Religions > Bible > 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time?
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Azaliah" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2006 01:22:35 PM |
| Object: |
2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that
with the Lord one day is as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8
Here, Peter is obviously exaggerating, to make the point
that time means nothing to God, so be patient. And he
wrote that to people in the 1st century.
However, when debating the end times issues and when
cornered by the time statements of the NT, this is the
"fall back" verse that the Futurists retreat to, when they
cannot refute someone else's position on the time
statements found in the Bible. Rather than dealing with
the point made, they ignore the Scripture that was just
quoted to them and quote the one above. They act as
if merely quoting this passage somehow proves that
everything they believe is correct and as if it means that
they can safely ignore every time statement found in
the Bible, by trying to apply this passage literally.
Well, what would happen if we did apply that passage
literally and every day was a thousand years? It would
mean that when Jeremiah prophesied, for example,
about the "70 years", that it actually meant that hundreds
of millions of years had to pass, since each day of those
70 years would actually be a thousand years. Huh?!?
Therefore, it is obvious that this passage is not meant
as an actual measuring stick with which to calculate
time in the Bible. :)
And all I can say is, that if that is literally true, that
means that God is bound by linear time. I'm sorry guys,
but you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say
that God has "1,000 year days" and then claim that
God does not experience time.
Also bear in mind that it doesn't say that a thousand
years IS one day.
Furthermore, days are divided by nights, otherwise,
there is no "day". If there is no night, then it isn't
"1,000 year days", it is "one long day". And then,
you can't even call it a "day", because it can't be
measured without a night and it's not divided by
anything. :) Thus, it simply becomes eternity,
for which there is no measure of time.
So take your pick, folks! The contradiction cannot be
tolerated! Either God is outside of time, as you claim
or He experiences 1,000 year days, as you also claim.
Which is it? Any idiot knows that both can't be true!
And please, don't insult our intelligence by claiming
that "all things are possible with God", which is the
next fall back verse that the Futurists run to, when
challenged.
"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them,
With men this is impossible; but with God
all things are possible." - Matthew 19:26
That Scripture is specifically speaking of the salvation
of those who seem to be beyond saving. Go read it
in context. It does NOT speak of God being bound
by linear time and being outside of time, at the same
time and should not be used there.
To use that passage as a broad brush and claim that
contradictory things are possible with God, is to also
say that it is possible for God to contradict Himself!
Thus, we might as well say that it is possible for God
to commit sin and be sinless at the same time! Hey,
after all, ALL THINGS are possible with God, right?!
And no, claiming that "I just believe the Bible" is not
an answer, since the Bible does not contradict itself,
but that answer implies that it does, but you believe
it anyway. (:
The truth is, that not all things are possible with God!
For example, God cannot lie.
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie,
promised before the world began." - Titus 1:2
We should not make claims that paint passages with
a broad brush and forget the context and pretend that
a verse can just be applied anywhere and everywhere
that's convenient for our doctrine.
Now the Futurists claim that if we look around, we see
that people are scoffing at the Gospel and they say that
this proves that we are in the last days NOW.
But doesn't this position assumes that no one was scoffing
before our generation today? After all, if beginning to see
the scoffing is proof of the last days and they are claiming
that we are in the last days, because we see scoffing, then
isn't that the same as saying that those who first see the
scoffing are seeing a sign that they are in the last days?
As we all know, Futurists choose to pretend that it's never
happened before, many did scorn and scoff and mock them
in the 1st century. And since Peter is responding to those
who wrote him about what was happening, the passages
below are not proof that the last days are now, but rather,
that they were in the last days back then!
C'mon, people! The previous generations to us were making
this claim, forget about those centuries before them! So how
can anyone claim to be honestly assessing the Scriptures and
make the claim that our generation now, today, seeing mocking,
means that we are in the last days today?! Huh?!?
That makes NO SENSE, at all; none whatsoever!!!
As Peter said in response to their word to him about the
scoffers that were asking, "Well, where is he? I thought
he was coming back [within this generation]?"....
2 Peter 3:3-4
3) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the
last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue
as they were from the beginning of the creation.
This demonstrates that back in the 1st century, they were
already experiencing the scoffing! We need to stop reading
our Bibles as if they were just written the day before we
decided to open one!
In fact, the Bible clearly says that the last days were in
the 1st century:
Hebrews 1:1-2
1) God, who at various times and in various ways spoke
in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2) has IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken to us by His Son,
whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom
also He made the worlds.
"Little children, it is the last hour..." - 1 John 2:18a
Now please don't bother to insult our intelligence and make up
something on the fly, pretending that you believed your new
made up crap all along, trying to explain away this problem,
when we all know that you never said what you're about to
write before today! Please do not let your doctrine be more
important to you than the truth of the Scriptures!
For example, these people argue with me, claiming that
I am wrong and that the last days were not in the 1st century.
But then, when I prove that they were with the passages
quoted above, then, all of the sudden, they say;
"Well, the last days started in the 1st century and are
continuing today."
People will respond and say that, even though THEY KNOW
that they never believed that before and will pretend that
they always believed that. Huh? Then why were you telling
me how wrong I was, for saying what I said? :)
They changed their doctrine on the fly, instead of stopping
to examine their doctrine! This means that it is their
doctrine that is of the utmost importance to them and not
the truth of the Scriptures! Otherwise, why bother trying
to protect the doctrine?
And it is a ridiculous attempt, at best! If all the days are
the last days, then there are no last days, since they would
all be the same days!
So you must make a choice. Let the Scriptures be the guide,
or a doctrine built on vanity, as I will demonstrate below.
With all due respect, GET HONEST PEOPLE... NOW!!!
This is important! And please, when your own doctrine
corners you, don't bother pretending that "it's not that
important anyway". Futurists spend their time looking
into end times issues and aside from the Bible itself,
the most popular sellers are books dealing with the
"end times". So don't tell me, "it's not that important
anyway", because we both know it is! This is merely
another fall back position of the Futurist, when cornered.
And isn't it amazing that THE SAME authors write new books,
every few years, which for some reason, always end up with
the current events somehow, "being foretold in Bible
prophecy"?! Isn't that just so convenient?!
How is it, that the daily news, year after year, generation
after generation, is in the Bible, somehow fulfilling THE
VERY SAME PROPHECIES that they claimed past news
events did?!?
And isn't it amazing that N-O-T O-N-C-E....
....and I mean, N-O-T O-N-C-E, do we see any one of
the writers telling us, "Well, I was wrong all of those
other times. Sorry for misleading you." ?!?
PLEASE, PEOPLE!!! WAKE UP!!!
I don't mean to be rude. I don't mean to be insulting.
I just mean to help you see it.
The Futurists want us to believe that we should take
the fantastic statements of the Bible as being physically
literal and the time statements of the Bible as not
meaning what they say.
They want us to believe that we should wait to see
Jesus riding on a white horse from Heaven and yet,
we should think that when John said that "THE TIME"
was "AT HAND", that it means thousands of years
had to go by.
But by what method of interpretation should we interpret
the fantastic statements by the plain and simple? Should
I rethink a simple time statement, because I haven't yet
seen a three headed monkey circle the globe, for example?
Or should I take the three headed monkey as being symbolic
of the three nations in a prophecy coming together as a
world power and believe the simple time statement that
in this case happened to say... "in this generation"???
And tell me... Why don't they wait for a literal seven headed
beast to rise up? They know that's symbolism, that's why.
And yet they accuse *me* of picking and choosing?! (:
They want us to believe that Revelation, the most symbolic
book in the Bible, is mostly physically literal, except of
course, for the time statements and certain other things.
And then, when they know that the Temple was destroyed
just as Jesus said it would be in the 1st century, they try
to explain that away, so that we can believe that two guys
will literally breathe fire in Jerusalem. Please! <chuckle>
And here's the question that no Futurist has ever answered...
Why is it that Daniel, who tied his book to the time when
the Messiah appeared, was told to seal his book until that
time, which was about 600 years later and yet, John was
told specifically *NOT* to seal his book, because "THE TIME
was at hand" and yet, that means that people were supposed
to wait for almost 2,000 years and still counting?
In other words, they try to get around the time statements.
But let me ask you... which is more likely to be literal?
1) The time is at hand (note that it says "THE TIME
is at hand").
2) Jesus riding a white horse down from Heaven
(as if He needed a horse)?
They claim that this time statement means that when it happens
it will happen quickly. Note that John wasn't told how
quickly it would happen, once it began. Was he supposed
to record it and play it back in slow motion? :)
No, it doesn't say how quickly it would happen, once it began
to happen. After all, what exactly does it say was "at hand"?
It says that T-H-E T-I-M-E was "at hand". The time for
the events to happen, was at hand! This destroys their claim!
And if it says what they claim, then why are they forced to
come up with these arguments, which try to explain away
the time statements? Simple! Because the time statements
are clear and direct and are not shrouded in symbolism
and they know that! However, they do not wish to believe
it, because that means that it isn't all about them and that
my friends, is vanity! When you refuse to believe something,
because it means it wouldn't all about *you*, then that is
vanity! (:
As one person said... "Well, if the Bible's not all about us,
then what good is it?"
Now I ask you... Is that a valid reason to claim that one's
doctrine is correct? Because you feel that the Bible is
worthless, if it wasn't put together just for you and your
generation? You decide.
This is what Futurism tells us to believe. You see if it
makes any sense to you...
Daniel: Seal the book, because the time is not yet and
about 600 years has to go by first.
John: Do NOT seal the book, because THE TIME is at hand
and this means that thousands of years have to go by first.
Hmmm... :)
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
24 Dec 2006 10:48:26 AM |
|
|
"Azaliah" <who was pasta Davey before he ate a giantwaffle and turned into a
flower> wrote in message \
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that
with the Lord one day is as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8
Here, Peter is obviously exaggerating,
Here whoever wrote 2 Peter is showing his imagination.
2 Peter was never written by Peter, as the VAST MAJORITY of NT scholars will
tell you.
And all the early church fathers agree.
But it is not hard to see that the followers of Saulus (Paul) the apostate,
love the fake books!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jude Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
24 Dec 2006 11:59:14 AM |
|
|
"Zadok" <nobler@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:ubyjh.97720$rv4.86851@edtnps90...
"Azaliah" <who was pasta Davey before he ate a giantwaffle and turned into
a
flower> wrote in message \
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that
with the Lord one day is as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8
Here, Peter is obviously exaggerating,
Here whoever wrote 2 Peter is showing his imagination.
2 Peter was never written by Peter, as the VAST MAJORITY of NT scholars
will
tell you.
And all the early church fathers agree.
But it is not hard to see that the followers of Saulus (Paul) the
apostate,
love the fake books!!
Do you realize how retarded that statement is. Oh, because good ole God is
eternal, one day is like a thousand, hoo hum... ***** if God isn't aware of
the time... :) time? time? Where does the time go?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
25 Dec 2006 09:15:29 AM |
|
|
Azaliah said on Dec 24, 11:22 am: 2 Peter 3:8 -
1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time?
2 Pet. 3:8 says the same thing two different ways.
-First, it says that 1 day to humans is like 1,000
years to God. Second, it says that 1,000 years to
humans is like 1 day to God. Taken together, no
single mathematical equation can possibly summarize
both statements. The whole point is that God can't
possibly be restricted in any way by the human sense
of time.
Azaliah said: so be patient.
Exactly right; Christians are to have "long
patience" for the 2nd coming (Jas. 5:7). 2 Pet. 3:8
is given in the context of people thinking God was
slack in His promise of Christ's return (2 Pet.
3:3-4). 2 Pet. 3:9 makes clear that Christians are
not to consider God as slack "as some men count
slackness", i.e. they are to remember that God isn't
restricted by the human sense of time, and that He
wants to save as many people as possible before
Jesus returns.
Azaliah said: [Quoted Heb. 1:2] IN THESE LAST DAYS
-From what was just seen from 2 Peter, it's clear
that Christians shouldn't rush and go back to
reading everything in the human sense of "days",
i.e. literal 24-hour periods. The "last days" to God
could be thousands of years long to humans. E.g., if
Adam was created roughly 6,000 years ago, and Christ
will return in 10 years and begin His 1,000-year
reign, then there could be a total of roughly 7,000
years for the Adamic race on this planet. To God,
these could seen as something like 7 days, so that
the "last days" could be the last 3,000 years of the
7,000-year total.
Azaliah said [Quoted 1 Jn. 2:18]: it is the last
hour
There, "hour" is from a Greek word which doesn't
have to refer to a literal 60-minute period; it can
simply be translated as "time", as it is in the KJV;
the same Greek word is translated as "season" in
Philemon 15; 2 Cor. 7:8, Jn. 5:35.
Azaliah said: John said that "THE TIME" was "AT
HAND"
Rev. 1:3, 22:10 must mean that the time was at hand
(or "near") to God, not to men, for Rev. 6-22 still
hasn't happened yet.
Azaliah said: Should I rethink a simple time
statement
Certainly, in light of what was seen in 2 Peter.
Azaliah said [Re: Rev. 11:5]: two guys will
literally breathe fire in Jerusalem. Please!
If Elijah could repeatedly call fire all the way
down from heaven to slay people (2 Kin. 1:10-12),
why would one find it hard to believe that the 2
witnesses couldn't possibly call fire out of their
own mouths to slay people?
Azaliah said: Why is it that Daniel, who tied his
book to the time when the Messiah appeared, was
told to seal his book until that time, which was
about 600 years later and yet, John was told
specifically *NOT* to seal his book, because "THE
TIME was at hand" and yet, that means that people
were supposed to wait for almost 2,000 years and
still counting?
Even though the time that all of Daniel will be
fulfilled would have been "at hand" to God in the
6th century BC in the same sense that the time that
all of Revelation will be fulfilled was "at hand" to
God in the 1st century AD, the difference is that it
doesn't say that Daniel was sealed because "the time
isn't at hand"; the reason it was sealed isn't given.
Daniel contains many prophecies that have not yet
been fulfilled (e.g. Dan. 11:21-12:3), and for some
reason God wanted them "sealed" up until "the end"
(Dan. 12:4,9). Jesus said that even after some
events future to His own time occurred, still "the
end shall not be yet" (Mk. 13:7). So parts of Daniel
had to remain sealed even after the time of the
Messiah. Today, parts of Daniel have been unsealed
and fulfilled, while other parts remain sealed and
unfulfilled, while still other parts might be
unsealed and unfulfilled.
Revelation, like Daniel, contains many prophecies
that have not yet been fulfilled (e.g. Rev.
6:4-22:15), but God didn't want them "sealed" (Rev.
22:10). So most of Revelation remains unsealed and
unfulfilled.
Azaliah said: When you refuse to believe
something, because it means it wouldn't be all
about *you*, then that is vanity
Indeed, just as when one refuses to believe that a
time statement isn't all about one's own sense of
time, but could refer to God's sense of time, that
would be vanity.
-Futurists don't have to believe, e.g., that Rev.
6-18 is unfulfilled because they want to experience
its fulfillment; indeed pre-trib futurists claim
they won't be here for any of Rev. 6-18, and even
post-trib futurists are commanded to pray that all
the horrors it describes won't be about them, but
that they'll be able to "escape" them (Lk. 21:36),
whether by being spiritually protected on earth
(cf. Eph. 6:13), or by dying before Rev. 6-18 even
starts (cf. Is. 57:1). So a vanity of wanting
prophecy to be about them doesn't have to play
any part in why futurists are futurists.
Azaliah said: As one person said... "Well, if
the Bible's not all about us, then what good is
it?"
Christians are never to see things as "us" present
Christians versus "them" past or future Christians,
for all Christians are "one" (Jn. 17:20-21). Even
though the events of Rev. 6-18 hopefully won't be
about present Christians, just as they weren't about
past Christians, reading the scriptures of Rev. 6-18
is still good for present Christians, just as it was
good for all past Christians; not only for the
reason of the special blessing of Rev. 1:3, but also
for the reasons that all scripture is good for all
Christians of all times (e.g. Mt. 4:4; 2 Tim. 3:16,
Rom. 10:17; 1 Pet. 2:2; Jas. 1:21).
*******
(Subsequent poster)
Zadok said on Dec 24, 8:48 am [Re: 2 Pet. 3:8]:
Here whoever wrote 2 Peter is showing his
imagination.
Peter wasn't simply showing his knowledge of the
Old Testament? (Ps. 90:4).
Zadok said: 2 Peter was never written by Peter,
as the VAST MAJORITY of NT scholars will tell you.
And all the early church fathers agree.
On what basis did any early church father reject
2 Peter? And on what basis does any "scholar" opine
against 2 Peter?
Zadok said: (Paul) the apostate
There's no evidence that Paul was apostate. He is a
true apostle of Jesus Christ (Acts 26:16-20).
*******
(A subsequent poster)
Bill M said on Dec 24, 11:39 am [Re: the Bible]:
It's only books of myths and fables
To the contrary (e.g. 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 Jn. 1:1-10;
2 Tim. 3:16). There's no proof against the Bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
25 Dec 2006 01:34:25 PM |
|
|
"Read The Bible" <> wrote in message
....
Azaliah said on Dec 24, 11:22 am: 2 Peter 3:8 -
Amazinmg that two clowns get together and argue the merits of a fake!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Rock Is Peter" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
26 Dec 2006 12:21:31 AM |
|
|
Zadok wrote:
"Read The Bible" <> wrote in message
...
Azaliah said on Dec 24, 11:22 am: 2 Peter 3:8 -
Amazinmg that two clowns get together and argue the merits of a fake!!
They're not talking about you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
26 Dec 2006 05:47:54 AM |
|
|
"The Rock Is Peter" <> wrote in message
Amazinmg that two clowns get together and argue the merits of a fake!!
They're not talking about you!
Wow there comes another clown!!
Obviously the circus is in town!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
25 Dec 2006 04:32:04 PM |
|
|
On 25 Dec 2006 07:15:29 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Read The
Bible" <bibleverse2@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
Azaliah said on Dec 24, 11:22 am: 2 Peter 3:8 -
1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time?
2 Pet. 3:8 says the same thing two different ways.
-First, it says that 1 day to humans is like 1,000
years to God. Second, it says that 1,000 years to
humans is like 1 day to God. Taken together, no
single mathematical equation can possibly summarize
both statements. The whole point is that God can't
possibly be restricted in any way by the human sense
of time.
God is not bound by time. Therefore, it is not
a statement of "God time". It is simply Peter
telling people to be patient and that time means
nothing to God. Therefore, time statements in
the Bible are not to be "spiritualized away" into
meaninglessness. They are stated from the
human perspective.
Azaliah said: [Quoted Heb. 1:2] IN THESE LAST DAYS
-From what was just seen from 2 Peter, it's clear
that Christians shouldn't rush and go back to
reading everything in the human sense of "days",
i.e. literal 24-hour periods.
Again you snip out the Bible verses that are a ruin
for your doctrine. Hebrews 1:1-2 states clearly that
they were in the last days then. There is nothing
you can say that will change that.
The "last days" to God
could be thousands of years long to humans.
Now you're back to claiming that 2 Peter 3:8
was literal and that means that God is bound
by time.
Face it, you Futurists want to claim that it is all
about us today and that we are in the last days.
Yet when it is shown that they were in the last
days then, then all of the sudden, all days become
the last days.
I went over this and you snipped it, pretending
that I didn't even address it.
You give an answer that I already proved isn't
a valid one. So what do you do? You snip what
I said and pretend that your answer wasn't
already refuted. That's dishonest! (:
As I said the last time...
In fact, the Bible clearly says that the last days were in
the 1st century:
Hebrews 1:1-2
1) God, who at various times and in various ways spoke
in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2) has IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken to us by His Son,
whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom
also He made the worlds.
"Little children, it is the last hour..." - 1 John 2:18a
Now please don't bother to insult our intelligence and make up
something on the fly, pretending that you believed your new
made up crap all along, trying to explain away this problem,
when we all know that you never said what you're about to
write before today! Please do not let your doctrine be more
important to you than the truth of the Scriptures!
For example, these people argue with me, claiming that
I am wrong and that the last days were not in the 1st century.
But then, when I prove that they were with the passages
quoted above, then, all of the sudden, they say;
"Well, the last days started in the 1st century and are
continuing today."
People will respond and say that, even though THEY KNOW
that they never believed that before and will pretend that
they always believed that. Huh? Then why were you telling
me how wrong I was, for saying what I said? :)
Azaliah said: John said that "THE TIME" was "AT
HAND"
Rev. 1:3, 22:10 must mean that the time was at hand
(or "near") to God, not to men, for Rev. 6-22 still
hasn't happened yet.
Now we're back to "God time" again. Do you take drugs
before posting?! Or are you really this dishonest?!
Azaliah said: Why is it that Daniel, who tied his
book to the time when the Messiah appeared, was
told to seal his book until that time, which was
about 600 years later and yet, John was told
specifically *NOT* to seal his book, because "THE
TIME was at hand" and yet, that means that people
were supposed to wait for almost 2,000 years and
still counting?
Even though the time that all of Daniel will be
fulfilled would have been "at hand" to God in the
6th century BC in the same sense that the time that
all of Revelation will be fulfilled was "at hand" to
God in the 1st century AD, the difference is that it
doesn't say that Daniel was sealed because "the time
isn't at hand"; the reason it was sealed isn't given.
Daniel contains many prophecies that have not yet
been fulfilled (e.g. Dan. 11:21-12:3), and for some
reason God wanted them "sealed" up until "the end"
(Dan. 12:4,9). Jesus said that even after some
events future to His own time occurred, still "the
end shall not be yet" (Mk. 13:7). So parts of Daniel
had to remain sealed even after the time of the
Messiah. Today, parts of Daniel have been unsealed
and fulfilled, while other parts remain sealed and
unfulfilled, while still other parts might be
unsealed and unfulfilled.
Revelation, like Daniel, contains many prophecies
that have not yet been fulfilled (e.g. Rev.
6:4-22:15), but God didn't want them "sealed" (Rev.
22:10). So most of Revelation remains unsealed and
unfulfilled.
You did not even begin to address the question!
All you did was give me a bunch of double talk!
You make up your own crap and then claim it's
in the Bible!
Where does it say, "Parts of Daniel are sealed"?
It says.. "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the word
and seal *THE BOOK*..." - Daniel 12:4a
Sorry, you *LOSE*!
And now to post again what you snipped and ignored
and which you fit right into...
And here's the question that no Futurist has ever answered...
Why is it that Daniel, who tied his book to the time when
the Messiah appeared, was told to seal his book until that
time, which was about 600 years later and yet, John was
told specifically *NOT* to seal his book, because "THE TIME
was at hand" and yet, that means that people were supposed
to wait for almost 2,000 years and still counting?
In other words, they try to get around the time statements.
But let me ask you... which is more likely to be literal?
1) The time is at hand (note that it says "THE TIME
is at hand").
2) Jesus riding a white horse down from Heaven
(as if He needed a horse)?
They claim that this time statement means that when it happens
it will happen quickly. Note that John wasn't told how
quickly it would happen, once it began. Was he supposed
to record it and play it back in slow motion? :)
No, it doesn't say how quickly it would happen, once it began
to happen. After all, what exactly does it say was "at hand"?
It says that T-H-E T-I-M-E was "at hand". The time for
the events to happen, was at hand! This destroys their claim!
And if it says what they claim, then why are they forced to
come up with these arguments, which try to explain away
the time statements? Simple! Because the time statements
are clear and direct and are not shrouded in symbolism
and they know that! However, they do not wish to believe
it, because that means that it isn't all about them and that
my friends, is vanity! When you refuse to believe something,
because it means it wouldn't all about *you*, then that is
vanity! (:
As one person said... "Well, if the Bible's not all about us,
then what good is it?"
Now I ask you... Is that a valid reason to claim that one's
doctrine is correct? Because you feel that the Bible is
worthless, if it wasn't put together just for you and your
generation? You decide.
This is what Futurism tells us to believe. You see if it
makes any sense to you...
Daniel: Seal the book, because the time is not yet and
about 600 years has to go by first.
John: Do NOT seal the book, because THE TIME is at hand
and this means that thousands of years have to go by first.
Hmmm... :)
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
24 Dec 2006 11:37:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:22:35 -0800,
in article <260so2dpvk8ud6mqbo8mieib6mv07ljg2p@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, when debating the end times issues and when
cornered by the time statements of the NT, this is the
"fall back" verse that the Futurists retreat to, when they
cannot refute someone else's position on the time
statements found in the Bible. Rather than dealing with
the point made, they ignore the Scripture that was just
quoted to them and quote the one above. They act as
if merely quoting this passage somehow proves that
everything they believe is correct and as if it means that
they can safely ignore every time statement found in
the Bible, by trying to apply this passage literally.
To simplify, there are at least two choices. One is you can
allow a specific, strict, literal, interpretation of a few
"time" passages to govern your interpretation of all Bible
prophecy, convince yourself that this is an absolutely
irrefutable starting point for which no other possible
interpretation can possibly be allowed, then throw the entire
book of Revelation and world history to the winds of spiritual
oblivion, to make it fit that interpretation. This is my
understanding of the Preterist position. Thus, "generation"
must only mean the lifetime of people then listening to Christ
speak, and phrases like "soon" or "at hand" must mean within
the first century.
The other is you can accept an interpretation of a few "time"
passages which is allowed by the language, context, and
meaning of the words, and which also lets the entire book of
Revelation basically mean what it says. This is my
understanding of the futurist position. Thus, "generation"
means "age", or the "people of an age", "quickly" means the
events transpire rapidly, once they begin, "at hand" means
near, in the sense it's the next prophetic event on the
calendar for the church, etc.
I believe in the principle of clear reference, which is that
you allow a basically literal interpretation of the large body
of clear doctrine on a subject to govern your interpretation
of a few, passages which can be interpreted in a seemingly
contradictory way, rather than allow a specific, strict
interpretation of a few words in a few passages govern your
interpretation of a large body of doctrine. Either the nearly
entire book of Revelation is just a big allegory, or else the
"time" passages allow for it's literal fulfillment. I choose
the latter.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
24 Dec 2006 01:39:32 PM |
|
|
"Randy" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gdto2p7ig1b5bakmo9o7ssdcvdv8qehkt@pulpitfire.org...
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:22:35 -0800,
in article <260so2dpvk8ud6mqbo8mieib6mv07ljg2p@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, when debating the end times issues and when
cornered by the time statements of the NT, this is the
"fall back" verse that the Futurists retreat to, when they
cannot refute someone else's position on the time
statements found in the Bible. Rather than dealing with
the point made, they ignore the Scripture that was just
quoted to them and quote the one above. They act as
if merely quoting this passage somehow proves that
everything they believe is correct and as if it means that
they can safely ignore every time statement found in
the Bible, by trying to apply this passage literally.
To simplify, there are at least two choices. One is you can
allow a specific, strict, literal, interpretation of a few
"time" passages to govern your interpretation of all Bible
prophecy, convince yourself that this is an absolutely
irrefutable starting point for which no other possible
interpretation can possibly be allowed, then throw the entire
book of Revelation and world history to the winds of spiritual
oblivion, to make it fit that interpretation. This is my
understanding of the Preterist position. Thus, "generation"
must only mean the lifetime of people then listening to Christ
speak, and phrases like "soon" or "at hand" must mean within
the first century.
The other is you can accept an interpretation of a few "time"
passages which is allowed by the language, context, and
meaning of the words, and which also lets the entire book of
Revelation basically mean what it says. This is my
understanding of the futurist position. Thus, "generation"
means "age", or the "people of an age", "quickly" means the
events transpire rapidly, once they begin, "at hand" means
near, in the sense it's the next prophetic event on the
calendar for the church, etc.
I believe in the principle of clear reference, which is that
you allow a basically literal interpretation of the large body
of clear doctrine on a subject to govern your interpretation
of a few, passages which can be interpreted in a seemingly
contradictory way, rather than allow a specific, strict
interpretation of a few words in a few passages govern your
interpretation of a large body of doctrine. Either the nearly
entire book of Revelation is just a big allegory, or else the
"time" passages allow for it's literal fulfillment. I choose
the latter.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Dream on and interpret the illusionary Bible in what ever way fits your
desires.
Its only books of myths and fables anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
25 Dec 2006 02:20:33 AM |
|
|
Bill M wrote:
"Randy" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gdto2p7ig1b5bakmo9o7ssdcvdv8qehkt@pulpitfire.org...
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:22:35 -0800,
in article <260so2dpvk8ud6mqbo8mieib6mv07ljg2p@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, when debating the end times issues and when
cornered by the time statements of the NT, this is the
"fall back" verse that the Futurists retreat to, when they
cannot refute someone else's position on the time
statements found in the Bible. Rather than dealing with
the point made, they ignore the Scripture that was just
quoted to them and quote the one above. They act as
if merely quoting this passage somehow proves that
everything they believe is correct and as if it means that
they can safely ignore every time statement found in
the Bible, by trying to apply this passage literally.
To simplify, there are at least two choices. One is you can
allow a specific, strict, literal, interpretation of a few
"time" passages to govern your interpretation of all Bible
prophecy, convince yourself that this is an absolutely
irrefutable starting point for which no other possible
interpretation can possibly be allowed, then throw the entire
book of Revelation and world history to the winds of spiritual
oblivion, to make it fit that interpretation. This is my
understanding of the Preterist position. Thus, "generation"
must only mean the lifetime of people then listening to Christ
speak, and phrases like "soon" or "at hand" must mean within
the first century.
The other is you can accept an interpretation of a few "time"
passages which is allowed by the language, context, and
meaning of the words, and which also lets the entire book of
Revelation basically mean what it says. This is my
understanding of the futurist position. Thus, "generation"
means "age", or the "people of an age", "quickly" means the
events transpire rapidly, once they begin, "at hand" means
near, in the sense it's the next prophetic event on the
calendar for the church, etc.
I believe in the principle of clear reference, which is that
you allow a basically literal interpretation of the large body
of clear doctrine on a subject to govern your interpretation
of a few, passages which can be interpreted in a seemingly
contradictory way, rather than allow a specific, strict
interpretation of a few words in a few passages govern your
interpretation of a large body of doctrine. Either the nearly
entire book of Revelation is just a big allegory, or else the
"time" passages allow for it's literal fulfillment. I choose
the latter.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Dream on and interpret the illusionary Bible in what ever way fits your
desires.
Its only books of myths and fables anyway.
Now that you've had the nerve to inform us all of this, I'm sure
everyone will just reject it all immediately.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
25 Dec 2006 01:24:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:37:52 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Randy <pulpitfire@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:22:35 -0800,
in article <260so2dpvk8ud6mqbo8mieib6mv07ljg2p@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, when debating the end times issues and when
cornered by the time statements of the NT, this is the
"fall back" verse that the Futurists retreat to, when they
cannot refute someone else's position on the time
statements found in the Bible. Rather than dealing with
the point made, they ignore the Scripture that was just
quoted to them and quote the one above. They act as
if merely quoting this passage somehow proves that
everything they believe is correct and as if it means that
they can safely ignore every time statement found in
the Bible, by trying to apply this passage literally.
To simplify, there are at least two choices. One is you can
allow a specific, strict, literal, interpretation of a few
"time" passages to govern your interpretation of all Bible
prophecy, convince yourself that this is an absolutely
irrefutable starting point for which no other possible
interpretation can possibly be allowed, then throw the entire
book of Revelation and world history to the winds of spiritual
oblivion, to make it fit that interpretation.
If that is what you wish to claim I think,
then so be it. But you have not and cannot
deal with the simple questions.
And the fact is, that you are a hypocrite.
You take the fantastic statements of prophecy
and claim they are literal, but only the ones
that you want to be literal, of course and then
you throw all of time in the Scriptures into
spiritual oblivion.
You believe that Jesus will ride a horse and
a cloud, but can't believe simple time statements
found in Scripture. You would rather claim
that God is not bound by time, but at the
same time, has "1,000 year days" and then
when the hypocritical contradiction of this
is stated, you say, "I just believe the Bible".
But you don't! You refuse to believe the
simple, simple, simple time statements!
And of course, you snipped and ignored
the question regarding Daniel and John
and the sealing vs no sealing issue.
But hey, time statements aren't a problem
for your doctrine, right? :)
We both know that you know you're avoiding
the issue and that you did not deal with the
issues I presented.
Have a nice day. :)
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
27 Dec 2006 09:02:15 AM |
|
|
Azaliah said on Dec 25, 11:24 am: you throw all of
time in the Scriptures into spiritual oblivion.
Regarding Rev. 1:3's "the time is at hand",
futurists don't throw it into spiritual oblivion,
but leave it in the hands of God, for whom even
something 2,000 years later would be "at hand".
Azaliah said: You believe that Jesus will ride a
horse and a cloud
Jesus will come the 2nd time on a white horse (Rev.
19:11), just as He came the 1st time on a donkey
(Zech. 9:9, Mt. 21:5). Jesus will return with clouds
(Rev. 1:7), just as He left in a cloud (Acts 1:9-11).
Azaliah said: the question regarding Daniel and
John and the sealing vs no sealing issue.
There's really no issue; God simply wanted to seal
Daniel for some reason (12:9), and didn't want to
seal Revelation (22:10).
*******
(Subsequent post)
Azaliah said on Dec 25, 2:32 pm [Re: time
statements in the Bible]: are stated from the
human perspective.
Not always. That's the whole point of 2 Pet. 3:8-9,
that we aren't to count God slack in His promise
"as some men count slackness", but are to always
remember that long times to us can be short to God,
and He wants to save as many people as possible.
Azaliah said: Hebrews 1:1-2 states clearly that
they were in the last days then
Right, but not the last 24-hour "days". Again,
that's the whole point of 2 Pet. 3:8-9: a "day" to
God could be something like 1,000 years to men. The
"last" 1,000-years could be the last 3,000 years of
a 7,000 years for the Adamic race. If the 7,000
years started roughly around 4,000 BC, we would
still be in the last "days"; Christ could come in 10
years and begin the final 1,000 years, the
millennium (Rev. 20:4-6).
Azaliah said: Now you're back to claiming that
2 Peter 3:8 was literal and that means that God is
bound by time.
Not at all; God isn't bound by time in any way.
That's the whole reason 1,000-year "days" are even
a possibility.
Azaliah said: you Futurists want to claim that it
is all about us today
No, not if the "last days" began in the 1st century.
Azaliah said [Re: 1 Jn. 2:18]: the last hour
There, the Greek word for "hour" can be translated
as "time" (e.g. 1 Jn. 2:18, KJV) or "season" (e.g.
Philemon 15).
Azaliah said: Where does it say, "Parts of Daniel
are sealed"?
Clearly, while the book was "sealed" (Dan. 12:4),
this doesn't mean that most of it wouldn't be
clearly understood even in Daniel's time, for
weren't even the symbolic visions explained to
Daniel? And it says that "knowledge shall be
increased", i.e. that people over time would
understand Daniel's visions more and more. E.g.,
people dug into the Hebrew and came to understand
that the "weeks" in Dan. 9 could refer to "sevens",
which could be periods of 7-years. Using this
insight, Dan. 9:25 gives a precise prediction of the
year of Jesus' 1st coming. And maybe we'll find that
Dan. 9:25 also gives a precise prediction of the
year of Jesus' 2nd coming, but that prediction might
be "sealed" up even tighter, i.e. maybe we have to
dig deeper, all the way down into the ultimate
Hebrew root-word for the Hebrew word translated
"weeks", which contains the idea of "completions",
which could be single years. If this is the case,
then Jesus could return 69 years after the 1947 UN
commandment to restore the nation of Israel.
And what if we dig down into the Hebrew for "cut-
off" in Dan. 9:26 and realize that it's the word
used to make a covenant, or treaty. I.e. Dan. 9:26
could refer to a false Messiah ruling Israel 62
years after the 1947 UN commandment, with whom the
Antichrist will make a 7-year treaty (Dan. 9:27,
cf. 11:22-23).
Only in "the end" will all the facts hidden deep
within some of Daniel's words be unsealed (Dan.
12:9), and it will be the Holy Spirit who will
unseal all of them, revealing everything beforehand
(Amos 3:7, Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:10; Mk. 13:23).
Azaliah said [Re: Daniel]: tied his book to the
time when the Messiah appeared
No; the complete unsealing of his words is tied
to "the end" (Dan. 12:9), which the Messiah said
wouldn't yet be even after some events future to
His own time (Mk. 13:7). The end-time parts of
Daniel still haven't been fulfilled (e.g. Dan.
7:24-27, 8:23-26, 9:27, 11:15-12:3).
Azaliah said: As one person said... "Well, if
the Bible's not all about us, then what good is
it?"...
All of the Bible is good for all Christians of all
times (Mt. 4:4; 2 Tim. 3:16), who are all "one" in
the sight of God (Jn. 17:20-21).
Azaliah said: ...This is what Futurism tells us to
believe.
Most futurists don't believe that the end-time parts
of Bible prophecy are about them at all; they think
they'll be raptured all the way into the third
heaven before the tribulation even starts. And even
those futurists who recognize the truth that there
won't be any rapture until "after the tribulation"
(Mt. 24:29-31; cf. 2 Thes. 2:1-8, Rev. 13:10,
14:12-13) still hope the end-time horrors won't be
about them at all, as they're praying they'll
"escape" all those things (Lk. 21:36), whether by
being protected on the earth (Eph. 6:13) or by dying
before they start (Is. 57:1). So maybe we shouldn't
give much heed when non-futurists tell us what
-Futurism tells us to believe.
Azaliah said: Daniel: Seal the book, because the
time is not yet
No, there's no "because" in Daniel; the reason for
its sealing isn't given, though we might be given
a clue elsewhere (Prov. 25:2).
*******
(Subsequent poster)
Zadok said on Dec 25, 11:34 am [Re: 2 Peter]:
a fake
No, 2 Peter is scripture; there's no proof that it's
a fake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
28 Dec 2006 11:55:23 AM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2006 07:02:15 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Read The
Bible" <bibleverse2@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
Azaliah said on Dec 25, 11:24 am: you throw all of
time in the Scriptures into spiritual oblivion.
Regarding Rev. 1:3's "the time is at hand",
futurists don't throw it into spiritual oblivion,
but leave it in the hands of God, for whom even
something 2,000 years later would be "at hand".
That's just flat out stupid. (: To say that, is to say
that the time was NOT at hand. It can't be at hand,
when it isn't at hand. I can't say that someone is
almost at their destination, when they are only
1/10 of the way there. (:
The text says "the time is at hand". Read it.
"THE TIME is at hand". And that was written
in the 1st century.
Azaliah said: the question regarding Daniel and
John and the sealing vs no sealing issue.
There's really no issue; God simply wanted to seal
Daniel for some reason (12:9), and didn't want to
seal Revelation (22:10).
You're playing games. And you ignore Scripture
when it suits you! The Bible does not say, "for
some reason". God gave the reason. He said
that it was because "the time is not yet". With
John, he was told NOT to seal the book, because
"THE TIME" was "at hand". So yes, there *IS* an
issue there! And yes, you *ARE* avoiding it!
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
30 Dec 2006 04:05:03 AM |
|
|
Azaliah said on Dec 28, 9:55 am [Re: Rev. 1:3]:
It can't be at hand, when it isn't at hand.
It can be at hand to God, when it isn't at hand to
men. That's why we aren't to count God slack "as
some men count slackness" (2 Pet. 3:9), but are to
remember that to God a thousand years are as one
day, and He wants to save as many people as
possible (2 Pet. 3:8-9). The seeming delay in the
fulfillment of the 2nd coming has required "long
patience" on the part of men (Jas. 5:7).
Azaliah said [Re: Sealing of Daniel]: He said
that it was because "the time is not yet".
What verse are you thinking of here, and in which
translation? There's no verse in the KJV which
gives the reason why the book was to be sealed; it
only says that the book would be sealed until the
time of the end (Dan. 12:4,9).
Azaliah said [Re: Rev.; John]: was told NOT to
seal the book, because "THE TIME" was "at hand".
Yes (Rev. 22:10).
Azaliah said: there *IS* an issue
No, there's no issue. God simply wanted to seal
Daniel for some reason, and didn't want to seal
Rev. It could be because Daniel might contain
pointers to the exact year of Jesus' 2nd coming,
and God didn't want that year getting out until
the temporal generation that would have to endure
the reign of the Antichrist arrived. They would
need to know beforehand of the blessing of Dan.
12:11-12, Rev. 16:15, to help them endure unto the
very end (Mt. 24:13), i.e. to reach the 1,335th day
after the abomination of desolation (Dan. 12:11-12),
when Jesus could return to destroy the Antichrist
(2 Thes. 2:8).
If Dan. 9:25 contains a sealed reference to the
2nd coming happening 69 years after the 1947 UN
resolution restoring the nation of Israel, then
Christ could return in 2016. Go back 1,335 days
from 2016 and you end up with the abomination of
desolation possibly occurring in 2012. The
Antichrist may decide to commit it on 12/21/2012,
as this is a date of great significance to many
unbelievers, who say it's the end of one cosmic
age and the beginning of a New Age. And the
Antichrist may wait until midnight of that night of
longest darkness to commit his most dark deed. That
night will also be the 1st night of winter, and the
Sabbath day, as if to spite all the prayers of all
those Jesus-Christians down through the ages (Mt.
24:20,15).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
31 Dec 2006 02:56:06 PM |
|
|
On 30 Dec 2006 02:05:03 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Read The
Bible" <bibleverse2@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
Azaliah said on Dec 28, 9:55 am [Re: Rev. 1:3]:
It can't be at hand, when it isn't at hand.
It can be at hand to God, when it isn't at hand to
men.
That's a load of crap! And once again, you ignore
the fact that Daniel was told to seal his book,
because the time was not yet. John was told not
to seal his book, because the time was at hand.
Yet you want us to believe that because 600 years
had to pass before the Messiah arrived, Daniel was
told to seal his book, because the time was not yet
and that John was told not to seal his book, because
the time was at hand and that meant that almost
2,000 years and counting had to pass. Right! <chuckle>
There is no "at hand in God time". God does not
experience time and thus, all time is from man's
perspective, not God's.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
01 Jan 2007 02:19:04 AM |
|
|
Azaliah said on Dec 31, 12:56 pm: Daniel was told
to seal his book, because the time was not yet
Actually, there's no verse that says that; no reason
is given for the sealing of Daniel's book. It simply
says that it will be sealed until the time of the
end (Dan. 12:4,9).
Azaliah said: John was told not to seal his book,
because the time was at hand.
That's right, there is a verse that says that (Rev.
22:10).
Azaliah said: because 600 years had to pass before
the Messiah arrived, Daniel was told to seal his
book
No, no verse says that was the reason for him to
seal his book. And his book includes far more than
prophecies about the 1st coming of the Messiah. It
includes prophecies all the way to "the end", which
Messiah said would not be even after events future
to His own time (Mt. 24:6).
Azaliah said: John was told not to seal his book,
because the time was at hand and that meant that
almost 2,000 years and counting had to pass.
It didn't have to mean that, but in fact it has
turned out to mean that, for the events of Rev.
Chapters 6-22 still haven't happened; therefore the
time was "at hand" to God, not to men (cf. 2 Pet.
3:8-9).
Azaliah said: God does not experience time
Sure He does; everything in heaven doesn't happen
all at once; measurable time passes even up there
(e.g. Rev. 8:1); that's why, e.g., there's time for
the sequence of worship to occur in Rev. 4:8-11.
Azaliah said: all time is from man's perspective,
not God's.
No; rather, God's perspective of time is different
than man's perspective (e.g. 2 Pet. 3:8-9).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Azaliah" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
01 Jan 2007 01:47:58 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2007 00:19:04 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Read The
Bible" <bibleverse2@yahoo.com> shouted thusly:
Azaliah said on Dec 31, 12:56 pm: Daniel was told
to seal his book, because the time was not yet
Actually, there's no verse that says that; no reason
is given for the sealing of Daniel's book. It simply
says that it will be sealed until the time of the
end (Dan. 12:4,9).
Which means that the time was not yet, when he
wrote it.
Azaliah said: John was told not to seal his book,
because the time was at hand.
That's right, there is a verse that says that (Rev.
22:10).
Azaliah said: because 600 years had to pass before
the Messiah arrived, Daniel was told to seal his
book
No, no verse says that was the reason for him to
seal his book. And his book includes far more than
prophecies about the 1st coming of the Messiah.
Daniel speaks of the coming of the Messiah.
The Messiah came. As you were told before,
Daniel was not told to seal only parts of the
book, as you previously claimed.
Azaliah said: John was told not to seal his book,
because the time was at hand and that meant that
almost 2,000 years and counting had to pass.
It didn't have to mean that, but in fact it has
turned out to mean that, for the events of Rev.
Chapters 6-22 still haven't happened; therefore the
time was "at hand" to God, not to men (cf. 2 Pet.
3:8-9).
You avoided the issue, as usual. You must think
that God is an idiot. You claim He knows what's
going to happen, but yet he told John not to seal
his book, because THE TIME was at hand and it
"happened to turn out" that it meant almost 2,000
years and still counting? Please! (:
Azaliah said: God does not experience time
Sure He does;
If He does, then He is bound by linear time.
Tell me, what did God do before He created time
in the physical universe?
Azaliah said: all time is from man's perspective,
not God's.
No; rather, God's perspective of time is different
than man's perspective (e.g. 2 Pet. 3:8-9).
You really don't care what you claim, as long as
you get to believe that it's all about you. Vanity!
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
02 Jan 2007 04:32:03 AM |
|
|
Azaliah said on Jan 1, 11:47 am [Re: Daniel]:
the time was not yet, when he wrote it.
The time of parts of Daniel were past to Daniel
when he wrote them (e.g. Dan. chapters 1, 3, 4, 5,
6), while in other parts he speaks of things that
were present at the time but past now (e.g. Dan.
2:37), while in other parts he speaks of things that
were future at the time but past now (e.g. Dan.
2:39), while in other parts he speaks of things
that were future at the time and are still future
now (e.g. Dan. 2:44).
Azaliah said: Daniel speaks of the coming of the
Messiah.
Daniel speaks of many different things, such as the
past coming of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 1:1-2), Daniel's
own experiences and those of his friends (e.g. Dan.
1:6-21, 3:12-30), an experience of Belshazzar (Dan.
5), events relating to Darius and Daniel (Dan. 6),
the coming of a series of empires subsequent to
Babylon (e.g. Dan. 2:39-44), the 1st and possibly
also the 2nd coming of the Messiah (e.g. Dan. 9:25),
the coming of the Antichrist (e.g. Dan. 9:26-27,
11:21-45) and his immediate predecessors (e.g. Dan.
11:13-20), etc.
Azaliah said: The Messiah came.
Only the 1st time. The 2nd time will bring the total
destruction of the Antichrist and his ten kings
(Dan. 8:25, 7:11,26, 11:45, 2:42,44; cf. Rev.
17:12-14, 19:19-21) and the establishment of
Christ's kingdom over all the earth (Dan. 2:44,
7:14,27; cf. Rev. 20:4-6, 5:10, 2:26-29, Zech.
14:9-19, Is. 2:4), along with the bodily
resurrection of all dead believers (Dan. 12:2-3; cf.
Rev. 20:4-6; 1 Cor. 15:23,52; 1 Thes. 4:16; Rom.
8:23). None of these things have happened yet (e.g.
2 Tim. 2:18).
Azaliah said: Daniel was not told to seal only
parts of the book
How were those parts of Daniel which were already
past (e.g. Dan. chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) sealed in
your view? Do you think that they weren't understood
by people even in Daniel's own time? And weren't
even Daniel's symbolic visions explained in detail?
(e.g. Dan. 7:16-27, 8:16-25, 9:23-27, 10:14,
11:2-12:3). Because of this, Dan. 12:4,9 must mean
that some of the deeper Hebrew meanings of some of
the words in, e.g. Dan. 9:24-27, would be sealed
until the time of the end, because they, e.g. could
foretell the year the Antichrist will make his
treaty with Israel, and the year of the 2nd coming;
just as Dan. 12:11-12 (cf. Rev. 16:15) may foretell
the very day of the 2nd coming.
Azaliah said [Re: Rev. 22:10]: he told John not to
seal his book, because THE TIME was at hand and it
"happened to turn out" that it meant almost 2,000
years and still counting?
Yes, the events of Rev. chapters 6-22 have never
been fulfilled, so the "at hand" must mean at hand
to God, for whom 1,000 years are as one day (2 Pet.
3:8). We aren't to count God "slack concerning his
promise, as some men count slackness" (2 Pet. 3:9).
Azaliah said [Re: God experiences time]: If He
does, then He is bound by linear time.
No, God can experience time without being bound by
it in any way, just as a human can experience a DVD
movie without being bound by the "movie time" in any
way: he can freeze it at any time, or watch it in
slow motion, or fast motion, or backwards. That's
why a single day to humans can seem like 1,000 years
to God (2 Pet. 3:8a); He can slow it that far down
to His own experience. And that's why 1,000 years to
humans can seem like a single day to God (2 Pet.
3:8b); He can speed it that far up to His own
experience.
Azaliah said: what did God do before He created
time in the physical universe?
What does a movie director do before he puts in his
new DVD-movie and sits down to watch it? God could
have foreordained every event from the beginning of
time in this universe to the end of time in this
universe, long before even the 1st event in this
universe ever transpired. This is how Jesus could
have been slain from before the foundation of the
world (Rev. 13:8; 1 Pet. 1:20). And no doubt God
has an infinite number of universes in all different
stages of design and preparation, and in different
stages of progression in the sequences of their own
timelines, until their timelines are finished ("The
End") and they're "ejected", "erased", and replaced
with preliminary designs for new universes.
In light of this, what an infinite understatement it
is say that it's not all about us. Our entire
universe with its 100,000,000,000 galaxies each
containing some 100,000,000,000 stars and untold
billions of planets with civilizations containing
untold billions of diverse intelligent creatures in
all different stages of progression -- all of this
awesome universe is no doubt less than a speck of
dust to our infinite and Almighty God (cf. Is.
40:15,17,18, Eccl. 12:8, 4:16).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
24 Dec 2006 11:52:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:22:35 -0800,
in article <260so2dpvk8ud6mqbo8mieib6mv07ljg2p@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
Therefore, it is obvious that this passage is not meant
as an actual measuring stick with which to calculate
time in the Bible. :)
Correct. It is what our time is "like" to God.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy" |
|
| Title: Re: 2 Peter 3:8 - 1,000 Years in "God Time" = 1 Day in Human Time? |
24 Dec 2006 11:49:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:22:35 -0800,
in article <260so2dpvk8ud6mqbo8mieib6mv07ljg2p@4ax.com>,
Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, what would happen if we did apply that passage
literally and every day was a thousand years? It would
mean that when Jeremiah prophesied, for example,
about the "70 years", that it actually meant that hundreds
of millions of years had to pass, since each day of those
70 years would actually be a thousand years. Huh?!?
The Bible is not unclear in how it applies the passage of
time, in these cases. It says in Peter a day with the Lord is
"like" a thousand years. This is addressed to people who are
being tempted by scoffers who deny the Lord could be returning
as promised, since it seems to us like it's taking so long for
Him to come. To these, Peter is saying they should be
patient, understanding that it is God's longsuffering which is
allowing people time to repent before He returns to judge.
With God, a thousand of our years are "like" a day.
This is not, however setting up a hard, universal standard,
which indicates that any time referred to in the Bible must be
translated into thousand year days. For example, when the
prophecies were given to Jeremiah and Daniel, they were to be
understood, and were literally fulfilled, in human years. The
context shows whether it is to be understood figuratively
("like"), or literally "seventy years", "seventy sevens", etc.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
