"Dissolving" in 2 Peter 3 & Isa. 34 - crucial cross-reference for understanding

[Paul33]

OK, I guess RAdam isn't really interested in discussing the text. I took him more seriously than was warranted.

I still intend to "twist" the 2 Peter 3 passage a little later on, as I have time. "Time" is the operative word, since just doing the little bit I did above took more time than I thought it would.

I look forward to discussion with others on this, those who have the maturity to disagree without being disagreeable.

Tom,

This is getting old. RAdam completely answered your objection to his previous post. I am willing to learn. I am willing to challenge my beliefs and interpretive grid with regard to the Bible. It does not appear that you are willing to do the same.

RAdam demonstrated conclusively that Peter is speaking of the physical world in 2 Peter 3:5. Do you agree that Peter was speaking of the physical world in 2 Peter 3:5? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Paul33]

This short comment is for the benefit of others. Please note the actual Scripture on this:

"the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."

This, as I pointed out, can be shortened down to "the world ... perished". That is the subject and verb. Everything else is dependent on this.

I believe this proves several things:
1. The "world" here cannot be a physical world, since we know that the physical world did not perish in Genesis 6 - 9.
2. Peter was speaking metaphorically here.
3. He was referring to the "world of humanity" (all except the 8 in the ark), since they are the ones that perished.
4. This sets up an important comparison with the next judgment that Peter writes of.

Feel free, any of the rest of you, to dispute any of these points with me.

But please, do it with Scripture and courtesy - the same courtesy I will try to extend to you. Don't tell me I am dishonestly twisting Scripture and I won't tell you that. Fair enough?

Actually, in the Greek, this verse reads:

through which the world at that time was destroyed, being inundated with water.

The noun is world.
The verb is aorist middle - was destroyed, ruined.
The participle is aorist passive - being inundated.
"water" is in the dative case.

The verse tells us that the physical world was inundated by water and was ruined or destroyed by this very real water!

 

[Paul33]

I am beginning to see this tactic more and more, trivializing opposition as mere "feelings" being "hurt". It is easier to do this than actually deal with the textual issues raised.

Tom,

You can not get away with this. RAdam dealt with the text. You are the one who refuses to deal with the textual issues raised.

It appears that you may be one of the scoffers mentioned in the text. When Scriptures this easy to understand are twisted to give a different meaning, what is a person to make of this except that that person is a scoffer?

Before you get your feelings hurt, I am only addressing the text which states that there will be those who reject the second coming of Christ by implying that it is not going to happen, or in your case, that it has already happened.

 

[asterisktom]

Actually, in the Greek, this verse reads:

through which the world at that time was destroyed, being inundated with water.

The noun is world.
The verb is aorist middle - was destroyed, ruined.
The participle is aorist passive - being inundated.
"water" is in the dative case.

The verse tells us that the physical world was inundated by water and was ruined or destroyed by this very real water!

Actually, I have no problem with your Greek. It is spot on.
We have very real water. Check.
We have inundation. Check. (BTW, I made a mistake earlier. I said that all of the world except for Ararat was inundated, but - at the crucial time it was all underwater.)

We have the physical world not being destroyed. "Inundated" is not "destroyed". Inundation is the watery part of the world (in this case, the fountains of the deep) covering up the dry parts of the world (mountains, dry land, etc.).

When the waters receded. there were mountains still there - unless you are going to claim that they were created out of nothing.

The fish were not destroyed, They were never taken on the ark. Ge. 6:17

So, when you think of "world", or "physical world", Paul, just what part are thinking of in this case? What is actually being "destroyed"?

It is sinful humanity that was actually destroyed, not the physical world.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,

You can not get away with this. RAdam dealt with the text. You are the one who refuses to deal with the textual issues raised.

It appears that you may be one of the scoffers mentioned in the text. When Scriptures this easy to understand are twisted to give a different meaning, what is a person to make of this except that that person is a scoffer?

Before you get your feelings hurt, I am only addressing the text which states that there will be those who reject the second coming of Christ by implying that it is not going to happen, or in your case, that it has already happened.

"Tom, You can not get away with this."

I don't know why this quote tickles me, but it does. Listen, I have spent about 30 years believing the view you are arguing for. But then I just had to change when I finally considered all of the evidence. I believed your way 30 years. Have you even considered the alternative - for 30 seconds? With an open Bible?

And, no, he did not deal with the text. He quoted it. He quoted it all. Great. Quoting is not dealing.

And once again, getting to be ad nauseum, no feelings hurt. That only happens - potentially - when I am among friends. My friends don't make
juvenile comments like you did.

I wish I would have noticed this earlier. I could have saved myself the effort on my other posts to you. Well, one I didn't even bother sending. I do intend to write a somewhat in-depth article on all of 2 Peter 3. I invite you to read it and, hopefully, change your views.

 

[Paul33]

Actually, I have no problem with your Greek. It is spot on.
We have very real water. Check.
We have inundation. Check. (BTW, I made a mistake earlier. I said that all of the world except for Ararat was inundated, but - at the crucial time it was all underwater.)

We have the physical world not being destroyed. "Inundated" is not "destroyed". Inundation is the watery part of the world (in this case, the fountains of the deep) covering up the dry parts of the world (mountains, dry land, etc.).

When the waters receded. there were mountains still there - unless you are going to claim that they were created out of nothing.

The fish were not destroyed, They were never taken on the ark. Ge. 6:17

So, when you think of "world", or "physical world", Paul, just what part are thinking of in this case? What is actually being "destroyed"?

It is sinful humanity that was actually destroyed, not the physical world.

It was the world as they knew it that was destroyed. The world was inundated with water. It was ruined - another legitimate word in translation. It was ruined, or destroyed. I have no problem understanding that the world was destroyed by a flood, that is, a physical world.

I have found that when I have to work really hard a making a verse fit my interpretation, my interpretation is probably not right.

And this present physical world is also going to be destroyed, this time by fire. How do I know? Peter said so.

 

[Paul33]

"Tom, You can not get away with this."

I don't know why this quote tickles me, but it does. Listen, I have spent about 30 years believing the view you are arguing for. But then I just had to change when I finally considered all of the evidence. I believed your way 30 years. Have you even considered the alternative - for 30 seconds? With an open Bible?

And, no, he did not deal with the text. He quoted it. He quoted it all. Great. Quoting is not dealing.

And once again, getting to be ad nauseum, no feelings hurt. That only happens - potentially - when I am among friends. My friends don't make
juvenile comments like you did.

I wish I would have noticed this earlier. I could have saved myself the effort on my other posts to you. Well, one I didn't even bother sending. I do intend to write a somewhat in-depth article on all of 2 Peter 3. I invite you to read it and, hopefully, change your views.

Ouch, Tom, you hurt my feelings.

I would suggest that a juvenile is one who persists in seeing something his way even when the evidence is against it.

Tom, how can anyone take you seriously when straight forward Greek and English are rendered meaningless. Peter stated that the physical world was destroyed by water, the same physical world (earth, land, ground) that was exposed when the waters were gathered into one location in Genesis 1:9. What Peter describes as the earth standing out of the water and in the water - a perfect description of the results of day three in Genesis 1:9. The world that was destroyed by water is the same world that is described in Genesis 1:9, namely real dirt, that is, land, ground, earth - the world.

 

[percho]

I'm not sure that was Noah's flood when the world perished.

 

[HankD]

I am going to be the proverbial broken record.

I know many of you don't know what that means, so I'll just repeat myself.

Tom, will this material world with its sin and death go into eternity?

If not, How will it end and where is the Scripture which tells us about this event?

2 Peter speaks of the new earth :

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.​

Tom, you tell us that the earth will last forever with which I agree but with the added revelation that it will be where righteousness dwells.

Not only that, Revelation tells us that there will be no death, sorrow, crying or pain, presumably in the "new" earth because the former earth has passed away.

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.​

But, according to preterism all has been fullfilled the former earth has "passed away" and we must therefore be living on/in the "new earth".​

Yet, we still have an earth filled with unrighteousness, tears, death, sorrow, crying and pain.​

How can this be explained and if it can, when will the material earth end over which death and all these other things reign and where is the pertainent Scripture?​

HankD​

 

[asterisktom]

But, according to preterism all has been fullfilled the former earth has "passed away" and we must therefore be living on/in the "new earth".​

Sorry, Hank, for just answering this small part of your post but, perhaps, this part will give the most focus. Yes, we are in the new heavens and new earth now. I based that on a study of that phrase in all three passages where it occurs.

I have been meaning to focus on just this phrase and follow it through Scripture.

Take care.

 

[RAdam]

Did the word of God cause sinful humanity to "stand out of the water and in the water?" I seem to have missed that verse in the bible. I do, however, find a verse in Genesis chapter 1 that says that the word of God caused the physical land to separate from the physical water and that the land stood out of the water and in the water. I then notice that God called the land earth. Hmm, that's the same thing Peter called it in 2 Peter 3. Could it be that they are talking about the same thing?

Again, context destroys the preterist view here.