AcesLucky wrote:

Ananias917 wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:20:15 -0800, oldwetdog
<oldwetdog@hotmail.com> spake thusly:


I noted that while Jesus talked about coming in
the clouds, that He was using symbolic language,
to state that He was retuning in judgment
against the land.

Yea. Everything that turns out to be false becomes symbolic, not
literal. That's how the myth stays alive, and how otherwise intelligent
people can become unwitting idiots. Just change what was said to "mean"
something other than what was said.

Yea, scripture is best when written in riddles. Brilliant!

Actually, PD likes to take anything litteral if he can use it to support
his false doctrine, Preterism.

On the other hand, he takes something as sympblic if he can use it to
support his false doctrine, Preterism.

PD does not care about the context in finds a word in, he just
"translates" it to mean something he wishes, so he can prove his false
doctrine, Preterism.

Preterism is a lie.

Consider Dave's treatment of the word "element" by Peter and Paul.

Elements Dissolved

What I would like to do first is just read the scripture and get a clear
idea of the context: that is, the subject Peter is writing about. This
first reading is just to become familiar with the subject--not wrestle
with the meanings and definitions of the words. Then, 2 Peter 3:3-13 in
its simplest, plainest meaning:

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.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are
kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of
persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein
the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

It seems clear, in its most simple terms, that in this passage Peter is
talking about the passing away of the world, and that, according to His
promise, looking for the new heavens and new earth.

A few notes:
In verses 3 and 4, Peter warns about scoffers in the last days. The
scoffers he mentions may be those of his day who assumed the Lord would
come in the generation of the First Century Saints, but any scoffers in
these Last Days.

In verses 5 and 6, Peter states that they (scoffers) willingly remain
ignorant of the fact that the world, in the days of Noah, was destroyed
with water.

In verse 7, Peter states, "But the heavens and the earth, which are now,
by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day
of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." The World once having been
destroyed by water is--by the Word of God, being reserved unto fire
against THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.

In verse 8 and 9, Peter tells us to be patient because time is
meaningless to God, and He is "longsuffering" (patient) in the hope that
none should perish.

So far the subject of Peter's letter is "the end of the world" as it
occurred in Noah's time, and then warning about scoffers who are mislead
in "the last days."

Then in verse 10 Peter says the Lord will come, the heavens shall pass
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,
"the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

Comments:
The "world" was destroyed by flood; but the World remained, and 8 people
repopulated the world. It is easy, then, to see that words can be used
in literal or figurative ways. The "world" which was destroyed by flood
was the civilization of man, and their works and ways: while the World
(the Planet) remained. Peter then clearly uses the definitive meaning of
the term in saying "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the
same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of
judgment." He does not say "world," but specifically "the heavens and
the earth" and tells us why it is reserved "unto fire:" it is held and
set aside "unto the day of judgment."

A word Study:
It has been said by someone else (certainly not me) that the word
"elements" appears twice in this text. And, that word is from the Greek,
as follows.

Quote:

Stoicheion = something orderly in arrangement, that is,
(by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial)
constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively):
- element, principle, rudiment.

We should note that what is after the dash is not
definitions, but is what words this Greek word was
translated into, in the KJV. We should note that
it was translated into, "element", "principle" and
"rudiment". This does not speak of a planet thing.

End quote

I certainly have no problem with this definition of the word "element,"
or in using "rudiment" or "principle" as a synonym.

However, a "word study" can either lead to clarification of a scripture,
or sophistry and deception.

I would like you to consider the sophistry which follows. I will mark a
few statements with * for later consideration. My comments will be in
[brackets] until the conclusion.

-----
Quote:

The Koine Greek word that was translated into
the word, "elements" in what Peter wrote, is used
seven times in the New Testament. The primary
meaning of the word is, when in common usage
for a Jew, "elements (of learning), fundamental
principles or even letters of the alphabet, ABC's,
the very elements of the truth of God.".

[Note this statement: "The primary meaning of the word is, when in
common usage for a Jew..." The problem with this, is that this writer
has gone from "definition" to "usage," and inserted a definition not
included in his dictionary; nor does it allow for the fact that Peter
was not using the term "element" in the common usage of the Jews--since
they (or any humans) did not think of the "elemental" destruction of the
universe."]

From this definition we can see that the primary
use of the word in the context provided, would
mean the elements of religious training, or the
ceremonial precepts that are common to the
worship of the Jews or, in effect, their entire
religious system!

[Did you follow the process of arriving at this wrong conclusion? The
"context provided" was this writer's own, not the context (Peter's)
wherein he found the word. So he has removed the word from its original
context, and now redefined it by using another a definition from another
context.]

But is this an accurate assessment? Let's take a look
at the other uses of the word in the NT and see what
it shows. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture,
right? So as we saw earlier, the Greek word was
translated into three English words, which were,
again... "element(s)", "principle(s)", "rudiment(s)".

So let's see if this word was ever used as a way to
describe something physical, or if it was always
applied to a system that is not a physical one...

[Now this writer sets up the reader for a wrong conclusion by stating
that he is looking for a use that "is not a physical one..."]

"Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage
under the ELEMENTS of the world" - Galatians 4:3

Here, it is clear that Paul is speaking of the ways
of the world and not the planet itself.

[How Paul used the word here is fine with me...]

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather
are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak
and beggarly ELEMENTS, whereunto ye desire
again to be in bondage?" - Galatians 4:9

["The elements" of the Law are its very foundation, the minute parts,
the "principles" and "rudiments" which makeup the Law. I have no problem
with how Paul uses the word.}

*
Thus in the above passage, Paul directly ties
the usage of that SAME WORD, to the old
Jewish religious system!

From a different letter, Hebrews, we see...

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers,
ye have need that one teach you again which be
the first PRINCIPLES of the oracles of God; and
are become such as have need of milk, and not
of strong meat." - Hebrews 5:12

Here, the same Greek word is used to denote the basic
teachings of the Christian faith and ties directly to
what is stated above as the primary meaning of the
word, just as the other two verses note a system.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
RUDIMENTS of the world, and not after Christ."
- Colossians 2:8

[I have no problem with how Paul uses the word in this verse."]

*
Again, it obviously speaks of a system (this time,
of the world), not physical things.

"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the
RUDIMENTS of the world, why, as though living
in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,"
- Colossians 2:20

*
Again, it is clear that Paul is talking about being
dead to the WORLDLY SYSTEM that is sinful
and not the physical world around us.

He speaks in that chapter, of circumcision and
ordinances.

And what else is clear?

Now if we combine the two passages from Colossians
above, we can see that Paul was talking about false
teachers in the church, who were trying to promote
their RELIGIOUS SYSTEM, which promoted THE LAW.

[Actually, I have no problem with how Paul uses the term, or what he is
teaching...]

Paul, in that chapter, clearly talks about the practice
of circumcision and not being under the ordinances
of THE LAW! So what are the "rudiments" he mentioned?

[Now this writer sets the stage for his wrong conclusion.]

*
So Paul clearly tied this word to the Jewish legal
religious system! And if we read that chapter,
we can easily see that Paul is discussing the system
under the Law of Moses and what our relationship
is to it (if any), as I said.

[Up to this point I have no problem with what Paul uses the word
"element" for or what he intends to teach by using it.]

Now, totaling these five passages, with the two
passages from Peter, for our total of seven passages,
we see that what is being discussed, is not the
physical heaven and earth, but the old system under
the Law.

[There is the final wrong conclusion. What was being discussed by Paul
was figurative--that is, "the old system under the Law." That usage by
Paul is not proof of Peter's usage or intended meaning.]

As stated, I marked several spots with *

a) Thus in the above passage, Paul directly ties
the usage of that SAME WORD, to the old
Jewish religious system!

b) Again, it obviously speaks of a system (this time,
of the world), not physical things.

c) Again, it is clear that Paul is talking about being
dead to the WORLDLY SYSTEM that is sinful
and not the physical world around us.

d)So Paul clearly tied this word to the Jewish legal
religious system! And if we read that chapter,
we can easily see that Paul is discussing the system
under the Law of Moses and what our relationship
is to it (if any), as I said.
-----

I have no problem with any of the statements individually; but the point
here, is that this writer has been preparing the reader for his wrong
conclusion: namely; that since Paul used the term in a way other than
literal and definitive, then Peter COULD NOT HAVE USED THE WORD IN A
LITERAL AND DIFINITIVE WAY (meaning the basic ingredients of the earth).
Since Paul used the word as a metaphor to mean "the old system under the
Law," then the FORCED wrong conclusion is that Peter must have intended
the same meaning REGARDLESS OF THE CONTEXT in which he used it.

*THIS IS SOPHISTRY*

This is "slight of hand," 'trickery;' it is a manipulation of the
meaning of words to steal the Truth from God's Children.

Conclusion:
So the world in Noah's day was destroyed by water, while the Heavens and
Earth in the Last Days will be destroyed by fire. Peter goes on to give
clear details on how complete this last destruction will be: the
"elements will melt in fervent heat." Now, the elements are the
"rudimentary" or the basic and primary parts of which the earth
consists. Peter is telling us, using more specific terms, that this
destruction of the last days will not be like that of the first
destruction. In that destruction by water, the World remained. But in
this destruction of the Last Days, even the Iron, Carbon, Hydrogen, and
Oxygen; the Electrons, Protons and Neutrons will also be destroyed.
Peter is telling us that the destruction of the Last Days would include
the very elemental physical properties of which this World consists.

-----
In the beginning God created this universe from nothing by His Word, and
by His Word He will return this universe to nothing from which it came.

Amen.

owd

http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
-----
By peace he shall destroy many. Daniel
.