The Falling Away

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟515,676.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Doesn't 2 peter 3:8 say a day is like 1,000 years AND 1,000 years is like a day? IMHO, it seems this phrase is more related to God being outside of time, and not necessarily evidence for a delay in the parousia of thousands of years.

2 Peter 3:8 Dear friends, don’t overlook this one fact: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, AND a thousand years like one day

Also, Peter said the end of all things was "at hand", so I don't think Peter also meant the parousia could be thousands of years away with the use of the phrase "a day is like 1,000 years and 1,000 years like day".

1 peter 4:7 The end of all things is at hand therefore, be alert and sober-mindedb for prayer.



The other side of the debate is what is meant by the heavens and elements being dissolved and the earth and works being not found.

2 peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

If the heavens and earth are, in fact, to be understood as literal, then yes you are absolutely correct, they have not yet been destroyed.

If, however, they are to be understood as the temple and old covenant system, then they indeed did pass away.
It is not stated in Spiritual Jew's post that there would be no delay...I see you did not post that part of his post...reason? The 1000 years passage II Peter3:8 allows that God may come in a very short time OR a very long time. He comes as a thief in the night so do not let Him catch you sleeping and rather watch your life...the time is at hand...many of the signs were already there...this generation Jesus says.
These passages serve exactly to prove that the words of Jesus are meant for all ages...John 17:20-25 states this as well in Christ's prayer for the world...that those elect among them be in Him...saved.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not stated in Spiritual Jew's post that there would be no delay...I see you did not post that part of his post...reason?

huh? I may be understanding your point, but I never stated that his post said there would be no delay.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟515,676.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
huh? I may be understanding your point, but I never stated that his post said there would be no delay.
It seemed implied by your words...
not necessarily evidence for a delay in the parousia of thousands of years.

So what is your stand on the Judgement Day?
We know it comes at an unknown time; do you believe the 1000 years in Revelation is literal?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Doesn't 2 peter 3:8 say a day is like 1,000 years AND 1,000 years is like a day?
Yes, it sure does.

IMHO, it seems this phrase is more related to God being outside of time, and not necessarily evidence for a delay in the parousia of thousands of years.
I didn't say otherwise. You misunderstood me. I am not saying that Peter was indicating that it WOULD be thousands of years before Christ came. I am saying that he was indicating that it COULD be thousands of years before Christ came for all anyone knew (no one knew the day or hour - Matt 24:36). And he was indicating that even if it was that long (which is a long time to humans), it wouldn't be a long time to the Lord, so there was no reason for anyone to ever think that the Lord was taking too long to come back.

If Peter was certain that Christ was coming literally soon, then what is the point of what he said in 2 Peter 3:8-9? How could the Lord's supposed slowness in coming be an issue if He was certain to be coming soon rather than possibly at some later time instead? It would only make sense for Peter to explain that He wasn't actually taking a long time to come (from His perspective) if He happened to not come any time soon.

Also, Peter said the end of all things was "at hand", so I don't think Peter also meant the parousia could be thousands of years away with the use of the phrase "a day is like 1,000 years and 1,000 years like day".

1 peter 4:7 The end of all things is at hand therefore, be alert and sober-mindedb for prayer.
Peter didn't know when the end of all things would be. Partial preterists like yourself often misinterpret scripture because of the wooden literal way you interpret phrases like "at hand" as if it can only mean something is going to happen soon. It can mean that, but does not have to mean that.

The Greek word translated as "at hand" in that verse is engizō and it can refer to something that is approaching and certain to happen without giving an indication of the timing of it. The end of all things was certainly approaching (and is still approaching today), and it could happen at any time for all Peter knew, but he didn't know how long it would be until it would happen (only the Father knew - Matt 24:36). That is what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 4:7.

The other side of the debate is what is meant by the heavens and elements being dissolved and the earth and works being not found.

2 peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

If the heavens and earth are, in fact, to be understood as literal, then yes you are absolutely correct, they have not yet been destroyed.

If, however, they are to be understood as the temple and old covenant system, then they indeed did pass away.
The context supports it as referring to the literal heavens and earth. The fiery destruction of the heavens and the earth is compared directly to the destruction caused long ago by the flood waters in Noah's day.

2 Peter 3:5 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.

See that phrase "by the same word" in verse 7? That means he was comparing the future fiery destruction of "the present heavens and earth" in the same sense as the scope and the kind of destruction he referenced that was caused by the flood waters, which was obviously global physical destruction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seemed implied by your words...
not necessarily evidence for a delay in the parousia of thousands of years.

not sure at all how this implies me stating his post said there was no delay.

I simply stated 2 Peter 3:8 doesn’t seem like evidence to support a delay of thousands of years. No idea how that equates to me somehow claiming spiritual Jew’s post said there was no delay….
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟515,676.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
not sure at all how this implies me stating his post said there was no delay.

I simply stated 2 Peter 3:8 doesn’t seem like evidence to support a delay of thousands of years. No idea how that equates to me somehow claiming spiritual Jew’s post said there was no delay….
Well okay then, but let me explain that one doesn't usually post in that "route" you know your intentions and I accept them...for all that's worth! :)
 
Upvote 0

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,126
3,877
Southern US
✟389,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
With regards to falling away, my OP was addressing this happening in the Body of Christ, not the world, as it has not yet been redeemed from its fallen state. Those within the faith have not seen the acceptance of evil to this degree before.
upload_2021-6-29_19-32-55.png

More U.S. Christians OK with homosexuality
 
Upvote 0

SongOnTheWind

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2021
670
375
39
Croydon
✟26,712.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe the point at which you don't think you could fall further, is precisely the point that you are most proud?
Or you acknowledge God's grace. Though I do understand your point.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Gottservant
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say otherwise. You misunderstood me. I am not saying that Peter was indicating that it WOULD be thousands of years before Christ came. I am saying that he was indicating that it COULD be thousands of years before Christ came for all anyone knew (no one knew the day or hour - Matt 24:36). And he was indicating that even if it was that long (which is a long time to humans), it wouldn't be a long time to the Lord, so there was no reason for anyone to ever think that the Lord was taking too long to come back.

I understood that you believe Peter meant Jesus could come back in a 1,000 years. You used your interpretation 2 peter 3:8 as evidence of this. I'm simply disagreeing with your interpretation of 2 peter 3:8. I don't believe this is evidence that Peter proclaimed Jesus could come back in 1,000 years.

peter didn't know when the end of all things would be.

Peter said it was "at hand", so I would disagree. Did Peter no the day or hour? Of course not, but he knew the signs to watch for when it would be literally near.

Matthew 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is at hand, at the very gates.

We even have James to back up Peter. Notice James' allusion to the olivet discourse.

James 5:8-9 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the gate.

Partial preterists like yourself often misinterpret scripture because of the wooden literal way you interpret phrases like "at hand" as if it can only mean something is going to happen soon. It can mean that, but does not have to mean that.

The Greek word translated as "at hand" in that verse is engizō and it can refer to something that is approaching and certain to happen without giving an indication of the timing of it.

The greek verb for "has drawn near" in 1 Peter 4:7 is in the perfect tense. It is not a continuous action as if something is "drawing" near, as you argue. That would be a misinterpretation of the word. Peter declared it "has drawn" near.

1448
eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser)

Your argument would work much better if the verb was not in the perfect tense.

The end of all things was certainly approaching (and is still approaching today), and it could happen at any time for all Peter knew, but he didn't know how long it would be until it would happen (only the Father knew - Matt 24:36). That is what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 4:7.

Again, the end wasn't approachING. That would be an incorrect interpretation of the verb. The end had approachED, per the perfect tense.

The context supports it as referring to the literal heavens and earth. The fiery destruction of the heavens and the earth is compared directly to the destruction caused long ago by the flood waters in Noah's day.

I'm not a global flood proponent, and so that probably shapes how I view this passage. I'm a local flood proponent, and so while I believe the world of Noah's time (not the entire literal globe) was destroyed by water, I believe the world of Jerusalem (old covenant system) was destroyed by fire in the events of 67-70ad. Those events had indeed drawn near to Peter's time.

2 peter 3:6-7 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GallagherM

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2021
818
349
33
Fyffe
✟13,469.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Humans beings at birth have no spiritual concept though their sins are paid for at birth. There are people out here who will care to follow after God and people who will only care to know so much about God and their will people have heard about God but reject the spirit to become children of God.

To say anything about society is like point the finger at a brick wall. The thing is all of us are spiritually dead at birth to any knowledge about God.

So it’s all subjective. From my point of view.

It starts with you yourself, then hearing the truth, accepting the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ then what you do when you receive the spirit of adoption to live for God and the spiritual ways of having love for others who have not come to know the truth yet.

You can be an example to others by the way you live and never talk about Jesus Christ until they ask you why you are the way you are then share with them the good news of Christ how God had changed your heart by the spirit you received which makes you a son/daughter of God.

(just realized what thread this was but this my though on falling away)
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understood that you believe Peter meant Jesus could come back in a 1,000 years. You used your interpretation 2 peter 3:8 as evidence of this. I'm simply disagreeing with your interpretation of 2 peter 3:8. I don't believe this is evidence that Peter proclaimed Jesus could come back in 1,000 years.
But, why do you think that? What do you think was the point of what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:8-9 other than showing people that even if they thought He was taking a long time to come back, it wasn't a long time from God's perspective. So, even though it has been almost 2000 years now and He hasn't yet come back, that doesn't matter from His perspective since time doesn't affect Him.

Peter said it was "at hand", so I would disagree. Did Peter no the day or hour? Of course not, but he knew the signs to watch for when it would be literally near.

Matthew 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is at hand, at the very gates.

We even have James to back up Peter. Notice James' allusion to the olivet discourse.

James 5:8-9 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the gate.
You're just not understanding that "at hand" does not have to mean literally soon but rather can mean that it is certain to happen at some point. Christ's second coming has been "at hand" for a long time now. The scoffers Peter mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-4 conclude that He will never come again since it's been so long, but it hasn't been long from God's perspective, which is what Peter pointed out in 2 Peter 3:8-9.

The greek verb for "has drawn near" in 1 Peter 4:7 is in the perfect tense. It is not a continuous action as if something is "drawing" near, as you argue. That would be a misinterpretation of the word. Peter declared it "has drawn" near.

1448
eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser)

Your argument would work much better if the verb was not in the perfect tense.
I don't believe you are a Greek expert, so I take your understanding of the Greek with a grain of salt. My understanding of the word from what I've seen indicates that it can mean something is approaching with certainty without giving an indication of the timing. Though it usually is used to refer to something that will happen soon, it does not have to mean that.

Again, the end wasn't approachING. That would be an incorrect interpretation of the verb. The end had approachED, per the perfect tense.
I disagree. If I was convinced that you are a Greek expert, I might be influenced by what you're saying, but I don't believe that you are.

I'm not a global flood proponent, and so that probably shapes how I view this passage. I'm a local flood proponent, and so while I believe the world of Noah's time (not the entire literal globe) was destroyed by water, I believe the world of Jerusalem (old covenant system) was destroyed by fire in the events of 67-70ad. Those events had indeed drawn near to Peter's time.
2 peter 3:6-7 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
We couldn't be further apart in our understanding of that then. I'm not going to take a lot of time here to discuss it with you, though. It would be better to discuss it in a different thread. And it might have to be discussed in a different forum related to controversial topics, but I'm not sure on that.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But, why do you think that? What do you think was the point of what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:8-9 other than showing people that even if they thought He was taking a long time to come back, it wasn't a long time from God's perspective. So, even though it has been almost 2000 years now and He hasn't yet come back, that doesn't matter from His perspective since time doesn't affect Him.

God can tell us when things are going to happen literally soon or not literally soon.

Daniel 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.

Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

Matthew 4:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

So I don't interpret Peter is saying it could be 1,000 years until the coming of Christ. I believe Peter is simply stating God is outside of time.

Considering the vineyard owner did return to destroy the wicked tenants in 67-70ad, I believe Christ's coming in judgment over Jerusalem did occur in the 1st century.

While I believe a future coming of Christ, I believe the scriptures were pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem.


You're just not understanding that "at hand" does not have to mean literally soon but rather can mean that it is certain to happen at some point. Christ's second coming has been "at hand" for a long time now. The scoffers Peter mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-4 conclude that He will never come again since it's been so long, but it hasn't been long from God's perspective, which is what Peter pointed out in 2 Peter 3:8-9.

I can't seem to find where the definition of eggizo (at hand) can mean "certain to happen at some point" without expressing something as literally near.

Strong's #1448:
eggizo (pronounced eng-id'-zo)
from 1451; to make near, i.e. (reflexively) approach:--approach, be at hand, come (draw) near, be (come, draw) nigh.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: eggizō
1) to bring near, to join one thing to another
2) to draw or come near to, to approach

You keep saying I'm not understanding. Then please help me understand. What evidence do you have to support your position? If you can, avoid eschatological bias, and just provide evidence on the word itself.

. My understanding of the word from what I've seen indicates that it can mean something is approaching with certainty without giving an indication of the timing. Though it usually is used to refer to something that will happen soon, it does not have to mean that.

The perfect tense is absolutely related to time. It indicates a completed action. where are you getting your information from?

"If the aspect of a verb is COMPLETED (often with a sense of just now completed), then in Greek it is expressed by a verb of the PERFECT SYSTEM. To review, ASPECT is a grammatical term that expresses the relationship between the ACTION of a verb and the PASSAGE OF TIME." (The Perfect System: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone.)

Simply based on the perfect tense of "at hand" in 1 Peter 4:7 we easily see that the end of all things "had drawn near". The tense doesn't indicate it was "drawing near" nor "will be drawing near". What evidence you provide to show that the perfect tense doesn't mean what it means?


I disagree. If I was convinced that you are a Greek expert, I might be influenced by what you're saying, but I don't believe that you are.

I'm not a greek expert, so I rely on experts for understanding. My understanding is based on the following, and not my own personal opinion:

1.) eggizo in 1 peter chapter 4 verse 7 is in the perfect indicative (
1 Peter 4:7 Greek Text Analysis)

2.) Helps Word Studies states that the perfect tense in the indicative mood expresses extreme literal closeness.

1448
eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).

3.) The perfect tense describes a completed action in the present. The perfect tense is absolutely related to the passage of time.

"If the aspect of a verb is COMPLETED (often with a sense of just now completed), then in Greek it is expressed by a verb of the PERFECT SYSTEM. To review, ASPECT is a grammatical term that expresses the relationship between the ACTION of a verb and the PASSAGE OF TIME." (The Perfect System: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone.)

"The perfect tense is used to describe completed action in the present time (i.e. I have studied Greek). The pluperfect tense is used to describe completed action in the past time (i.e. I had studied Greek)." (LESSON XII: Perfect and Pluperfect Indicative Active)

"COMPLETED. This is a completed action that has lasting results. This aspect often reflects a state resulting from past action. For example, if someone has just died, then he is dead. In fact, it is the resulting state that is often the emphasis of this aspect, not the action of the verb itself. I have made you a drink, i.e., your drink is ready." (The Perfect System: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone)

We couldn't be further apart in our understanding of that then. I'm not going to take a lot of time here to discuss it with you, though. It would be better to discuss it in a different thread. And it might have to be discussed in a different forum related to controversial topics, but I'm not sure on that

Absolutely agree this would require another thread. But understand, that this will shape our perception of passages like 2 Peter 3.

 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God can tell us when things are going to happen literally soon or not literally soon.

Daniel 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.

Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

Matthew 4:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

So I don't interpret Peter is saying it could be 1,000 years until the coming of Christ. I believe Peter is simply stating God is outside of time.

Considering the vineyard owner did return to destroy the wicked tenants in 67-70ad, I believe Christ's coming in judgment over Jerusalem did occur in the 1st century.

While I believe a future coming of Christ, I believe the scriptures were pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem.
This didn't really answer my question. What I'm asking is what do you think was the point of Peter saying in 2 Peter 3:8 "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" if the coming of Christ was certain to happen soon?

And what was his point of saying in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward..." if the coming of Christ was certain to happen soon?

Why would Peter bring up the issue of the Lord being slow to fulfill the promise of His coming from a human perspective if he knew that He was coming soon? Seems to me that wouldn't be an issue of concern if Jesus was certain to come soon. Instead, it makes sense that it would be an issue of concern that Peter would feel the need to address only if it was possible that Jesus may not come for a long time from a human perspective.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This didn't really answer my question. What I'm asking is what do you think was the point of Peter saying in 2 Peter 3:8 "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" if the coming of Christ was certain to happen soon?

And what was his point of saying in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward..." if the coming of Christ was certain to happen soon?

Why would Peter bring up the issue of the Lord being slow to fulfill the promise of His coming from a human perspective if he knew that He was coming soon? Seems to me that wouldn't be an issue of concern if Jesus was certain to come soon. Instead, it makes sense that it would be an issue of concern that Peter would feel the need to address only if it was possible that Jesus may not come for a long time from a human perspective.

Sorry, I’ll try a different explanation for my understanding of 2 peter 3:8.

In vs 3, Peter proclaims scoffers would come in the “last days” asking “when Is Christ coming?”

we know Peter lived in the last days (acts 2:16-17), and believed that the end of all things “had drawn near (perfect tense)” (1 Peter 4:7).

So, IMHO, it doesn’t make sense for scoffers to scoff at a soon coming parousia, if the parousia could be 1,000 years away. It makes more sense if scoffers were scoffing at a parousia that the early church believed would occur within their generation. A parousia they were anticipating and hastening (2 Peter 3:12).

Therefore, since Peter believed the end of all things “had drawn near” i don’t believe 2 Peter 3:8 means Christ could come in 1,000 years, but simply that God is outside of time, which called for the 1st century church to be patient.

do you have any evidence for your position on the meaning of at hand in 1 Peter 4:7?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I’ll try a different explanation for my understanding of 2 peter 3:8.

In vs 3, Peter proclaims scoffers would come in the “last days” asking “when Is Christ coming?”

we know Peter lived in the last days (acts 2:16-17), and believed that the end of all things “had drawn near (perfect tense)” (1 Peter 4:7).

So, IMHO, it doesn’t make sense for scoffers to scoff at a soon coming parousia, if the parousia could be 1,000 years away. It makes more sense if scoffers were scoffing at a parousia that the early church believed would occur within their generation. A parousia they were anticipating and hastening (2 Peter 3:12).

Therefore, since Peter believed the end of all things “had drawn near” i don’t believe 2 Peter 3:8 means Christ could come in 1,000 years, but simply that God is outside of time, which called for the 1st century church to be patient.
It seems to me that the idea of people scoffing at His coming because He hadn't come yet would be something people would do after a longer period of time than in the years just prior to 70 AD. It hadn't really been that long yet since He had left the earth.

do you have any evidence for your position on the meaning of at hand in 1 Peter 4:7?
Yes, the fact that the heavens and earth have not been burned up yet. This is assuming that 1 Peter 4:7 relates to the second coming of Christ being at hand instead of some other event that Peter would have had in mind. But, "the end of all things" seems to correlate with the burning up of the heavens and the earth, so that's why I don't see "at hand" as possibly meaning literally soon. Instead, as I've said before, I believe it means the end of all things was approaching with certainty (since it is certain to happen), but not necessarily literally soon.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me that the idea of people scoffing at His coming because He hadn't come yet would be something people would do after a longer period of time than in the years just prior to 70 AD. It hadn't really been that long yet since He had left the earth.

this makes no sense.

If the early church believed and taught in a literal soon (their generation) parousia, then it makes sense that scoffers were scoffing “where is the promise of his return” when Peter wrote this, 30-40 years post ascension.

if the early church believed and taught the parousia wouldn’t occur for a thousand more years, it makes no sense that scoffers scoffed “where is the promise of his return?”


Yes, the fact that the heavens and earth have not been burned up yet. This is assuming that 1 Peter 4:7 relates to the second coming of Christ being at hand instead of some other event that Peter would have had in mind. But, "the end of all things" seems to correlate with the burning up of the heavens and the earth, so that's why I don't see "at hand" as possibly meaning literally soon. Instead, as I've said before, I believe it means the end of all things was approaching with certainty (since it is certain to happen), but not necessarily literally soon.

This is not objective evidence. This your eschatological bias driving you to change the definition and verb tense in 1 Peter 4:7.

we already disagreed on local vs global, and agreed this is not the forum for that.

So, Can you provide any objective evidence for the word itself, not related to eschatological bias, that demonstrates it means what you believe it means? So far you have not done so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is not objective evidence. This your eschatological bias driving you to change the definition and verb tense in 1 Peter 4:7.
I'm not changing anything. You are the one denying that the word can talk about something that is approaching with certainty without necessarily saying that it has to occur soon.

we already disagreed on local vs global, and agreed this is not the forum for that.
This is the biggest problem I have with your view, which is that you deny that the flood was global. That has a major influence on your understanding of 1 Peter 4:7 and 2 Peter 3. As long as we disagree on that, we're going to disagree on what Peter taught as well.

So, Can you provide any objective evidence for the word itself, not related to eschatological bias, that demonstrates it means what you believe it means? So far you have not done so.
I believe 2 Peter 3 is objective evidence because the flood was global and Peter said the future fiery destruction has the same scope as that. I honestly don't care if you think that isn't objective evidence. To me, it's enough. If you want to change the heavens and the earth to something besides the heavens and the earth, that's on you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not changing anything. You are the one denying that the word can talk about something that is approaching with certainty without necessarily saying that it has to occur soon.

but you are. You have not provided one single piece of objective evidence that defines the word eggizo (at hand) in the manner you believe it should be defined. You have not provided one piece of objective evidence that shows the perfect tense of eggizo, in peter 4:7, should not be understood as actually perfect tense. Instead, You are defining a word based on your own subjective understanding of eschatology.

Your argument is that IF your eschatological argument is true then at hand doesn’t mean literally soon. And thus because at hand doesn’t mean literally soon, your eschatological understanding is correct. That’s circular reasoning!

all I’m asking for is for you to provide a definition from any reputable source that demonstrates eggizo in the perfect indicative tense doesn’t mean literally soon, but approaching with certainty, regardless of timing.




So Of course I will deny your personal definition of eggizo, until you can provide an actual definition from an reputable source that supports


This is the biggest problem I have with your view, which is that you deny that the flood was global. That has a major influence on your understanding of 1 Peter 4:7 and 2 Peter 3. As long as we disagree on that, we're going to disagree on what Peter taught as well.


there is no geological evidence for a global flood, and it would be impossible to fit 2 of every creature of the whole earth on the ark.

a local regional flood has so much more evidence, especially around the time of Noah.


I believe 2 Peter 3 is objective evidence because the flood was global and Peter said the future fiery destruction has the same scope as that. I honestly don't care if you think that isn't objective evidence. To me, it's enough. If you want to change the heavens and the earth to something besides the heavens and the earth, that's on you.

You proving a debatable interpretation on an eschatological passage is objective evidence? No, it’s not. It’s no more evidence than a dispy claiming their interpretation Ezekiel 40-48 is irrefutable proof of a future literal earthly temple where animal sacrifices resume.
 
Upvote 0