None of this has anything to do with anything that I was talking about which had to do with the timing of Satan and his angels being cast out of the third heaven.
It does because it shows that God gave dominion of the world to wicked angels after the fall of man, and until this judgement takes place, which I believe is during the second coming, not the first, because Paul talks about them in Ephesians 6:12
I'm just asking you to interpret 2 Peter 3 as written, not anything else. You say you interpret scripture as written and Amils don't, so show me how you interpret 2 Peter 3, as written.
I do, but because Revelation REVEALS events that happen, making sense of all previous prophetic scripture, it puts the pieces together, I use Revelation as a key to all other prophecy in the bible. I fit all prophetic scripture to that key. All the events take place over the course of the second coming. Where without revelation what you have is kind of a mess where people all try to fit a bunch of different events into a single day. Revelation actually shows it taking place over time. There are different characteristics of the events in Jesus' second coming, in one Jesus is in the clouds and people mourn (Zechariah 12, Matthew 24, Revelation 1:7, Revelation 6:12-17), in one Jesus is on the ground and His clothes are bloodstained and He's there for war and the wicked try to fight Him (Zechariah 14, Isaiah 63, Revelation 19), and in one the whole earth is consumed in fire (Zephaniah, 2 Peter 3, Revelation 20).
What you do is handwave away the details and differences, and chose one of those 3 to be the "true" second coming and allegorized everything else.
What I have done is interpreted all 3 of those events to happen, over the course of time, first appearing in the clouds, then leading a battle, and finally destroying the wicked all in fire.
It all happens as written, but they happen over time as Revelation gives us timing elements.
I find this explanation to be completely unreasonable and definitely not a case of interpreting 2 Peter 3 as written. To consider a time that would occur 1000+ years after Jesus returns as still being the second coming is very farfetched and not something I would think anyone else in the world would agree with you about.
Spanning 1000+ years? Really? Come on.
All pre wrath, and some post trib understand Jesus' second coming as a series of events rather than an instant nuke the earth.
Was Jesus ascension part of His first coming? It was over 30 years after He was born
if the first coming was multiple events over 30+ years, then the second coming is all the events from Him appearing in the clouds for the rapture, until.. eternity, He never leaves us again.
It's all the second coming.
I'm not saying nothing at all happens prior to the actual day He returns. I'm talking about what will happen on the actual day He returns because that is what 2nd Peter 3 is about (other than mentioning that scoffers would be scoffing in the last days up until His return).
What both Paul (in 1 Thess 5:2-3) and Peter (in 2 Peter 3:10-13) indicate is that the day of the Lord will come suddenly (like a thief in the night) bringing destruction by fire and the scope of the destruction will be such that unbelievers "shall not escape". Please explain to me how your understanding of the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night bringing sudden destruction from which no one can escape.
You talk about figurative language, yet you refuse to see a chunk of figurative language as being figurative language.
You have latched onto one bit of figurative language to take literally (Day of the Lord) and then tried to shoehorn everything else into that single 24 hour day.
When Isaiah 34 and 63 clearly teach that it is "the day of the Lord" that is figurative.
I interpret 2 Peter 3 as written. This was in response to your false claim that Amils don't interpret scripture as written. So, I'm asking you to show me how you interpret 2 Peter 3 as written just like I have already done. Am I asking too much of you?
Square peg, round hole.