Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[claninja]

I disagree as I've already made clear. So, is it your view that Gentile believers are not part of the "holy nation" and "holy priesthood" that Peter referred to?

Paul wrote to the Ephesians. Since you are not an Ephesian, does that mean you are not a part of the temple building where God dwells in spirit?

I guess not specifically, but the point I was meaning to make is that it was the church that was scattered and not Jews specifically. Them being scattered was because they were Christians and not because they were Jews. Is there any reason to think there were no Gentile Christians in Jerusalem? Cornelius and his family were Gentiles living in Israel. But, there were no Gentile Christians in Jerusalem? I doubt that.

Peter didn’t receive the vision of gentiles being clean until after the church was scattered by Sauls persecution. Again, there is no indication that Christian gentiles were exiled from the church of Jerusalem in acts 8. So i still have no idea what you are talking about here.

Never heard of him. I don't see where he answered my first question, so would you like to give it a shot?

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Please tell me what this means in a non-literal way. If this is not talking about a literal new heavens and new earth then what are "the former" that "shall not be remembered, not come into mind"? If you think this Bishop Lowe guy answered the question, then show me where exactly. Please put it in your own words if you can because his words don't make any sense to me.

As for Peter, there is no indication that he was speaking in a symbolic sense in 2 Peter 3. None whatsoever. He was not comparing a symbolic event to a literal event in 2 Peter 3:6-7. That would be ludicrous.

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.

Can you see here that Peter compared a future fiery event involving the heavens and the earth to the past flood event where "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"? Do you expect me to believe that Peter was comparing a symbolic future fiery event to that ancient event involving flood waters that destroyed the world? I can't take that seriously. When Peter said "the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire" he was indicating that he was comparing events that were the same. In what way? In that they were both global and both physical events. If you disagree, then please tell me exactly how you interpret this passage.

does it matter if I use my own words or someone else’s? you don’t always understand my words lol.

I agree with Barnes on Isaiah 65:17, who quoted from bishop Lowe.

“The passage before us is highly poetical, and we are not required to understand it literally. There is, so far as the language is concerned, no more reason for understanding this literally than there is for so understanding the numerous declarations which affirm that the brute creation will undergo a change in their very nature, on the introduction of the gospel Isaiah 11; and all that the language necessarily implies is, that there would be changes in the condition of the people of God as great as if the heavens, overcast with clouds and subject to storms, should be recreated, so as to become always mild and serene; or as if the earth, so barren in many places, should become universally fertile and beautiful. The immediate reference here is, doubtless, to the land of Palestine, and to the important changes which would be produced there on the return of the exiles; but it cannot be doubted that, under this imagery, there was couched a reference to far more important changes and blessings in future times under the Messiah - changes as great as if a barren and sterile world should become universally beautiful and fertile.

For the former shall not be remembered - That is, that which shall be created shall be so superior in beauty as entirely to eclipse the former. The sense is, that the future condition of the people of God would be as superior to what it was in ancient times as would be a newly created earth and heaven superior in beauty to this - where the heavens are so often obscured by clouds, and where the earth is so extensively desolate or barren” - Barnes


Like I already said, I don’t believe Peter was speaking beyond what Isaiah taught, and I don’t believe Isaiah was prophesying of a literal heavens and earth passing away.

The flood destroyed the heavens And earth in Noah’s day and in peters day the present heavens and earth were ready for judgement by fire.

So, the scriptural evidence means nothing to you. That says it all.

like I said, I believe Noah’s flood was a massive deluge that killed “all flesh” in that region. This would have been the “whole world” to them, based on the ancient near eastern cosmology.

But there is no indication of hyperbolic language being used in Genesis 6. None whatsoever. And none here, either:

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

Again, there is no serious geological evidence of a global flood, therefore, I take Noah’s flood story as a massive regional deluge.

Do those who you think are the ultimate authority on what type of evidence there is for the flood consider things like this:

Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence

I don’t take Fundamentalist ken ham as a serious resource. It would be more helpful if you provided resources from real Christian geologists that demonstrated a global flood.

 

[Hammster]

I would need to quote every topic you get excited about. Posters can search back for themselves. Pick any thread you engage in.

Still don’t understand that burden of proof thing

 

[Hammster]

When have you ever talked about the glorious future return of the Lord Jesus Christ? Have you ever? Are you looking forward to it with great anticipation and excitement? When it comes to this forum, do you talk about much else besides what happened in 70 AD? Not that I've seen.

I gave you many links in an earlier post. It’s not my problem that you ignored it.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

You're not addressing my point which had to do with the false accusation you made towards WPM. You falsely claimed that he denied what Peter said, but he did not. I said that he indicated in his post that, in his view, Peter was speaking from God's perspective just like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. That's not a case of denying what Peter said, it's a case of him interpreting what Peter said differently than how you do. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because I didn't ask for your interpretation of any scripture. I was simply pointing out how you had made a false accusation towards another person.

I merely did what everyone else does on this forum and without the often derogatory name calling. Are you really saying I can't accuse an interpretation of being false? Exactly what did I say that you find so offensive?

 

[Ed Parenteau]

I don’t take Fundamentalist ken ham as a serious resource. It would be more helpful if you provided resources from real Christian geologists that demonstrated a global flood.

You might try: Search

 

[claninja]

You might try: Search

A resource with Christians who have actual degrees. that’s much better than ken ham.

But then I read this, and did have a chuckle. How could people, with actual degrees not know how mountains are formed?

“Despite being perhaps the most prominent landform on every continent, the origin of mountains is still unknown.”

 

[Spiritual Jew]

does it matter if I use my own words or someone else’s? you don’t always understand my words lol.

If I tell you that I don't understand what your source is saying, then yes. And I indicated that I didn't understand what your source was saying. Many of these commentaries are from long ago when people spoke in a much different way than we do now. So, I can't always make sense of what they said because of that. If you quote someone else you fully agree with and I can understand what they're saying, then that's fine.

I agree with Barnes on Isaiah 65:17, who quoted from bishop Lowe.

“The passage before us is highly poetical, and we are not required to understand it literally. There is, so far as the language is concerned, no more reason for understanding this literally than there is for so understanding the numerous declarations which affirm that the brute creation will undergo a change in their very nature, on the introduction of the gospel Isaiah 11; and all that the language necessarily implies is, that there would be changes in the condition of the people of God as great as if the heavens, overcast with clouds and subject to storms, should be recreated, so as to become always mild and serene; or as if the earth, so barren in many places, should become universally fertile and beautiful. The immediate reference here is, doubtless, to the land of Palestine, and to the important changes which would be produced there on the return of the exiles; but it cannot be doubted that, under this imagery, there was couched a reference to far more important changes and blessings in future times under the Messiah - changes as great as if a barren and sterile world should become universally beautiful and fertile.

For the former shall not be remembered - That is, that which shall be created shall be so superior in beauty as entirely to eclipse the former. The sense is, that the future condition of the people of God would be as superior to what it was in ancient times as would be a newly created earth and heaven superior in beauty to this - where the heavens are so often obscured by clouds, and where the earth is so extensively desolate or barren” - Barnes

How interesting that your go to guy on this was a premillennialist while you are a postmillennialist. How does that make any sense?

You believe in the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture, right? It doesn't look like Barnes did. I see no mention of 2 Peter 3:10-13 or Revelation 21:1-5 here. Why would he not have wanted to consult other scriptures about the new heavens and new earth to help him understand Isaiah 65:17?

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Using scripture to interpret scripture, we can see here that "the former that shall not be remembered" are things associated with "the first earth" which is the earth we're living on right now. Things like death, sorrow, crying and pain will be "passed away" and will not be remembered. That is the proper understanding of Isaiah 65:17 which lines up with what Revelation 21 says about the new heavens and new earth. It seems that you and Barnes are interpreting Isaiah 65:17 in isolation from Revelation 21, which is not a good idea.

Like I already said, I don’t believe Peter was speaking beyond what Isaiah taught, and I don’t believe Isaiah was prophesying of a literal heavens and earth passing away.

Where did Isaiah say anything about the burning up of the heavens, earth and the elements that would result in the formation of the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65?

The flood destroyed the heavens And earth in Noah’s day and in peters day the present heavens and earth were ready for judgement by fire.

And that has not yet happened.

like I said, I believe Noah’s flood was a massive deluge that killed “all flesh” in that region. This would have been the “whole world” to them, based on the ancient near eastern cosmology.

Again, there is no serious geological evidence of a global flood, therefore, I take Noah’s flood story as a massive regional deluge.

What are you basing this on? Who are your sources for this? Are they Christians?

I don’t take Fundamentalist ken ham as a serious resource. It would be more helpful if you provided resources from real Christian geologists that demonstrated a global flood.

But, you take premillennialist Albert Barnes as a serious source to back up your postmillennial views. Okay then.

But, are you really this naive? Answers in Genesis employs a number of scientists and the information comes from them. What do you think, that Ken Ham just makes stuff up without having any scientific sources for what he says? LOL.

Here is the bio of a geologist who works for Answers in Genesis: Dr. Andrew Snelling

So, the article I linked is information that comes from people like him. Hopefully, he lives up to your standards "as a serious resource".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I merely did what everyone else does on this forum and without the often derogatory name calling. Are you really saying I can't accuse an interpretation of being false? Exactly what did I say that you find so offensive?

It's one thing to say that someone was misinterpreting what Peter said. It's another thing to say that they were denying what Peter said. How is that any better than derogatory name calling? It comes across as if you're saying he is purposely disagreeing with Peter and denying what Peter taught. Your choice of words was poor.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

A resource with Christians who have actual degrees. that’s much better than ken ham.

The resource was the Answers in Genesis ministry which consists of many more people than just Ken Ham. Towards the beginning of the article, it says "Don't just take our word for it". Who did you think "our" referred to? Did you think Ken Ham was referring to "me, myself and I"? LOL.

But then I read this, and did have a chuckle. How could people, with actual degrees not know how mountains are formed?

“Despite being perhaps the most prominent landform on every continent, the origin of mountains is still unknown.”

Where did you see that? I'm amazed that you read it at all considering that you thought the sole source of the information was "Fundamentalist Ken Ham" who you don't take seriously. Do you always take the time to read articles written by people that you don't take seriously?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I gave you many links in an earlier post. It’s not my problem that you ignored it.

When was this and which thread was it? It wasn't in this thread.

Also, I don't just ignore things unless they're just obviously insane and not worth paying any attention to. Which is not how I would categorize your posts even though I often disagree with you. You can accuse me of things all you want, but one thing you can't accuse me of is just ignoring people's posts. I don't do that.

 

[trophy33]

We weren't talking about people today, we were talking about people in the first century. I don't believe many people lived that long in those days.

It does not matter if many lived that long, though. The natural length of the human life span is about 120 years, based on the length of telomeres. We live less because of bad diet, injuries and other similar things. God can do miracles to fulfill his prophecies, but there is no miracle even needed.

 

[trophy33]

I never said that he said it WILL take thousands of years, I said he indicated that it COULD take thousands of years because that was entirely up to the Lord and no amount of time (thousands of years or even much more) that it would take could be considered slow from His eternal perspective. If you're just going to misrepresent what I say, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.

No, he did not indicate that it could take thousands of years or that it is entirely up to the Lord, its just your interpretation, because you need some basis for your futurism. Why are you so sensitive about your words not being misrepresented, why you misrepresent the words of James, Peter and others?

Jesus says:
"Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Mt 24:34

Paul says:
"The time that remains is short."
1 Cor. 7:29

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; we [i.e. Paul and Corinthians] shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..."
1 Cor. 15:51

James says:
"Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.
You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.
Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."
Jm 5:7-9

Peter says:
The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.
1Pt 4:7

John says:
It is the last hour
1 John 2:18

Its said in so many ways and on so many places that it takes really quite an effort to interpret it differently than "literally".

Typical futurist explanations:
"This generation" is not "this generation", "near" is not "near", "soon" is not "soon", "last times" were not "last", "last hour" is not "last hour", "you" is not "you", "we" is not "we"... - such reading would occur very suspicious to me.

 

[Hammster]

When was this and which thread was it? It wasn't in this thread.

Also, I don't just ignore things unless they're just obviously insane and not worth paying any attention to. Which is not how I would categorize your posts even though I often disagree with you. You can accuse me of things all you want, but one thing you can't accuse me of is just ignoring people's posts. I don't do that.

It was in this thread. And my apologies in that it wasn’t addressed to you. However, it’s there.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

It's one thing to say that someone was misinterpreting what Peter said. It's another thing to say that they were denying what Peter said. How is that any better than derogatory name calling? It comes across as if you're saying he is purposely disagreeing with Peter and denying what Peter taught. Your choice of words was poor.

Then I'll let you correct my statement about my true belief that futurists are in denial about the time statements. So, if I want to say it in a matter of fact way, what would make you feel better about it and yet be true to my honest belief? It is not my intention to insult my brothers in Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It was in this thread. And my apologies in that it wasn’t addressed to you. However, it’s there.

Naturally, since you said you gave the links to me and said that I ignored that post, I only looked for it in responses to me specifically and, of course, didn't find it since it wasn't addressed to me. Anyway, apology accepted.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Then I'll let you correct my statement about my true belief that futurists are in denial about the time statements. So, if I want to say it in a matter of fact way, what would make you feel better about it and yet be true to my honest belief? It is not my intention to insult my brothers in Christ.

My point is simply that there's no need to say that someone is denying what Peter or any other biblical author is saying because that can come across as if you are saying that someone thinks that Peter is wrong and they are right. Obviously, no one here believes that.

Instead, you can just say that you believe they are misinterpreting what Peter is saying. That way, it comes across that they are just mistakenly not understanding what Peter said rather than coming across as if they are purposely disagreeing with Peter and denying that what he said is true.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, he did not indicate that it could take thousands of years or that it is entirely up to the Lord, its just your interpretation, because you need some basis for your futurism.

We both are sharing our interpretations here. Don't act as if your interpretations and opinions are facts. Humble yourself.

And, by the way, I am neither preterist nor futurist. My view is not nearly as narrow in scope as preterists and futurists have.

Why are you so sensitive about your words not being misrepresented

Do you not care if you misrepresent my words? If so, please stop talking to me because I have no interest in discussing these things with someone who doesn't care about misrepresenting what I say.

, why you misrepresent the words of James, Peter and others?

I don't misrepresent their words. That's just your opinion based on your interpretation of their words. That's entirely different than you factually misrepresenting what I said, which was not that Peter said that it WILL take thousands of years before Christ would return, but rather that it COULD (but not necessarily) take thousands of years before He would return. It's not as if what I said is debatable in terms of it not being certain as to what I meant to say. I know what I said and what I meant and I told you that. As for James, Peter and others, what they meant by what they said is debatable whether you acknowledge that or not.

Jesus says:
"Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Mt 24:34

I believe you are misinterpreting the Greek word "genea" there, as I already said before.

Paul says:
"The time that remains is short."
1 Cor. 7:29

Show me some evidence that the Greek word translated as "short" there means a literal short amount of time from the human perspective. That will be tough for you to do since the word is only used in one other verse.

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; we [i.e. Paul and Corinthians] shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..."
1 Cor. 15:51

As I already explained, when Paul said "we" he wasn't limiting it to those who were alive when he wrote that. He was referring to everyone on the church from all-time when he said "we" and he was not implying that some who were alive at the time would not sleep/die. Clearly, the last trumpet has not yet sounded and the dead have not yet been raised and no one has yet been changed.

He was referring to the same event that he wrote about here:

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

This event has clearly not happened yet. What Paul indicated here is that when Jesus returns in the future the dead in Christ will be resurrected and those who have not died and are still alive at the time will be caught up with the resurrected dead in Christ to meet the Lord in the air. Since 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 references a mass resurrection of the dead at the last trumpet we can safely assume that Christ's return will occur at the last trumpet. And, when that happens, we (the church - those who belong to Christ) will all be changed at the same time to have immortal bodies. This has very clearly not yet occurred and that has to be taken into account when understanding what Paul was talking about.

You do believe that Jesus will return in the future, right? I feel like I have to ask that because if you don't even think 1 Cor 15:51-52 is about a future event, I'm not sure what scripture you do believe is yet to be fulfilled. I would assume that you also don't believe 1 Thess 4:14-17 is about the future return of Christ, either, since Paul uses the word "we" to describe those who will be affected by the event he described there. But, you are not understanding that the word "we" can be used to even include future believers if the context is in regards to the church. Paul would have considered future Christians to be fellow members of the church and he would have applied things like this to them as well. So, "we" applies to the entire church, including those who have died and those who are alive, up to the point when Christ returns in the future.

I think the fact that English is not your primary language (as you previously indicated) is what is keeping you from understanding nuances of the English language like this. You are not understanding that the word "we" does not have to only refer to those who are alive at the time the word is being used. But, now, you have no excuse for not understanding that because I'm teaching that to you now. If you don't believe me about this, then do your due diligence and see what others have to say about it before coming to a final conclusion on what passages like 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 are about.

James says:
"Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.
You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.
Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."
Jm 5:7-9

Peter says:
The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.
1Pt 4:7

John says:
It is the last hour
1 John 2:18

Its said in so many ways and on so many places that it takes really quite an effort to interpret it differently than "literally".

Typical futurist explanations:
"This generation" is not "this generation", "near" is not "near", "soon" is not "soon", "last times" were not "last", "last hour" is not "last hour", "you" is not "you", "we" is not "we"... - such reading would occur very suspicious to me.

Yet, you acknowledge that English isn't your first language which means you are not aware of some of the nuances of these words and phrases. You are seemingly not even taking into account that the Greek word translated as "generation" has more than one definition. And, you are seemingly not taking into account that they sometimes spoke of the timing of Christ's return from the Lord's perspective rather than from man's perspective, as Peter undeniably did in 2 Peter 3:8-9.

 

[claninja]

If I tell you that I don't understand what your source is saying, then yes. And I indicated that I didn't understand what your source was saying. Many of these commentaries are from long ago when people spoke in a much different way than we do now. So, I can't always make sense of what they said because of that. If you quote someone else you fully agree with and I can understand what they're saying, then that's fine.


How interesting that your go to guy on this was a premillennialist while you are a postmillennialist. How does that make any sense?

You believe in the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture, right? It doesn't look like Barnes did. I see no mention of 2 Peter 3:10-13 or Revelation 21:1-5 here. Why would he not have wanted to consult other scriptures about the new heavens and new earth to help him understand Isaiah 65:17?

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Using scripture to interpret scripture, we can see here that "the former that shall not be remembered" are things associated with "the first earth" which is the earth we're living on right now. Things like death, sorrow, crying and pain will be "passed away" and will not be remembered. That is the proper understanding of Isaiah 65:17 which lines up with what Revelation 21 says about the new heavens and new earth. It seems that you and Barnes are interpreting Isaiah 65:17 in isolation from Revelation 21, which is not a good idea.


Where did Isaiah say anything about the burning up of the heavens, earth and the elements that would result in the formation of the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65?


And that has not yet happened.


What are you basing this on? Who are your sources for this? Are they Christians?


But, you take premillennialist Albert Barnes as a serious source to back up your postmillennial views. Okay then.

But, are you really this naive? Answers in Genesis employs a number of scientists and the information comes from them. What do you think, that Ken Ham just makes stuff up without having any scientific sources for what he says? LOL.

Here is the bio of a geologist who works for Answers in Genesis: Dr. Andrew Snelling

So, the article I linked is information that comes from people like him. Hopefully, he lives up to your standards "as a serious resource".

You seem to be conflating millennialism with eschatology. I can agree, more often than not, with a partial preterist historic premil in regards to how to understand the OT and OD. Revelation would be where I would disagree. and I would agree with your assessment, that premils believe revelation 20 is new info, and don’t necessarily use scripture to interpret scripture.

But you don’t always use scripture to interpret scripture, especially when it disagrees with your eschatological view (such as the harlot being charged with all righteous blood shed and jesus charging apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed). So, I’m not sure what the issue is here.

As to Isaiah 65, like I said, I believe it is poetic language. I believe Isaiah is seeing and describing the gospel era, where the temple practices no longer exist - a new heaven and earth and a new Jerusalem - In the new Jerusalem “there is no temple”. Where the law brought pain and death, the new covenant wipes away those tears and makes death obsolete. So I don’t believe Peter is expounding beyond what Isaiah looked forward to.

In regards to fundamentalist Ken ham, Sorry, I should have clarified. When I mean serious resources, I mean peer reviewed studies or peer reviewed articles. Andrew Snelling is a geologist, so what peer review articles or studies does he have on evidence for a global flood?

And yes, I believe Ken ham is making stuff up. - he and the website you linked believe dinosaurs existed during Adam and Eve and were even brought in the ark.

Anyways…….my point was that Peter’s audience was the Jews amongst the diaspora. The end of the physical globe was not literally near to them. The end of the obsolete old covenant practices had drawn near to them.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

You seem to be conflating millennialism with eschatology. I can agree, more often than not, with a partial preterist historic premil in regards to how to understand the OT and OD. Revelation would be where I would disagree. and I would agree with your assessment, that premils believe revelation 20 is new info, and don’t necessarily use scripture to interpret scripture.

But you don’t always use scripture to interpret scripture, especially when it disagrees with your eschatological view (such as the harlot being charged with all righteous blood shed and jesus charging apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed). So, I’m not sure what the issue is here.

As to Isaiah 65, like I said, I believe it is poetic language. I believe Isaiah is seeing and describing the gospel era, where the temple practices no longer exist - a new heaven and earth and a new Jerusalem - In the new Jerusalem “there is no temple”. Where the law brought pain and death, the new covenant wipes away those tears and makes death obsolete. So I don’t believe Peter is expounding beyond what Isaiah looked forward to.

In regards to fundamentalist Ken ham, Sorry, I should have clarified. When I mean serious resources, I mean peer reviewed studies or peer reviewed articles. Andrew Snelling is a geologist, so what peer review articles or studies does he have on evidence for a global flood?

And yes, I believe Ken ham is making stuff up. - he and the website you linked believe dinosaurs existed during Adam and Eve and were even brought in the ark.

Anyways…….my point was that Peter’s audience was the Jews amongst the diaspora. The end of the physical globe was not literally near to them. The end of the obsolete old covenant practices had drawn near to them.

Right on. There is no end of the globe, I mean, why would there be--isn't the cross enough to restore what Adam lost? Were we not a new created people? When I looked in the mirror I looked the same except I was no longer dead. The old covenant of death is gone, the new covenant of life is here. It's a whole new world, rejoice and be glad in it. Doesn't Matthew 22's parable of the wedding have the wedding take place right after the Pharisee's city is burned up?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You seem to be conflating millennialism with eschatology.

Nope.

I can agree, more often than not, with a partial preterist historic premil in regards to how to understand the OT and OD.

How do you determine when you should agree with them and when you shouldn't? You clearly disagree with Barnes on a number of things, yet for some reason you fully trust him on this. Okay then.

Revelation would be where I would disagree. and I would agree with your assessment, that premils believe revelation 20 is new info, and don’t necessarily use scripture to interpret scripture.

But you don’t always use scripture to interpret scripture, especially when it disagrees with your eschatological view (such as the harlot being charged with all righteous blood shed and jesus charging apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed). So, I’m not sure what the issue is here.

You are misrepresenting me here and I don't appreciate it at all. Because of how I interpret other parts of Revelation and the book overall by interpreting scripture with scripture, it would contradict my understanding of other parts of the book as well as my overall understanding of scripture to conclude that mystery Babylon is first century Jerusalem or apostate Israel as you call it. It's as simple as that. To accuse me of not interpreting scripture with scripture in this case is utterly false. I don't just interpret that scripture in isolation, find something simialr elsewhere and then draw a conclusion. It's not as simple as that. There are other descriptions of Babylon that do not fit first century Jerusalem and, again, my understanding of the rest of the book and my understanding of the rest of scripture does not line up with that, either.

You're acting as if history ended in 70 AD. Who is responsible for the blood shed since then? No one? Is Revelation about Jesus and His church along with the enemies of Jesus and His church or is it about Jesus and Israel? To me, it's clearly the former so I see no basis for thinking it's all about what happened in 70 AD. I don't see any scripture which teaches that He came in 70 AD, so why would I conclude that about Revelation 19? Since it's obvious to me that Revelation 19 is about His yet future second coming then interpreting Babylon as first century Jerusalem or apostate Israel would make no sense since it seems clear to me that Babylon falls around the time of His second coming.

As to Isaiah 65, like I said, I believe it is poetic language. I believe Isaiah is seeing and describing the gospel era, where the temple practices no longer exist - a new heaven and earth and a new Jerusalem - In the new Jerusalem “there is no temple”. Where the law brought pain and death, the new covenant wipes away those tears and makes death obsolete. So I don’t believe Peter is expounding beyond what Isaiah looked forward to.

It seems that you interpret Revelation 21:1-5 the same way then? Yet, John said the new heavens and new earth are ushered in after the passing away of the first heaven and first earth. So, please tell me what you think are the first heaven and first earth if not the literal heaven and earth?

In regards to fundamentalist Ken ham, Sorry, I should have clarified.

You call him a fundamentalist. Would you call yourself a liberal? I would not be surprised if you believe in evolution. Do you? I can't even express how hard it is for me to take you seriously on some of these things.

When I mean serious resources, I mean peer reviewed studies or peer reviewed articles. Andrew Snelling is a geologist, so what peer review articles or studies does he have on evidence for a global flood?

LOL. You are somehow expecting me to know all there is to know about him. Do the research yourself if you really want to know. It's clear to me that you will just dismiss anything I say about this and dismiss any resources I might provide, so it's clearly a waste of time.

And yes, I believe Ken ham is making stuff up.

That is a baseless belief.

- he and the website you linked believe dinosaurs existed during Adam and Eve and were even brought in the ark.

What is the problem with that? Young dinosaurs would not have taken up that much space. You should go to the Ark Encounter some time so you can get an idea of just how huge the ark actually was. But, I suppose it would not be liberal enough for you to handle being there for long.

Anyways…….my point was that Peter’s audience was the Jews amongst the diaspora. The end of the physical globe was not literally near to them. The end of the obsolete old covenant practices had drawn near to them.

Please answer some questions relating to this passage:

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

So, Peter indicated that last days scoffers would scoff at the promise of His coming and they would forget about how "by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water". Do you believe that Peter was referring to the literal heavens here and that they came into being "by God's word"? Do you believe that Peter was is referring to the literal earth and that he was saying it was "formed out of water and by water"?

If your answer to both questions above is yes, then I have followup questions.

In verse 6, Peter refers to the waters he referenced in verse 5 as being used to flood (deluge) the world and destroy it. Do you take that literally? In other words, do you understand him to be talking about the literal flood in Noah's day which Jesus said "took them all away" (Matthew 24:37) and "destroyed them all" (Luke 17:27)? If so, then what is your understanding of what Peter said in verse 7? If you acknowledge that he was referring to the literal heavens and earth in verse 5 and that he referred to a literal, physical flood event in verse 6, then what basis is there for thinking he was not being literal in verse 7 as well? Putting it another way, what basis is there in that case to conclude that the heavens and earth of verse 7 are not the same heavens and earth of verse 5? And that the earth in verse 7 is not the same earth that was flooded as referenced in verse 6? And what basis is there for concluding that the fire in verse 7 is not just as literal as the waters of verses 5 and 6?