Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 2 Peter 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 2 Peter 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming [what has become of it]? For ever since the fathers fell asleep [in death], all things have continued [exactly] as they did from the beginning of creation." |
Subject: Where do I go from here? |
Bible Note: Hello Tim: Brevity response:? You say: Therefore, they often, as Jesus put it of the Pharisees, 'strain at gnats and swallow camels' This train of thought about the second coming strikes me as the same kind of strained argument on the part of some to disprove the Bible. My Reply: Just shows how different people see different things. I would be hard pressed, indeed, to equate the “pie” example with whether or not The 2nd Coming was aimed for the 1st Century AD. In fact, once I discovered all this, quite by accident, and then began to leisurely read the NT, the trail seemed to get hotter. What if this 2nd Coming conjecture were true? What would it mean? Would it mean the beginnng of the end for me, as far as religion? Or, would it mean starting over? Rethinking? Would there be a domino effect, or just simply answers? Would those answers wind up, finally, to THE ANSWER? And how to know THE ANSWER (or any answers) unless questions are asked? As you may have guessed, I am a layman, and my approach is simpler than what is usually denoted “scholarly”. But my layman’s questions carry just as much weight and concern (in my opinion) as those of the more erudite apologist or skeptic. I don’t mean to say that I dismiss those opinions (if I understand them) but feel my approach is as valid, since most of us probably fall into the layman category, And as for the interest in the 2nd Coming being in the “gnat” variety, I don’t think so. In fact, the more I muse, the more I see, the more convinced that if there is anything that could be the “heart of the matter”, this is it. No matter which side of the fence it falls, a WHOLE lot is riding on it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say: 2) 'Soon'! We have touched on this issue several times, but from whose perspective should we view 'soon'? Differing contexts and differing perspectives produce differing definitions and/or expectations. A child has very little patience and 'soon' had better be in the next couple of seconds! :-) A college student realizes that graduating 'soon' maybe in the next couple of years. In geological terms, a small ravine may 'soon' be a giant canyon. My reply: The four letter words, “Soon”, “near,” are this complicated? Reasonable and prudent people cannot agree on what soon and near mean in context? For example look at 1 John 1: 18 “Dear children, this world’s last hour has come.” “…has…” come. “has”. Is that unclear? Either the world’s last hour has, or has not, come. One could even go past “soon” and suggest there is an implication of “imminent”. But even without that extreme, surely reasonable people could agree that if someone says “has”, he means what he says. Had I, personally, been the recipient of this letter, or had John told me this in person, I would have known he was speaking of the “now” in my lifetime. Would this be unreasonable? Then the context of the rest: “You have heard about the Antichrist who is coming—the one who against Christ—and already many such persons have appeared. THIS MAKES US ALL THE MORE CERTAIN THAT THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR.” What other context is there in this? What is there that reasonable people could not agree upon? Is this an example of the “child, student, ravine”? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You say: 1) Don't read too much in to a word which is very subjective! My reply: I cannot see how “soon’s” meaning is “very” subjective, in the commonly held layman sense. If that were so, then its use would almost be rendered useless. It wouldn’t make sense for the authors of the NT to use the term if they knew, as you suggest, that nobody really knows what “soon” is supposed to mean. In fact, when they used it, wouldn’t they have been sure, then, to explain what they meant? Or, do they expect the listener and readers to understand? I think, reasonably and prudently, the authors expected them to understand. Anything can be “intellectualized” to an extreme. I recall a friend who had been introduced to metaphysics, and for days walked around his Air Force base, wondering if he really existed or not. Kind of like: what does soon mean? If one wants to go into a myriad relativities, he will forever be asking: what does soon mean? To be continued..... |