Recall the second paragraph from my previous Negative: “One of the greatest difficulties to overcome in communicating with others is their understanding/use misunderstanding/misuse of language.” This is exemplified by Patrick’s misunderstanding/misuse of the term literal. Patrick contrasts literal versus figurative, even misapplying the latter term. God the Father is literal, but He is not material/physical; Holy Spirit is literal, as is the body of Christ, but neither consists of material elements. Patrick needs to properly define his terms. Patrick is attempting to coerce me into agreeing that he is allowed to invent his own personal hermeneutic so that he can interpret the language of his proof-texts literally, i.e., in 2 Peter 3 for instance, “the heavens” would mean the material cosmos, and “the earth” would mean the big blue marble we live on, as opposed to let’s say, the inhabited land of the Roman Empire.
Follow me here as I demonstrate from only the 30% of the Bible which Patrick has confined me to, why this hermeneutic is false. Peter said, “...and the elements shall melt with fervent heat...” He insists that we interpret this literally, so, let’s interpret it literally, based on sound hermeneutics and the original language.
The Greek term rendered "elements" (KJV) is "stoicheion" which is used 7 times in the NT; twice in this passage.
stoicheion
Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of G4748; something orderly in arrangement, that is, (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively): - element, principle, rudiment. (Strong's);
"The elements (ta stoicheia). Old word (from stoichos a row), in Plato in this sense, in other senses also in N.T. as the alphabet, ceremonial regulations," (Robertson);
"The elements (στοιχεῖα)
Derived from στοῖχος, a row, and meaning originally one of a row or series; hence a component or element. The name for the letters of the alphabet, as being set in rows. Applied to the four elements - fire, air, earth, water; and in later times to the planets and signs of the zodiac. It is used in all ethical sense in other passages," (Vincent; emp. mine RR).
Note the "meaning" (definition) versus what it is "applied" to, i.e., because its being "applied" to "fire, air, earth, & water" does not change the definition and therefore is merely opinion-based presupposition.
Let’s look at the other 5 usages of this term in Patrick’s 30% Version of the Bible, and see how stoicheion appears those texts.
“Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:” (Gal.4:3);
Were the Jews in bondage to rocks/trees/birds/bees/red-clay-soil and star-dust, or does Paul use stoicheion in reference to the ordinances/law of Moses?
“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?” (Gal.4:9);
Were these Galatians turning to “slugs/bugs/mosquitos, and moon-rocks” to be in bondage, or were they being persuaded to be “so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel”?
“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,” (Col.2:8);
“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,” (Col.2:20);
See how Paul uses stoicheion in the genre with philosophy, vain deceit, tradition, and ordinances? See that?
“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,” (Heb.5:12);
Are the oracles of God made up of cosmic-stardust, magma and sea water?
Since this term is consistently—yea—exclusively, used in reference to elemental principles & laws, and never refers to the elements of material creation, it cannot be forced to mean something else in 2 Peter 3 which is totally foreign to its definition and its consistent usage in all other places, based on Patrick’s own rules, especially when considering that such a concept of the destruction of the material universe was never in Hebrew thought. If Patrick would practice what he preaches, i.e., "speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent," and, "allow the scripture to be its own commentary and dictionary," then there is no hermeneutic: there is no example of stoicheion, interpreted literally, referring to material creation, nor is there ever an instance of any type of language, hyperbolic or otherwise, which resulted in the end of existence of the universe.
Instead of eisegeting your literal interpretation into these passages, I insist we be scriptural, and as you say, allow the context to dictate what it means. Can you interpret 3 verses out of 2 Peter 3 as the literal/material globe, sun, moon and stars? No, because the context will not allow it. Were the events depicted therein, literal? Yes, but only as the context allows, and the same goes for the other passages you mention.
The biblical test of a prophet was if his prediction came true; all of it, not just in part (Deu.18:15). The OT scriptures were written in the common everyday Hebrew language spoken by housewives and fishermen, priests and doctors, as was the Greek language of the NT. Contextual time statements are/were spoken with the same succinctness as “He that believes and is baptized...” not some mystical indiscernible code language beyond human discernment.
Because God is from everlasting to everlasting, is not the issue; rather, since God created time, it’s irrefutable that He understands time, perfectly; so, in communicating time to man in man’s time-bound world, then either He could and therefore did communicate time to man in terms that man commonly understood; OR, 1) God could not effectively communicate time to man, in which case, His Deity is compromised; 2) God would not communicate time to man in clear and concise terms, in which case, His motives are to be questioned!
When Patrick proclaims, “God is not interested in our thoughts for something to be imminent to us,” I convulse in horror as this is the baldest of absurdities and atrocious sacrilege. God has always been impeccably punctual, and the fact that He ordained the Festal calendar reproves and rebukes Patrick’s quibbles about “God is not on our timetable.” IF “God is not interested in our thoughts for something to be imminent to us,” then why the 100+ time statements of imminence in the NT? Why did God send John as the messenger to say, “who hath warned you to flee from the wrath about to come,” (Mat.3:7)?
Why did Jesus say, “The Son of man is about to come...” (Mat.16:27); Why did Paul say that the resurrection and the judgment was about to occur, (Acts 17:31; 24:14,15; 24:25)? Why did Peter say that “the end of all things is at hand,” and, “THE time has come for THE judgment to begin...” (1Pet.4:5-17)? Why did James say that “the coming of the Lord is at hand,” and “the Judge is standing right at the door” (Jas 5:8-9), IF “God is not interested in our thoughts for something to be imminent to us”??
Since it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18), then He is bound by time by His very oath’s sake. This unequivocally means that when God said a particular event was near, at hand, or shortly to occur, then that entailed everything man commonly understood in relation to his lifespan; conversely, when God said the event was not near, and was far off, or many days in the future, again, man understood these statements relative to his common everyday language. So if God expected man to comprehend His statements regarding time objectively, (and there’s no conscionable reason why He wouldn’t) then He could and did communicate time accurately to man in the way man typically comprehended time.
It is only when Futurists’ traditions, feelings and opinions are impaled on these 100+ time statements in the NT, that what the text says is challenged.
Patrick has offered up 2 Peter 3:8 as the once-and-for-all end-all argument which (supposedly) enables/justifies their elasticizing God’s time statements to infinity and beyond! What they fail to comprehend is the unquestionable fact that Peter runs to the OT, AS DID PATRICK and, “with crowbars and sledgehammers” he inserts a quotation from Psalms 90 into this text as he reminds his audience of what the holy prophets said. Why would Holy Spirit/Peter bring the context of Psalms 90 into a futurist-assumed prediction of ‘the end of time’ when the "invoked context" (which is an established rule of hermeneutics) of this Psalm is, “For we←[Israel] have been consumed by Your anger, And by Your wrath we are terrified. You have set our iniquities before You, Our secret sins in the light of Your countenance. For ALL OUR DAYS have passed away in Your wrath; We finish our years like a sigh,”?
Peter invokes this thousand-years-AS-a-day context as a contrast to the imminent consummation of the Jewish age (Mat.24:3) which would give way to the eternal nature of the everlasting Messianic kingdom.
Patrick defeats his entire quibble when he says, “And what about those cows on hill 1,001,” thus demonstrating for me that he can’t interpret literally (his definition) the very text he invokes as his argument, as he likewise impales himself on his own sword in running to the OT.
The only other text which references this 1000-year period is Revelation 20 which is in a vision of signs and symbols, and specifically stated to be “things which must shortly come to pass” because “the time is at hand.” As Patrick eloquently states, “In any communication, whether it is vocal or written, there are certain rules we have to follow in order to understand the full meaning of what is being revealed to us. There are rules such as consistency, context and literal and/or figurative language that must be applied to get the full meaning,” then to remain true to his own words/rules of consistency and context, Patrick must harmonize 2 Peter 3:8 with Revelation 20, especially in light of the fact that Revelation 21:1-5 IS 2 Peter 3!!
After the millennium ends in verse 7, satan is loosed to deceive the nations which propagates the battle of Gog and Magog; John runs to the OT and crowbars/sledgehammers the context of Ezekiel 38-39 into his text; that invoked context was the prediction of judgment against OC Israel in Israel’s last days (38:8,16-18), not the assumed end of the Christian age! It would be at this time, that there would be a very great shaking in the land of Israel (38:19) which fits perfectly with Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 24:29-31, and Hebrews 12:22-28 where the first century Christians were on the cusp of receiving the kingdom in its unshakable stature (Heb.12:28), which is parallel with Daniel 7’s, “and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”
Before we look at 2 Peter 3, we need follow Patrick’s hermeneutic of “God is not on our timetable” to determine if consistency and context support his assertions.
Notice in the following text where Jehovah is telling Israel that the time of Jerusalem's besiegement and Babylonian captivity is near:
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations. An end is come, the end is come…the time is come, the day of trouble is near…Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee…Behold the day, behold, it is come…The time is come, the day draweth near...(Eze.7:1-12).
It seems that Jehovah's emphatic and repetitious declarations of imminence would be quite difficult to misunderstand, right? However, Ezekiel reveals that Israel did in fact disregard His clearly elucidated statements of imminence, as we find them saying, "Then said he unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city: Which say, It is not near; let us build houses…" (Eze.11:2-3).
Please observe here that Jehovah said, "the end is come," "the day of trouble is near," and, "I will shortly pour out My fury upon you," but Israel changed God's time statements, and said, "it is NOT near." Sound familiar? This is exactly what Patrick and our brethren do with Jesus' statements that He "is about to come in the glory of the Father" (Mat.16:27f), and, "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," (Mat.24:34), and, “the coming of the Lord has drawn near,” (Jas.5:8).
Now, after Jehovah said the end IS come, the day is NEAR, and that He would pour out His fury SHORTLY, and Israel said, "It is NOT near…" notice how Jehovah responded to their scoffing at His time statements (cf. 2Pet.3:3-4):
"And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth? Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the effect of every vision. For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel. For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: FOR IN YOUR DAYS, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD. Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off. Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There shall none of my words be prolonged any more, but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord GOD" (Eze.12:21-28).
Patrick, notice the untouched texts which you have just read with your own eyes! 1) Jehovah said the day of the Lord is "near," it, "is come," "the days are at hand," and, He would pour out His fury, "shortly;" 2) Israel said, "it is not near" "the days are prolonged," Ezekiel's vision, "faileth," because, "the vision he sees is many days away" and he, "prophesies of times which are far off;" 3) Jehovah, Who said that these men "devise mischief, and give wicked counsel," responds by saying that the vision will not be prolonged, but He would perform it in their generation, ("for in your days"), and thus we have an explicit literal contextual example of Jehovah defining His usage of "soon," "near," "at hand," and, "shortly" as meaning in their generation; and, Jehovah condemned Israel for changing His time statements of "soon," "near," "at hand," and, "shortly" to mean, "times far off."
Again, is this not exactly what you and your collaborators are doing with the time statements of Jesus and His apostles in the NT? Jesus clearly said that the Son of man would come with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the great sound of the trumpet, in "this generation," i.e., the generation of people "standing here," in front of Jesus (Mat.24:30-34; Mar.8:38; Luk.9:26), and you, without batting eye respond by saying, "no man knows the day nor the hour," (20 centuries later, in spite of Jesus specifically identifying His CENTURY and His GENERATION) as if that causes 100+ time statements in the New Testament to magically disappear. Ironically, the very statement you cite to avoid the obvious force of the "this generation" time statement, demands that God can in fact tell time, accurately, for Him to know the day and the hour, and to communicate that knowledge to John in the Revelation saying that the time is at hand; conversely, for you to rip this statement out of its 1st century context, and apply it to our future would force you to conclude that Jesus/Holy Spirit is not omniscient, i.e., He cannot be truly GOD, and still not know the day nor the hour!
“And now, indeed, I am going to my people. Come, I will advise you what this people will do to your people in the latter days.’ So he took up his oracle and said: The utterance of Balaam the son of Beor, And the utterance of the man whose eyes are opened; The utterance of him who hears the words of God, And has the knowledge of the Most High, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Who falls down, with eyes wide open: I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel, And batter the brow of Moab, And destroy all the sons of tumult,” (Num.24:14-17).
Notice in this passage that Balaam was enabled visionally to view Messiah in Israel’s last days, but he said “ I behold Him, but not near;” Messiah’s coming would be about 1400 years in Balaam’s future, and through inspiration, he said 1400 years was not near. Why? 1400 years in man’s time-bound world is a really long time! It certainly is not near.
While I could provide you with several more examples, it should be sufficient from these two explicit examples of non-figurative scripture where God communicated time accurately as man understands time.