to a position such as Amil, no one could possibly become Amil solely on their own, which means they are first influenced by outside sources, IOW, they become aware of this position first then eventually see this position being taught in Scripture..

That is simply not true, and you know it. It means nothing. The opposite is the truth. This is just theological politicking. That is normally your default when you have nothing to support your teaching. Anyone fair, open, informed and objective will see the recaps in Revelation. They are undoubted! Revelation 20 is the last of 7. This is the only understanding that fits in with the rest of Scripture.

I was one who believed and preached Premil until I actually started to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. I was actually writing a book in support of it and changed my position after 6 months because of the lack of corroboration.

The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalm 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corruption occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

 

[DavidPT]

That is simply not true, and you know it. It means nothing. The opposite is the truth. This is just theological politicking. That is normally your default when you have nothing to support your teaching. Anyone fair, open, informed and objective will see the recaps in Revelation. They are undoubted! Revelation 20 is the last of 7. This is the only understanding that fits in with the rest of Scripture.

I was one who believed and preached Premil until I actually started to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. I was actually writing a book in support of it and changed my position after 6 months because of the lack of corroboration.

The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalm 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corruption occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

Suppose that I never got on the internet in my entire life. Suppose that I never had an interest in computers whatsoever. Since we are meaning me here, before I got on the internet I had no clue that the way I read Revelation 19-20, that this made me Premil. Nor did I have a clue that there was a position called Amil.

Let's suppose Amil is the correct position, regardless. Now explain how I could become Amil if the Scriptures are not even teaching this to me begin with, otherwise why did I end up concluding the thousand years are after the 2nd coming? Per this scenario, didn't I do that on my own? Why then, assuming Amil is the correct position instead, could I not on my own conclude that the thousand years are prior to the 2nd coming? If Amil is the correct position, and unless one is already aware of that position, this means the Scriptures themselves would be teaching them the incorrect view because they would never be able to see the Scriptures teaching them something they are not even aware of to begin with.

I see that as a red flag myself, that one has to first be aware that Revelation 19-20 can be read in another manner other than chronologically, and that maybe not everyone might be aware of that, and that no one could possibly be aware of that via their own reading of the text, thus they have to first be influenced by outside sources. If Amil is the correct position, why can't one simply read the Bible on their own, without any outside influence whatsoever, then see that Scripture is indeed teaching Amil? You were Premil before you were Amil. Why weren't you Amil first if you now see Scriptures teaching Amil? Why didn't you initially see Scripture teaching Amil?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Suppose that I never got on the internet in my entire life. Suppose that I never had an interest in computers whatsoever. Since we are meaning me here, before I got on the internet I had no clue that the way I read Revelation 19-20, that this made me Premil. Nor did I have a clue that there was a position called Amil.

Let's suppose Amil is the correct position, regardless. Now explain how I could become Amil if the Scriptures are not even teaching this to me begin with, otherwise why did I end up concluding the thousand years are after the 2nd coming? Per this scenario, didn't I do that on my own? Why then, assuming Amil is the correct position instead, could I not on my own conclude that the thousand years are prior to the 2nd coming? If Amil is the correct position, and unless one is already aware of that position, this means the Scriptures themselves would be teaching them the incorrect view because they would never be able to see the Scriptures teaching them something they are not even aware of to begin with.

I see that as a red flag myself, that one has to first be aware that Revelation 19-20 can be read in another manner other than chronologically, and that maybe not everyone might be aware of that, and that no one could possibly be aware of that via their own reading of the text, thus they have to first be influenced by outside sources. If Amil is the correct position, why can't one simply read the Bible on their own, without any outside influence whatsoever, then see that Scripture is indeed teaching Amil? You were Premil before you were Amil. Why weren't you Amil first if you now see Scriptures teaching Amil? Why didn't you initially see Scripture teaching Amil?

This is all fizz and bubble. Your mind will never be the litmus test. You fight so much clear and simple truth.

I was taught Premil. Once I saw the constant climactic nature of Christ's return throughout the Word, the 2 age-contruct, the clear recaps of Revelation, Premil quickly fell apart. Premil is the imposition of one's own opinions on one highly symbolic passage the most obscure setting in Scripture.

Your constant avoidance of argument after argument, text after text and question after question reinforces this.

 

[keras]

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

Not so. The Return cannot be the final end of Gods Plan for mankind.
Proved by the many scriptures that say Jesus will rule the world as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He does not destroy that which He rules over.
Nothing in Revelation, or elsewhere, says that. He only destroys the armies of Satan and neutralizes him until the Millennium is over.

The other fact that destroys AMill, is Gods 7000 year Plan for mankind and planet earth.
There has been 5991, +/- 1 or 2; years since Adam, so not long now and the last 1000 years will commence. THEN the new heavens and earth comes, with Eternity.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Not so. The Return cannot be the final end of Gods Plan for mankind.
Proved by the many scriptures that say Jesus will rule the world as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He does not destroy that which He rules over.
Nothing in Revelation, or elsewhere, says that. He only destroys the armies of Satan and neutralizes him until the Millennium is over.

The other fact that destroys AMill, is Gods 7000 year Plan for mankind and planet earth.
There has been 5991, +/- 1 or 2; years since Adam, so not long now and the last 1000 years will commence. THEN the new heavens and earth comes, with Eternity.

No such thing as "Gods 7000 year Plan." It is Keras's 7000 year Plan. It is extra-biblical and anti-biblical.

 

[keras]

No such thing as "Gods 7000 year Plan." It is Keras's 7000 year Plan. It is extra-biblical and anti-biblical.

The time periods as given in the Bible and the elapsed time to the Crucifixion are proof of 4000 years from Adam to then.
Then; nearly another 2000 years to where we are now.
After Jesus Returns, He will reign for the next thousand years, as clearly stated in Revelation 20.
Total of 7000 years; Creation to Completion for mankind.

Biblical truth+ 100% , SG's opinion = 0%

 

[sovereigngrace]

The time periods as given in the Bible and the elapsed time to the Crucifixion are proof of 4000 years from Adam to then.
Then; nearly another 2000 years to where we are now.
After Jesus Returns, He will reign for the next thousand years, as clearly stated in Revelation 20.
Total of 7000 years; Creation to Completion for mankind.

Biblical truth+ 100% , SG's opinion = 0%

Zero biblical truth, just your futile date-setting and ill-advised personal speculations. The burden of truth is with you, because you're making these outlandish claims, but alas you have nothing to bring to the table.

 

[Timtofly]

No such thing as "Gods 7000 year Plan." It is Keras's 7000 year Plan. It is extra-biblical and anti-biblical.

No such thing as recap in Revelation either. There is more about 6 days and a Sabbath, than a recap, which is not described once in Scripture. Recap is extra-biblical and even anti-biblical. It denies the Sabbath Day of the Lord.

 

[keras]

Zero biblical truth, just your futile date-setting and ill-advised personal speculations. The burden of truth is with you, because you're making these outlandish claims, but alas you have nothing to bring to the table.

I presented scriptural truths, time periods as given in the Bible. Then a simply year count to show the exact fulfilment of 4000 years Adam to Jesus, we are now 1991 years past Jesus' Ascension.
These facts prove the 7000 year Plan of God for mankind.

Your denials and rejection of provable facts is an indictment against you.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I presented scriptural truths, time periods as given in the Bible. Then a simply year count to show the exact fulfilment of 4000 years Adam to Jesus, we are now 1991 years past Jesus' Ascension.
These facts prove the 7000 year Plan of God for mankind.

Your denials and rejection of provable facts is an indictment against you.

Not so.. All opinions and theories. No evidence. No facts.

 

[DavidPT]

Not so.. All opinions and theories. No evidence. No facts.

Unless something allegedly supports Amil, let's face it, it is utterly impossible for you to see anything as being evidence by others no matter what. I guess that makes you objective and unbiased---not.

 

[Lutja ka fuqi]

I believe that is so clear that even mentioning that other belief that people have is a waste of time. It's ludicrous to think that it's talking about anything but the flood becaues it clearly talks about the waters destroying the world. Genesis 1:1-2 obviously has nothing to do with destroying the world, but Noah's flood obviously did.

How long the flood took to drown everyone is completely irrelevant. There is no indication in the text itself that Peter was making any kind of point about how long it took for the flood waters to destroy the ungodly. It seems that the only reason you are bringing that up is because of doctrinal bias rather than because of anything Peter said to indicate that the amount of time the flood took to destroy the ungodly had anything to do with the point he was making. Instead, he was just making the point that the last days scoffers, who scoff at the idea of Christ's second coming, were willfully ignorant of the fact that the flood had taken place in the past and destroyed all the ungodly people on earth who were unbelievers like them.

Yes, it does, because after mentioning the destruction caused by the global flood waters he then said "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, BY THE SAME WORD are kept in store, reserved unto fire". Him saying "by the same word" indicates that he was making a direct comparison between a future event and that past event which means both events were of the same scope (global) and type (literal and physical).

How would it make any sense for him to compare a non-literal, non-physical event to a literal, physical event? It wouldn't. He was clearly comparing two similar events.

Yes, it is. And, while there may not be other scripture which specifically describes the destruction as being by fire, there is plenty of other scripture which indicates that the heavens and earth and all unbelievers will be destroyed at His return including the following passage where, like Peter, Jesus compared the destruction that will occur at His second coming to the destruction that occurred because of the flood in Noah's day. And He even indicated that heaven and earth will pass away at that time as well.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

First, Jesus pointed out that heaven and earth will pass away, then He pointed out that the flood came and destroyed all unbelievers the day that Noah entered the ark, and then He pointed out that it would be just like that at the coming of the Son of man, which means that all unbelievers will be killed at His second coming just as they were in the flood.

Why would you not want to take what Jesus taught into consideration when interpreting 2 Peter 3? Was Jesus comparing something non-literal to the flood or was He comparing literal, physical destruction to the flood? He clearly was comparing literal, physical destruction that will occur at His second coming to what happened with the flood. So, what basis is there for thinking that Peter wasn't doing the same thing?

Why not?

I suppose it doesn't have to be, but tell me how else the new earth will come about and how all the wicked things on the earth will be removed if not by way of the earth being burned up and renewed?

Of course not.

Maybe they won't be, but that's up to God. We know infants and children were killed in the flood, though, so we can only speculate on this. I find this to be irrelevant in terms of determining if it's talking about the entire earth being burned up or not, though. If God wants to spare animals and/or infants and children, He certainly can do that, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not He is going to burn up the entire earth. Peter said He is. Why not accept it while at the same time realizing that He can easily spare some animals and the infants and children if He wants to.

That's not people, but okay.

Because it's all about context. The context of 2 Peter 3 is very clearly literal while the context of Revelation 6 is clearly not. The book of Revelation is a highly symbolic book (Isaiah has more of an equal mix of literal and symbolic text) while 2 Peter is not. You can't just ignore that.

What are you thinking you're proving here? You need to look at the context of 2 Peter 3 itself. Just because another passage might talk about the heavens and earth in a figurative way does not at all mean that 2 Peter 3 has to be talking about them in the same way. The context of 2 Peter 3 is clearly about literal things, so why try to change that?

....
It has been a great post which helped us a lot. Additionally, We would like also to invite you at our website "Lutja ka Fuqi" for more christian books, devotionals and more encourages. Thank you very much. We really appreciate it!

 

[sovereigngrace]

Unless something allegedly supports Amil, let's face it, it is utterly impossible for you to see anything as being evidence by others no matter what. I guess that makes you objective and unbiased---not.

I understand you are getting increasingly frustrated with rebuting Amil but that is because your fight is with Scripture. You have bought into error and you are now struggling to justify it. All this when the Amil arguments are becoming increasingly air-tight.

You should embrace the truth rather than fight it.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Unless something allegedly supports Amil, let's face it, it is utterly impossible for you to see anything as being evidence by others no matter what. I guess that makes you objective and unbiased---not.

The whole Word is Amil. I embrace it all! I reject your non-corroborative theory re Revelation 20. It is exposed by multiple Scripture. Stop fighting the truth. You are advancing a doctrine, not inspired truth.

 

[keras]

Not so.. All opinions and theories. No evidence. No facts.

This kind of knee jerk reaction shows your complete lack of understanding of God's Plans for mankind. As set out in our Bibles.

Regarding the issue of a Millennium reign of Jesus, what AMills fail to see is how the Messiah is portrayed as a conquering King in the Torah, [all the OT] which is why the Jews rejected Jesus at His first Advent, when He came as a suffering servant.
But; the Son of Man will come into His Kingdom. Matthew 16:28b , Zechariah 14:16-21, +

 

[sovereigngrace]

This kind of knee jerk reaction shows your complete lack of understanding of God's Plans for mankind. As set out in our Bibles.

Regarding the issue of a Millennium reign of Jesus, what AMills fail to see is how the Messiah is portrayed as a conquering King in the Torah, [all the OT] which is why the Jews rejected Jesus at His first Advent, when He came as a suffering servant.
But; the Son of Man will come into His Kingdom. Matthew 16:28b , Zechariah 14:16-21, +

Hebrews 2:14-15 teaches: “through death he would destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

I John 3:8 declares, “For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”

When you start to grasp what the inspired pages testify of the devil, this big fearful intimidating devil starts to look a lot smaller and less intimidating. He’s like a dog on a chain today.

Please know: we are not fighting for victory today we are fighting from victory.

Jesus testified in Revelation 3:21: “I … overcame.”

Revelation 5:5 tells us: “behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed.”

The lion is known as the king of the jungle. It carries great authority and power. That is a very potent symbol of who Jesus is.

The enemy is already defeated. Satan is a defeated foe. Jesus spiritual bound his power and influence.

Repeated Scripture portrays a victorious Christ since His all-conquering resurrection.

Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

• Satan is powerless to do what he wants to do.
• He is powerless to stop the Church of Jesus Christ spreading the good news of Gospel throughout the nations.
• He is powerless to stop someone coming to Christ.
• He is powerless to stop a man or woman of God walking in the will of God.
• He is powerless to harm a believer without God’s permission.
• He is powerless to resist a Spirit-filled believer implementing delegated authority from on high against the devil and his demons.
• He is powerless to affect the final outcome of this great battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness.

You need to see the enemy for who he is. We need to see demons for who they are. They are just like grasshoppers trying to stop God doing His will. It would be easier to stop Niagara Falls with a lollipop stick than to stop God doing what he wants to do. Our Lord sits in the heavenlies laughing at the schemes of the wicked.

 

[Hazelelponi]

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?

It's not a question of when since it will happen, though that too is apparently debatable as to when, what I want to focus on in this thread is how this is fulfilled. Such as. Should we take all or some of this in a literal sense? Or should we take none of it in a literal sense?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
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.

Some interpreters take verse 5 and 6 to be referring to Genesis 1:1-2, thus allegedly supporting their gap theory. But is that what Peter took it to mean? To determine that one must look at some of what Peter said in his earlier writings. Such as the following.

2 Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;


No interpreter is going to get confused here and think verse 5 is pertaining to Genesis 1:1-2 and an alleged gap. It is crystal clear that Noah's flood is meant here. This verse helps us to correctly interpret 2 Peter 3:5-6, where most of us already correctly interpret 2 Peter 3:5-6 to begin with, yet some don't. I know that for a fact because I have encountered interpreters in the past, even on this board, taking 2 Peter 3:5-6 to be involving Genesis 1:1-2 rather than Noah's flood.

In light of 2 Peter 2:5, 2 Peter 3:5-6 should be understood like such.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that 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(the old world, the world of the ungodly), being overflowed with water, perished

In 2 Peter 3:5-6, world and earth are not the same Greek word. World is this Greek word--kosmos

kosmos
kos'-mos
probably from the base of komizw - komizo 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.


Earth is the Greek word ge and is meaning the land. It is not the land that perished, it is the world of the ungodly that perished. And how did they perish? By literally being drowned to death via literal water by way of rain. None of this involved 24 hours or less, though. This involved days. We need to keep this in mind since this could mean 2 Peter 3:10-12 also involves more than a single 24 hour day or less.

Now we come to verse 7 in 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3:7 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.

We know that during Noah's flood that it involved literal water accomplishing the task. Does that automatically mean, since fire is mentioned in verse 7, the fire will be just as literal as the water was? Except this time no one will be drowning to death, they will be burning to death, thus cremated, thus leaving nothing but ashes remaining.

Assuming that scenario, are there any other passages in the OT or the NT that support that, that at the 2nd coming everyone but the saved will be cremated, therefore leaving nothing but ashes remaining? I can maybe see Revelation 20:9 supporting one being turned to ashes, but is Revelation 20:9 even involving what 2 Peter 3:10-12 is involving?

Let's assume it might be. I don't see how any of that would have to involve the entire planet going up in flames, though. That passage doesn't have animals, for example, coming against the camp of the saints. Why does the entire planet need to be ablaze which would mean animals are being punished as well? And what about infants and children up to a certain age? Would they be coming against the camp of the saints as well? Probably not, right? So why would they deserve to be burned to death with the rest, this assuming the entire planet is literally ablaze?

Keeping in mind, per Noah's flood God spared no one but those aboard the ark. Actually though, He obviously spared some not on the ark as well unless one wants to think there were sharks, whales, every kind of fish, so on and so on, also aboard the ark. Can you even drown creatures when water is their natural habitat to begin with?

Here are some quick observations on my part which might connect some of 2 Peter 3, some of Revelation 6, and some of Isaiah 34 with each other, or maybe not. I'm guessing that no one would take any of these things recorded in Revelation 6 and Isaiah 34 in a literal sense, so why take any of what is recorded in 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense if there is a connection between all these accounts?

wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved(2 Peter 3:12)----And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved(Isaiah 34:4)----and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll(Isaiah 34:4)----And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together(Revelation 6:14)----and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree(Isaiah 34:4)---And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind((Revelation 6:13).

Fire, as theophany of existence demonstrates God's presence: Exodus 3:2-6: Exodus 19:18

Fire, as theophany of existence and judgement: 2 Thessalonians 1:7 in second coming context - not including the references in Revelations in similar judgement context.

A symbol of God's wrath and anger: Psalms 89:46, Isaiah 66:15, Lamentations 2:4, Ezekiel 21:31 etc

God's presence and His Judgement is what we see clearly expressed in Peter's reference. In the second coming God is coming in Judgement, and every work is burned up and seen for what it is in truth.

Not necessarily literal, but absolutely symbolic.

 

[keras]

Repeated Scripture portrays a victorious Christ since His all-conquering resurrection.

Repeated prophesies say how Jesus will Return to the earth and physically reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. For a thousand years.

Belief of this happening now, is a fantasy and shows a divorce from reality.

Fire, as theophany of existence demonstrates God's presence:

Fire, as described in over 70 Bible prophesies, shows what the Lord intends to use on His Day of vengeance and wrath.
He used water in the days of Noah, this time fire will devastate the world and prepare the way for all the prophesies about the end times to take place, leading up to the glorious Return of Jesus to reign for the next thousand years.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Repeated prophesies say how Jesus will Return to the earth and physically reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. For a thousand years.

Belief of this happening now, is a fantasy and shows a divorce from reality.


Fire, as described in over 70 Bible prophesies, shows what the Lord intends to use on His Day of vengeance and wrath.
He used water in the days of Noah, this time fire will devastate the world and prepare the way for all the prophesies about the end times to take place, leading up to the glorious Return of Jesus to reign for the next thousand years.

Once again, avoid every Scripture presented, and every argument included, and keep presenting your extra-biblical error. This is your MO. It is pointless engaging with you. All you present is personal opinions and elaborate theories.

 

[keras]

Once again SG avoids every prophecy pointed out, every fact presented and keeps on pushing his fantasy world of Satan bound now and Jesus as current world ruler. It is his delusion.
Engaging with him is pointless, as he is locked into the false theory of AMill. His elaborate beliefs are a total divergence from reality and his unsupported opinions are worthless.