70 A.D. passage...or future?

[Guest]

Now wait just a cotton pickin minute. Let me get this straight. You think that 2 Peter 3 is speaking of a literal New Heaven and New Earth. The same one spoken of in Revelation 21-22?

Rev 21:1;4 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Isaiah 65:17; 20 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind...No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

Now if you make the New Heavens and Earth speak of a future time after the LAST DAY where there is no more death, then you have a problem. Isaiah says that there will still be death there.

Could you please explain this to me.

Thank you...8) Mike

I don't take Isaiah 65:17-20 to be literally read as if people will die in this time period. I mean, the statement itself isn't literal:

For the child shall die one hundred years old

Why would someone dying at 100 be a called a "child"?

That's why I don't try and form my eschatology around taking the prophetic writings literally. They are rich with symbolic imagery.

[Guest]

HEllo Sean.......

That's why I don't try and form my eschatology around taking the prophetic writings literally. They are rich with symbolic imagery

Could we apply this also to the yet to come "day of the Lord", and the "parousia"??

And the "New Heavens and Earth"..................symbolic??

jim

[Guest]

HEllo Sean.......

That's why I don't try and form my eschatology around taking the prophetic writings literally. They are rich with symbolic imagery

Could we apply this also to the yet to come "day of the Lord", and the "parousia"??

And the "New Heavens and Earth"..................symbolic??

jim

Sure, that's why I don't base my eschatology on a "literal first" principle of the prophetic writings. I base them on what appear to be interpretations of the prophetic writings made by the apostles themselves. Who better to be our guide? So when Peter makes the claim that the elements will be burned up, and the destruction is likened to the flood of Noah, do we go back to Isaiah and try and interpret it ourself or let Peter interpret that passage in Isaiah for us?

[Guest]

Hi Sean, following that principal of the n.t. author helping to interpret the o.t., which author helped in deciding that Isa. 65 is not literal as you stated prior?

I guess i would add how one would deduce that the "new heavens and earth" from 2 pet 3:13 is a literal new planet and atmosphere with inductive reasoning from the prior verses?

(i only state that because i think mike's point about the elements is valid, and also i think it outweighs the attempt to demonstrate that the destruction is the whole planet,etc, based solely on the past reference to the flood/ the inductive analysis does not sway me, especially considering mikes explanation of peter's point to those that were alive, etc., which is an additional strong point, i believe, that seems to indicate nearness of event, therefore not being a total destruction.)

jim

[Guest]

Now wait just a cotton pickin minute. Let me get this straight. You think that 2 Peter 3 is speaking of a literal New Heaven and New Earth. The same one spoken of in Revelation 21-22?

Rev 21:1;4 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Isaiah 65:17; 20 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind...No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

Now if you make the New Heavens and Earth speak of a future time after the LAST DAY where there is no more death, then you have a problem. Isaiah says that there will still be death there.

Could you please explain this to me.

Thank you...8) Mike

I don't take Isaiah 65:17-20 to be literally read as if people will die in this time period. I mean, the statement itself isn't literal:

For the child shall die one hundred years old

Why would someone dying at 100 be a called a "child"?

That's why I don't try and form my eschatology around taking the prophetic writings literally. They are rich with symbolic imagery.

Another thing to consider Sean. If Peter is interpreting Isaiah 65 for us in 2 Peter 3 as cataclysmic world destruction...then why don't we see cataclysmic world destruction in Isaiah 65? And if poetic language is being used here in Isaiah then what precludes Peter from using it in his letter?

Another thing...

How come the only thing we see is God judging a rebellious people who had worshipped other Gods?

I do find it interesting that Paul quotes this passage in Romans as though it was being fulfilled in his day.

Soooo...Is it really consistant to say that Paul said it was being fulfilled in his day...but that Peter was saying that it was going to be fulfilled sometime off in the future?

It was being fulfilled in their day...and the work would come to completion on "The Day of the Lord."

I think the only way to be consistent as a partial preterist is to say that there are multiple "New Heavens and Earths."

Any thoughts???

Mike