Two needed eschatological reforms

[Josh II]

The end of the world as described by 2 P 3 did not happen; there has been a delay; hence he explained a delay.

2 Peter does not describe the end of the world. Nowhere does the phrase "end of the world" exist in the New Testament. Readers of the Douay-Rheims and KJV and the modern translations holding to the tradition of the KJV (ASV, ERV, NLT, etc.) will read "world in verses like Mt. 13:49 but the Greek "aionos" means age, not world. This is particularly, especially relevant, important, and necessary if we are to hold to the condition of "normal language" asserted in the op. In normal language terms, aionos means age. In normal language terms the age was said to end, not the world.

Perhaps you are referring to Peter's comment the "elements" will be burned up (Vss. 3:10 and 12). The Greek word used here, "stoicheia," is a polysemantic word (a word with multiple meanings in its original language). It can mean actual physical elements, such as what we would now call atoms or subatomic particles but the normal meaning is simply a letter in an alphabet or a line of text and connotatively a stoiceia meant a basic principle or rule or, as noted biblical Greek translator Bill Mounce puts it, "an element or rudiment of any intellectual or religious system." In other words, the first century readers of the koine Greek would have read Peter to be saying the basic principles or basic rules of the heavens and the earth were going to be destroyed (and remade)...... NOT the physical earth destroyed and remade from its atoms up.

They were looking forward to enduring and persevering what was coming. Peter was probably referencing something Jesus had said early in his earthly ministry.

Matthew 5:18 BLB
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth shall pass away, not even one iota, nor one stroke of a letter, shall pass away from the law, until everything should happen.

Eschatologically speaking, the world is not going to physically cease to exist.







(btw, I'm still waiting on an answer to the questions asked HERE)
.

 

[TMSO]

I'm with @eclipseEventSigns here. The 22-letter Hebrew alphabet does not contain upper case letters (and our Greek manuscripts up until the 6th century are all uncial = all-caps). That translators capitalize names and proper nouns is a matter of translation and not one that should automatically be accepted. Even where capitalized nouns are appropriate they can be misleading or confusing. Take, for example, the NASB's capitalization of pronouns referring to Jesus. Is a capitalized "He," a reference to the Father or the Son? Othe translations do not capitalize Jesus' pronouns so does that mean they did not think Jesus divine? No!

For me it is a matter of habit. It has also helped in understanding some verses better. Considering that almost all translations I have used have capital letters, I didn't know there were versions that didn't until recently.

How about we not assume, especially in forum discourse where the members are often very intelligent, well-educated, experienced in Bible translation, exegesis, hermeneutics, and logical reasoning?

It would help if you would include what is said that one should be able to assume, or you are trying to put the person in a bad light. Quote the whole line. Why do I say this? I can't find it, so all I have is you making me look bad, and I can't respond to it.

With all due respect, if you were a linguist and familiar with translating languages then I recommend applying that education, experience, and skill to Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek, and all the more so if you are KJVO and exponentially so since you're a pre-trib dispensational premillennialists.

I am NOT KJVO. I also don't know why everyone thinks there is an issue with reading the Bible as written, and discovering that it is premillennial in writing. You do know what the prevailing belief was back then right? The believe was that when Jesus died (I believe that is the point they chose), God had finished creating the world, rested, 5500 years prior. So 500 years after that, Jesus was to return and establish His kingdom. Apparently some people STILL believe this, and believe that we still haven't hit 6000 years yet. I have no opinion on the subject, other than I disagree with the whole theory.

Are you aware there is a brand-new Bible translation done entirely by Dispensationalists? Do you think they translated the Bible identically as the translations done by predominantly Reformed translators over the last few decades?

No I am not aware. I am also picky about what versions I do use. NASB, NKJV are the ones I usually use. If I am online I will look at other versions.

 

[EarlyActs]

2 Peter does not describe the end of the world. Nowhere does the phrase "end of the world" exist in the New Testament. Readers of the Douay-Rheims and KJV and the modern translations holding to the tradition of the KJV (ASV, ERV, NLT, etc.) will read "world in verses like Mt. 13:49 but the Greek "aionos" means age, not world. This is particularly, especially relevant, important, and necessary if we are to hold to the condition of "normal language" asserted in the op. In normal language terms, aionos means age. In normal language terms the age was said to end, not the world.

Perhaps you are referring to Peter's comment the "elements" will be burned up (Vss. 3:10 and 12). The Greek word used here, "stoicheia," is a polysemantic word (a word with multiple meanings in its original language). It can mean actual physical elements, such as what we would now call atoms or subatomic particles but the normal meaning is simply a letter in an alphabet or a line of text and connotatively a stoiceia meant a basic principle or rule or, as noted biblical Greek translator Bill Mounce puts it, "an element or rudiment of any intellectual or religious system." In other words, the first century readers of the koine Greek would have read Peter to be saying the basic principles or basic rules of the heavens and the earth were going to be destroyed (and remade)...... NOT the physical earth destroyed and remade from its atoms up.

They were looking forward to enduring and persevering what was coming. Peter was probably referencing something Jesus had said early in his earthly ministry.

Matthew 5:18 BLB
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth shall pass away, not even one iota, nor one stroke of a letter, shall pass away from the law, until everything should happen.

Eschatologically speaking, the world is not going to physically cease to exist.







(btw, I'm still waiting on an answer to the questions asked HERE)
.

Heard that, been there. They completely miss the fact that the stream of thought is the previous creation and destruction of those worlds, and that this world awaits destruction, not by water, but fire.

I don't think there is anything about Peter's usage that goes abstract.

My first article at SEARCHING TOGETHER was on the 'stoicheia' of Judaism but there is nothing about the passage that puts it in the category of Gal 4 and Col 2; in Hebrews 6 it is a 3rd and innocent meaning, the elements of faith in Christ. Shall we dissolved those? No. So I don't accept the idea that this is simply an analogy about Judaism like Gal 4 and Col 2.

I have not seen these things answered.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Prove it.

That's a strong statement, but it is a valid request. In the absence of proof then let me encourage and exhort you to be more discerning when indicting 99.99% of English readers. I do hope by "English readers" that was not intended to mean English-reading Christians.

Prove what? That Hebrew doesn't have capitals? Research for yourself.
And yes, almost ALL non-Hebrew readers get Daniel 9 wrong. Completely wrong.

If you want to know exactly how Daniel 9 should be interpreted, I have several hours of presentation with every single point referenced and sourced which you can check out for yourself.

Hidden Rhythms in Prophecy

 

[Josh II]

I don't think there is anything about Peter's usage that goes abstract.

Personal opinion is worthless.

My first article at SEARCHING TOGETHER was on the 'stoicheia' of Judaism....

That is the first mistake.

Christianity is not Judaism. The New Testament explains the Old Testament (not the other way around). Judaization of Christianity was a problem in the first century against which the epistolary authors wrote. Stop applying a Judaic stocheia, and understand it as asserted in the NT!

The Jews got A LOT wrong in their theology. They got the kingdom wrong (along with its monarch, and its throne), the priesthood, the temple, and more. Dispensationalism commonly screws this up because of the emphasis on the OT and a literal reading of it over the NT. Don't make that mistake. Jesus was near-constantly correcting Jewish thought, doctrine, and practice and the epistolary continues that practice.


Btw, if you're filtering what is written in the NT through an OT Jewish concept (regardless of the concept), then you're not adhering to the "normal writing" stipulated in the op.

 

[Josh II]

For me it is a matter of habit.

Assumption and habit. Got it.

I recommend changes in both categories.

No I am not aware.

Then look it up.

I am also picky about what versions I do use. NASB, NKJV are the ones I usually use. If I am online I will look at other versions.

Good. The NAS and ESV are to most literal word-for-word (formal) translations. The KJV isn't far behind as a formal (not dynamic or conceptual) translation but it is not as good as the other two. Unblessedly, none of them - not even the KJV - gets the original languages correct in all places so a check with them is needed. Blessedly, we now live in an age when anyone with a computer can access the Hebrew and Greek within secods.

Do so.

What I have said here about ainios and stoicheia is objectively verifiable.

 

[EarlyActs]

Personal opinion is worthless.

That is the first mistake.

Christianity is not Judaism. The New Testament explains the Old Testament (not the other way around). Judaization of Christianity was a problem in the first century against which the epistolary authors wrote. Stop applying a Judaic stocheia, and understand it as asserted in the NT!

The Jews got A LOT wrong in their theology. They got the kingdom wrong (along with its monarch, and its throne), the priesthood, the temple, and more. Dispensationalism commonly screws this up because of the emphasis on the OT and a literal reading of it over the NT. Don't make that mistake. Jesus was near-constantly correcting Jewish thought, doctrine, and practice and the epistolary continues that practice.

You misunderstood, I think. Yes D'ism is neo-Judaism, we agree. On the stoicheia, just because Gal 4 and Col 2 exist does not mean that Peter was not talking about ordinary water and fire. That does not follow. And Heb 7 was using the term generically.

The classical Greeks referred to the elements in the physical science sense at times; at other times there was a mythology or superstition, which called for appeasing them.

 

[Josh II]

Prove what?

Prove "99.99% of English readers of that passage have gotten it wrong for centuries too."

 

[Josh II]

You misunderstood, I think. Yes D'ism is neo-Judaism, we agree.

Good.

On the stoicheia, just because Gal 4 and Col 2 exist does not mean that Peter was not talking about ordinary water and fire.

No, the predominant view of the epsitolary and the use of the word in Greek and Roman writing decide the definition of the word - especially if we are going to adhere to the "normal writing" metric stipulated in the o.

That does not follow. And Heb 7 was using the term generically.

You have to be specific and evidential. Hebrews 7 does not use the word stoicheia.

The classical Greeks referred to the elements in the physical science sense at times,

Yes, at times it does so, but that is not the prevailing use and that the NT is talking about. They were not talking about the end of time or the end of the world Peter stated they were living in the last times, not the end of time. No one survives the end of time or the end of the world.

......at other times there was a mythology or superstition, which called for appeasing them.

Yes, but we can discard pagan mythology as an expectation for first century Christians.

 

[EarlyActs]

Good.

No, the predominant view of the epsitolary and the use of the word in Greek and Roman writing decide the definition of the word - especially if we are going to adhere to the "normal writing" metric stipulated in the o.

You have to be specific and evidential. Hebrews 7 does not use the word stoicheia.

Yes, at times it does so, but that is not the prevailing use and that the NT is talking about. They were not talking about the end of time or the end of the world Peter stated they were living in the last times, not the end of time. No one survives the end of time or the end of the world.

Yes, but we can discard pagan mythology as an expectation for first century Christians.

The normal writing is that we must follow Peter's train of thought. There is no way he meant what Gal 4 and Col 2 are about. It is nowhere in an extensive treatment. He had geological and cosmological detail that nowhere addresses the ridiculous traditions of circumcision or sabbath or diet. Not at all. Don't you know how to pin context. You are damaging meaning the way so many Bible handlers do.

Peter specifically said that this world was going to be destroyed as a judgement--or is the cataclysm a myth? It was to be replaced by the NHNE. This matches the Rev.

You are also wrong about 'stoicheia' in Hebrews: you need someone to teach you the beginning elements of God’s utterances.[t], 5:11. It is joined there to 'archon' and this becomes a list as you know of basic Christian beliefs that should not be new ground to the Christian readers. This is neither Judaic nor geological.

I don't know why people spend so much energy on mucking up the waters instead of letting the thing say what it wants to.

 

[EarlyActs]

The reason I mentioned the appeasement aspect of the pagan cultic 'stoicheia' was because that is how Judaizers were doing torah. They wanted God to owe them something--to maintain the world so they could have a nice life. This is so far off of what 2 P 3 is about when using it, I don't even know where to begin. It's like explaining US tax code to people learning Spanish.

 

[EarlyActs]

Maybe this would help. What is the skeptics question, if you were to put it in original words? Are they referring to something other than the coming in judgement, like Acts 17 and Heb 9 mentions? Why would they relate it to uniformitarian-type view of the world?

 

[TMSO]

Assumption and habit. Got it.

Except you don't. You may not want to misquote me. I already mentioned this once. You will notice I didn't say assumption, and the habit is giving God honor by recognizing Him in what I write.

I recommend changes in both categories.

If you didn't misquote me, you wouldn't say this. I will continue to honor God regardless of what you say.

Then look it up.

Why?

Good. The NAS and ESV are to most literal word-for-word (formal) translations. The KJV isn't far behind as a formal (not dynamic or conceptual) translation but it is not as good as the other two. Unblessedly, none of them - not even the KJV - gets the original languages correct in all places so a check with them is needed. Blessedly, we now live in an age when anyone with a computer can access the Hebrew and Greek within secods.

Do so.

You misunderstood me. When I am online I do look at other versions. If I don't own them in hard copy then obviously I can't look at them.

 

[TMSO]

Personal opinion is worthless.

That is the first mistake.

Christianity is not Judaism. The New Testament explains the Old Testament (not the other way around).

Which is why the apostles constantly went back to the Old Testament to explain the new. How many times was the Old Testament quoted to explain something they were saying? Christianity is not Judaism, but even if you read Paul, he said that Jesus is where the difference lies.

" 22 So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place, 23 as to whether the [l]Christ was [m]to suffer, and whether, as first from the resurrection of the dead, He would proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”" [Acts 26]

Judaization of Christianity was a problem in the first century against which the epistolary authors wrote. Stop applying a Judaic stocheia, and understand it as asserted in the NT!

The Jews got A LOT wrong in their theology. They got the kingdom wrong (along with its monarch, and its throne), the priesthood, the temple, and more. Dispensationalism commonly screws this up because of the emphasis on the OT and a literal reading of it over the NT. Don't make that mistake. Jesus was near-constantly correcting Jewish thought, doctrine, and practice and the epistolary continues that practice.

Since God was the one who told them these things, did He get it all wrong? Does God need correction that we have to change the Old Testament? The Old and New Testament work together, where the New is a fulfillment of the Old. You cannot understand the fulfillment of the New without looking at the Old. How did John show that Jesus is the Messiah? Straight to the Old Testament, reading it into the New.

Btw, if you're filtering what is written in the NT through an OT Jewish concept (regardless of the concept), then you're not adhering to the "normal writing" stipulated in the op.

Isn't prophecy an Old Testament Jewish concept? Are we throwing that out now?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Prove "99.99% of English readers of that passage have gotten it wrong for centuries too."

Your proof is in my last comment. Did you not read it?

 

[EarlyActs]

Which is why the apostles constantly went back to the Old Testament to explain the new. How many times was the Old Testament quoted to explain something they were saying? Christianity is not Judaism, but even if you read Paul, he said that Jesus is where the difference lies.

" 22 So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place, 23 as to whether the [l]Christ was [m]to suffer, and whether, as first from the resurrection of the dead, He would proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”" [Acts 26]

Since God was the one who told them these things, did He get it all wrong? Does God need correction that we have to change the Old Testament? The Old and New Testament work together, where the New is a fulfillment of the Old. You cannot understand the fulfillment of the New without looking at the Old. How did John show that Jesus is the Messiah? Straight to the Old Testament, reading it into the New.

Isn't prophecy an Old Testament Jewish concept? Are we throwing that out now?

It’s good to have you quote the Acts26 lines that limit Christian teaching to what Christ suffered and that he was being preached. That means not trying to figure out a future kingdom of Israel , just like Acts 1.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Assumption and habit. Got it.

I recommend changes in both categories.

Then look it up.

Good. The NAS and ESV are to most literal word-for-word (formal) translations. The KJV isn't far behind as a formal (not dynamic or conceptual) translation but it is not as good as the other two. Unblessedly, none of them - not even the KJV - gets the original languages correct in all places so a check with them is needed. Blessedly, we now live in an age when anyone with a computer can access the Hebrew and Greek within secods.

Do so.

What I have said here about ainios and stoicheia is objectively verifiable.

You have to check the original language of Aramaic for the entire New Testament writings.

 

[Josh II]

There is no way he meant what Gal 4 and Col 2 are about.

Prove it.

We know Peter was familiar with Paul's teachings because the two of them had come into conflict, and we know Peter had read at least some of Paul's letters by the time Peter wrote his second epistle because he says, "...as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction," and we know Peter agreed with Paul.

And I have just done what you should be doing: posting evidence (and not making evidenceless claims).

It is nowhere in an extensive treatment. He had geological and cosmological detail that nowhere addresses the ridiculous traditions of circumcision or sabbath or diet. Not at all.

Prove it.

Don't you know how to pin context.

I do. That is why I am disagreeing with you.

You are damaging meaning the way so many Bible handlers do.

Prove it.

And keep the posts about the posts, please. YOU are damaging meaning the way so many Bible handlers do. YOU are the one not reading the scriptures in "normal language" as stipulated in the op. You are the one posting the end of the world is described in 2 Peter 3 when nowhere in that chapter nor the entirety of the Bible is the end of the world ever predicted. YOU are the one telling everyone here two eschatological reforms are needed while acknowledging a huge segment of Christendom already holds to those views. YOU are the one saying "We have to have something that is able to get them from the incineration of earth to [the NHNE]," and using the transfiguration to justify that position..... even though Moses and Elijah appeared without the earth being incinerated! YOU are on record stating Peter should be read in a Judaic context even though a lot of Jewish theology was (and remains) incorrect) and Jesus and the apostles often corrected that theology by replacing it with a newer revelation coming from God. YOU are on record stating there is "geological and cosmological detail" where none is stated and no evidence by YOU is provided.

And now you are on record attacking me when all that is asked of you is to evidence and then prove your claims.

Peter specifically said that this world was going to be destroyed as a judgement...

That is not what he said. Go back and re-read 2 Peter 3. Pay attention to the details of what he wrote and think about them in light of whole scripture.

--or is the cataclysm a myth?

The word cataclysm is nowhere to be found in 2 Peter 3 and believing what Peter is describing is a cataclysm may well be what is obscuring your reading and understanding of the text. The judgment and destruction Peter and the first century Christians were anticipating is not a myth. It came and went in real time in real history. As Peter stated, they were living in the last times.

It was to be replaced by the NHNE.

Prove it.

This matches the Rev.

Prove it.

You are also wrong about 'stoicheia' in Hebrews: you need someone to teach you the beginning elements of God’s utterances.[t], 5:11. It is joined there to 'archon' and this becomes a list as you know of basic Christian beliefs that should not be new ground to the Christian readers. This is neither Judaic nor geological.

LOL! You just said what I posted in different words!!! You just proved what I posted correct! You just agreed with me!

"Stoicheia" is not Hebrew. It's Greek. By using Hebrews 5:11 it is proven the "elements" are not physical, but verbal. Hebrews 5:11's "elements" are utterances, not physical atoms. Peter was saying worldly ways - elements of earthly rule - were going to be destroyed, not the actual earth.

I don't know why people spend so much energy on mucking up the waters instead of letting the thing say what it wants to.

I do not know, either since the scriptures are fairly plain and easily understood once read in their entirety. You should probably stop mucking it up.

At least post some evidence.

 

[Josh II]

Your proof is in my last comment. Did you not read it?

I did read the last comment. It does not in any way prove 99.99% of English readers have gotten it wrong for centuries.

Look, I might join you in criticism of the other poster's position(s) but it's not okay to make broad, over-generalized statements indicting a huge swath of Christendom without proof. That was an unnecessary comment that does absolutely nothing to disprove the other poster's post or prove yours correct. That problem is made worse when you are confronted over that comment and asked to prove it and you don't. That comment was non sequitur, ad hominem, and guilt by association. The proper response is to dial it back and if the need to show a lack of understanding in the other poster's post is felt then evidence of erroneous understanding within his pov is what is needed.

• 99.99% of people are wrong.
• You must be one of them.

That is not an argument for or against anything.

I completely disagree with @TMSO's eschatology. I think the pre-trib, pre-mil modern futurist (or Dispensationalist) pov is wrong, and wretchedly so. The other poster and I have spent many a post arguing the matter and he does the same thing you just did: attack the poster in the absence of evidence.

Don't compound the error with tu quoque. Just acknowledge you do not have a clue what 99.99% of English readers do with the text of scripture and stick to the op. Stick to the op because the other poster will try to hijack it. Do not let him drag you away so that you are not contributing well to the op. because that is what Dispensationalists often do. It is very difficult to have an eschatological discussion with modern futurists because 1) they read scripture differently (based on a hermeneutic invented in the 19th century), 2) the frequently change the topic anytime any degree of consensus with the plain reading of scripture is approached, and 3) they resort to ad hominem.

Every thread in the Eschatology board proves it.

Don't be like them. Besides, the op is @EarlyActs' assertion two reforms are need, not @TMSO's self-aggrandized evidenceless comments about translating.

 

[EarlyActs]

The evid

Prove it.

We know Peter was familiar with Paul's teachings because the two of them had come into conflict, and we know Peter had read at least some of Paul's letters by the time Peter wrote his second epistle because he says, "...as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction," and we know Peter agreed with Paul.

And I have just done what you should be doing: posting evidence (and not making evidenceless claims).

Prove it.

I do. That is why I am disagreeing with you.

Prove it.

And keep the posts about the posts, please. YOU are damaging meaning the way so many Bible handlers do. YOU are the one not reading the scriptures in "normal language" as stipulated in the op. You are the one posting the end of the world is described in 2 Peter 3 when nowhere in that chapter nor the entirety of the Bible is the end of the world ever predicted. YOU are the one telling everyone here two eschatological reforms are needed while acknowledging a huge segment of Christendom already holds to those views. YOU are the one saying "We have to have something that is able to get them from the incineration of earth to [the NHNE]," and using the transfiguration to justify that position..... even though Moses and Elijah appeared without the earth being incinerated! YOU are on record stating Peter should be read in a Judaic context even though a lot of Jewish theology was (and remains) incorrect) and Jesus and the apostles often corrected that theology by replacing it with a newer revelation coming from God. YOU are on record stating there is "geological and cosmological detail" where none is stated and no evidence by YOU is provided.

And now you are on record attacking me when all that is asked of you is to evidence and then prove your claims.

That is not what he said. Go back and re-read 2 Peter 3. Pay attention to the details of what he wrote and think about them in light of whole scripture.

The word cataclysm is nowhere to be found in 2 Peter 3 and believing what Peter is describing is a cataclysm may well be what is obscuring your reading and understanding of the text. The judgment and destruction Peter and the first century Christians were anticipating is not a myth. It came and went in real time in real history. As Peter stated, they were living in the last times.

Prove it.

Prove it.

LOL! You just said what I posted in different words!!! You just proved what I posted correct! You just agreed with me!

"Stoicheia" is not Hebrew. It's Greek. By using Hebrews 5:11 it is proven the "elements" are not physical, but verbal. Hebrews 5:11's "elements" are utterances, not physical atoms. Peter was saying worldly ways - elements of earthly rule - were going to be destroyed, not the actual earth.

I do not know, either since the scriptures are fairly plain and easily understood once read in their entirety. You should probably stop mucking it up.

At least post some evidence.

The evidence is the topic of discussion of 2P3. Why was the skeptic question asked?

I don’t do posts that are a mile long. One question at a time.,