not for Heaven, it is for here the physical world. Time will end. Rev 10: 6, and the use for time ends. Judgement beginsBut to God time is still literal, since He invented it.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
not for Heaven, it is for here the physical world. Time will end. Rev 10: 6, and the use for time ends. Judgement beginsBut to God time is still literal, since He invented it.
no, I wrote without thinking He used "beloved" . He was telling us to understand the concept,Huh?
So don't you believe that Heaven is a real place? If it is a real place like New York, then it is in this space time continuum and is a created place. Christ went to prepare a place for us, the New Jerusalem, which will come down out of the sky onto this physical earth.not for Heaven, it is for here the physical world. Time will end. Rev 10: 6, and the use for time ends. Judgement begins
But Heaven is a physical place created by God, is it not? Can God only look at His creation from a literal Heaven, or does He exist outside of His literal creation? The reference nowhere mentions Heaven. A day and a year are both His creations in Genesis. Time is the 4th dimension, and therefore literal.
Furthermore, if the one day and the 1000 years are a metaphor, what do they stand for?
Sorry, you lost me.no, I wrote without thinking He used "beloved" . He was telling us to understand the concept,
True He is indeed multifaceted.But to God time is still literal, since He invented it.
Because He is communicating with us who live in the space time continuum He created. Why would He use some non-literal terminology to communicate literal truth?It is not physical but spiritual
Physical reality was not created until Satan and others fell
2Pe 3:8
¶
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
with the Lord should bed a reference to Heaven or from God's perspective into time
2Pe 3:8Sorry, you lost me.
While preterists take a symbolic view of things that futurists take literal, we are not necessarily vague or ambiguous. I thought I had given a definite meaning, where the metaphor points to an unspecified period of time. As we agree, God's perspective of time is quite different from ours. Peter could just as easily have said that a day to God is the same as a million years, a hundred years, or even all eternity. Since God exists outside the boundaries of time, it's all the same to Him. Neither Peter nor John are trying to give us a formula or a timetable.Like I said, preterists are vague and ambiguous. With a metaphor, you don't get vagueness, you get specific data. For example consider the metaphors of Eph. 6 and the armor of God. All of them are immediately explained and quite obvious. Yet you have not come up with a definite meaning for the supposed metaphor of 1000 years, much less the "day" reference. What is the "day" in this passage if it is a metaphor? Remember, it is the same as the 1000 years to God.
My point was that if God is outside of the space time continuum looking in, then the "day" and "thousand years" must be literal. Otherwise, the passage makes no sense. Why would God be looking into time at two metaphors which are the same to Him?
The passage in question is calling to mind the eternality of God and so we should not fret because He delays His coming because at some point time will be no more and we will all be brought into the eternal state where it will have seemed so short a time between His Incarnation and Visible Bodily return to earth if it even matters to us then.Because He is communicating with us who live in the space time continuum He created. Why would He use some non-literal terminology to communicate literal truth?
Again, if "day" and "years" are figures of speech, what do they refer to? A failure to answer this means you have not answered the OP.
I'm sorry, you are not making sense. Either 1 day and 1000 years are metaphors or they are not. If they are not literal, then what are they referring to?2Pe 3:8
¶
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Peter was writing to us a "beloved" for us to consider ..... how God treats us and will keep His promises to just and unjust
This was not a notice from God about time itself
Time is literal. However God uses numbers sometimes as literal, sometimes as symbolic to represent a literal truth by the use of a symbol.But to God time is still literal, since He invented it.
No, "unspecified period of time" is vague. And it is still referring to time. Metaphors typically do not refer to the same item ("unspecified period of time" referring to "1000 years"). They use one thing to refer to something categorically different. Again, look at Eph. 6, where each item of the armor is a metaphor, and the meaning is clearly given wherein it is quite different from the original item, yet the metaphorical meaning is clearly understood:While preterists take a symbolic view of things that futurists take literal, we are not necessarily vague or ambiguous. I thought I had given a definite meaning, where the metaphor points to an unspecified period of time.
You are still not understanding. I am not arguing for "a formula or a timetable." I am simply asking if the day and years are literal or not. I don't see how Peter can communicate his meaning if they are not literal.As we agree, God's perspective of time is quite different from ours. Peter could just as easily have said that a day to God is the same as a million years, a hundred years, or even all eternity. Since God exists outside the boundaries of time, it's all the same to Him. Neither Peter nor John are trying to give us a formula or a timetable.
I see no connection between this passage and the one in the OP.literal or figurative?
Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
It's only vague in that we don't know how long a period of time Peter or John actually do refer to. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, the metaphor refers to time, but we know how much time.No, "unspecified period of time" is vague. And it is still referring to time. Metaphors typically do not refer to the same item ("unspecified period of time" referring to "1000 years"). They use one thing to refer to something categorically different. Again, look at Eph. 6, where each item of the armor is a metaphor, and the meaning is clearly given wherein it is quite different from the original item, yet the metaphorical meaning is clearly understood:
"14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:"
You are still not understanding. I am not arguing for "a formula or a timetable." I am simply asking if the day and years are literal or not. I don't see how Peter can communicate his meaning if they are not literal.
Let me ask again: if the word "day" here is a figure of speech, what does it mean? You've given a meaning of sorts for the 1000 years, which in your view is not being used as an actual metaphor. (See the definition given above.)
Sorry, this is not making sense to me. How in the world is "unspecified" not vague? If you say, "How much is that chocolate bar?" and I say, "The price is unspecified," aren't I being vague?It's only vague in that we don't know how long a period of time Peter or John actually do refer to. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, the metaphor refers to time, but we know how much time.
Why do you keep referring to the 1000 years but ignoring the day? And you cannot be convincing until you tell what figure of speech the 1000 years is (if it is not literal).Maybe your point is that a metaphor is not the right term, based on the "armor of God" illustration. While I don't know what figure of speech the 1,000 years is, this is a comparative term to show us God's perspective vs man's perspective of time.
They are real here and time is in use here but not with God, In Heaven, time is not a referenceI'm sorry, you are not making sense. Either 1 day and 1000 years are metaphors or they are not. If they are not literal, then what are they referring to?
Quite often, those who believe in spiritualising prophetic Scripture come to this passage in 2 Peter 3 and say that it doesn't mean a literal day and years, so therefore we can take Rev. 20's 1000 years figuratively. Here is the Scripture (obviously referring to the 2nd Coming):
"8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
However, the passage makes much more sense as a literal day and literal years. First of all, note that Peter is doing theology proper here. God created time and space (the space-time continuum), so he therefore exists outside of it. The opposite view is called "open theism." This view regards God as a "risk taker." "Although he may have a plan for how he will bring things to pass, not knowing future actions of free moral agents, he often has to change his plans in light of unforeseen developments" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., p. 369).
Now, if the 1 day and 1000 years Peter is talking about are symbolic, the passage makes no sense, thus: "One figurative day is with the Lord as a figurative thousand years, and a figurative thousand years is as a figurative day." See? That makes no sense. It also begs the question, what figure of speech is at play here? Is it a metaphor, or a simile, or an idiom, or hyperbole, or what?
Its a number.I see no connection between this passage and the one in the OP.