2nd Peter 3:1-9

Post Reply New Topic

2nd Peter 3:1-9 KJV
[1] This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
[2] That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
[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.


Any thoughts?

First thought: I like modern english versions of text better, so ESV(like I presented) or an NKJV would be better liked by me.

Second thought, I like verses put into a more natural sequencing, since the verse structure at times appears to be unnatural, and does not help reading of a text.

2 Peter 3:1-9 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, (2) that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, (3) knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. (4) They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." (5) For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, (6) and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. (7) But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (8 ) But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (9) The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Other thoughts:

2 Peter 3:5 I guess refers to Gen 1:9 "And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. "

2 Peter 3:6 appears to refer to the flood, and seems to likely favor the view of a global flood(I've heard one theory where it is supposed to be a local flood) by the statement that the earth was "deluged with water and perished".

2 Peter 3:7 suggests a negative experience for willful evil doers(as opposed to the repentant)

2 Peter 3:8 suggests that God's view of time is different than ours, and this is a verse that is used to argue for an Old Earth creation, by interpreting "days" to be "ages" given the possible ambiguity in the Hebrew. It also is a verse that is important for understanding the temporal nature of God, whether God is in time, outside of time, or in some special temporal relationship of another form.

I am no feeble Christ not me.
He hangs in glib delight upon his cross, above my body.
Christ forgive. FORGIVE?
I vomit for you Jesu. **** forgive.
Down now from your cross. Down now from your papal heights,
From that churlish suicide, petulant child.
Down from those pious heights, royal flag bearer, goat, billy.
I vomit for you. Forgive? **** he forgives.
He hangs in crucified delight nailed to the extend of his vision,
His cross, his manhood, violence, guilt, sin.
He would nail my body upon his cross,
Suicide visionary, death reveller, rake, rapist, life****er,
Jesu, earthmover, Christus, gravedigger,
You dug the pits of Auschwitz, the soil of Treblinka is your guilt,
Your sin, master, master of gore, enigma.
You carry the standard of your oppression.
Enola is your gaiety.
The bodies of Hiroshima are your delight
The nails are your only trinity,
Hold them in your corpsey gracelessness,
The image I have had to suffer.
The cross is the virgin body of womenhood that you defile.
You nail yourself to your own sin.
Lamearse Jesus calls me sister
There are no words for my contempt,
Every woman is a cross in his filthy theology,
In his arrogant delight.
He turns his back upon me in his fear,
He dare not face me.
Fear****er.
Share nothing you Christ,
Sterile, impotent, ****love prophet of death.
You are the ultimate pornography,
in your ****fear, ****fear, manfear, womanfear, unfair, warfare, warfare, warfare, warfare, warfare, warfare, warfare, warfare.
JESUS DIED FOR HIS OWN SINS, NOT MINE.

Truer words have never been uttered. There are so many biblical signs that we are in the last days.

Actually, the one I prefer most is the NIV, but ESV will do as well. KJV has no copyright issues though.



Hmm, don't know how that could be helped. While the delimiting of the verses and chapters is ambiguous/arbitrary, their order isn't since the sequence comes from the underlying text.



That and Genesis verse 2 would suggest the initial material that God created was water.
Dihydrogen monoxide.



Well the local flood idea comes from a desire not to be mocked, which most people have, you've heard the whole "you can't fit all the species on the ark" thing and all that. This does suggest that Peter viewed the Flood as global, which is how I read that portion of Genesis as well. If you notice, this is one thing that will be scoffed in the last days, as deduced from verses 3. 5a, and 6.





Well, yeah. As much as I don't like threats, you get them everywhere in some form or another, like reading any contract, and including laws passed by Congress that only they approved of.



Even if it's God's view of time, then it is more likely, in my view, referring to the length of time before the return of Christ rather than the length of time before man's appearance on Earth.

This might be redundant but do you guys really want the end of the world to come about?

I am perfectly fine with the NIV. I am just used to the ESV as some have recommended it to me. I can understand that issue with the KJV, it is just that I don't handle "ye" as well as I should.


The order absolutely isn't, but separating each verse as you did only increases the arbitrary problems.

Yes. An issue with that is meaning, as it seems difficult to suppose that the entire planet was literally water.


Well I know, there's the "species on the ark" issue, and then there is the believe that the waters would crush the earth's surface.


Yes, that is true, this is a belief that would be scoffed.


Only saying that it does not seem to mesh well with "everyone is saved and automatically goes up to heaven".


That is true, metaphysical speculation isn't necessary for understanding this verse. I perhaps leaped to that as I have heard this verse used for this end. Yes, I definitely think that your interpretation is better.

What does volition have to do with anything? Thermodynamically speaking, the entire universe only has so much usable energy, and it will terminate too. Desire is irrelevant.

2nd person plural, though it might not sound impressive, it is better than "y'all".


Sorry, I just find that format easier to read since they come to view faster when reading and it is easier to remember the shape of the text for finding specific text. Sorry though.


No more difficult to suppose than Jesus changing water into wine.


The Flood models used by CMI, AIG, and ICR would have the land going down and the sea basins shifting upward, as a matter of volcanism and tidal waves. The water of the Flood would be the water of the oceans. Even in the deepest trenches, I don't know of a crushing effect, which would be due to a pressure differential anyhow.


Perhaps, but why does Peter list this one specifically?


Salvation is not total, but partial to those whose accept Christ.


Thank you.

I wasn't being literal so much as illustrative of the language differences. I *can* read the KJV, just unusual language gives me pause. I've noticed from reading efforts of mine that the more unfamiliar the language or formatting used is, the less capable I am of getting as much from a text.


No, actually more difficult given that one miracle is exactly that, one miracle, but I would imagine that a world created out of water would likely not retain it's liquidness under the gravitational pressure, thus it seems harder to suppose this happening. Water to wine is built into a narrative structure where this is a display of something, we lose nothing if we say that the Earth really already had a crust but dry land still emerged up from that crust in Gen 1:9, and parts of Genesis are more prone to being taken allegorically, for instance Augustine got rid of the 7 days to promote a single instant of creation, based upon what he considered the best knowledge of the time.


Well, honestly I don't pay attention to this debate. If you believe in the flood story, you already have your foundation, and if you do not, then you already reject that foundation.


I don't think there is a great purpose in it, except perhaps to maintain that radical call to faith that Paul seems to maintain in Hebrews 11.


Well, I won't get into salvation models too much, but there are multiple:

Exclusivism where salvation is purely through Christ.
Inclusivism where salvation is mostly through Christ, but there is some ability for non-Christians to be saved.
Universalism where in the end all people can be saved.

I am simply not drawing a distinction against universalism, only attacking naive universalism that pretends that there is no hell, as opposed to the other universalist model that merely suggests that people can be saved after they die.

Ah, it's the strangeness in format and vocabulary which makes it difficult to read, ok.



Augustine's interruption of Genesis into a single event would seem to be a fairly out-of-text interpretation in my opinion, and I think Luther made a comment on it (or Calvin, I'm not sure) to the effect that "while we should respect the views of our Fathers, we should also respectfully acknowledge where they are wrong." in reference to the instantaneous creation event idea.

The transmutation of water to wine would be of the same quality of miracle as transmutation of water into any other matter, was my point. As to it not remaining liquid, that wouldn't matter much, but it would remain liquid since water is more dense as a liquid than as a solid.



If my only foundation was pure belief, then I wouldn't believe it. Suppose it would be a long argument though, which has been written elsewhere and goes nowhere though.



Doesn't sound like a call to accept the Flood to me, but rather a single item which would be scorned. I'd think something more would be added if it were a call to radical faith.



I think that choice for people after death, if existent, would be for those prior to Christ or for those who have never heard the Gospel. I'm not sure of this though, and my stance would be exclusivism by default since it is more Scripturally sound as opposed to just sounding nice.

But we don't need to get into that.

who the f**k cares who wrote it or what it means? i doubt it was they actual peter anyways. but his homie the scribe 50 or 100 years later

I consider the Buybull not very good fiction. An absurd and horrific fairy tale.

Ea quibus magnas verbas scribent, magnas verbas rursus exspectare debent.

[size=0]They which write big words, should expect big words back.[/size]

Which parts do you refer? The historical books, the prophetic books, the writings of Job, David, and Solomon? The Gospels? The letters? Which parts of the Bible is it that you consider "fairy tale" and "fiction"? Not very good? So what? Truth is sometimes stranger than the strangest fiction.

The entire buybull is utter fiction.