|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 10:14:17 AM
|
|
|
jcws
Posts: 4
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
|
I'm teaching about heaven, basically using Dr. David Jeremiah's book. If you check various translations, you find that what happens to earth is stated as being burned up or laid bare, disclosed, will be found. In using both an interlinear and Strong's (KJV), I find two different Greek words used for the words/phrases in question. While I understand that there are different manuscripts in use, I am now stymied with regard to arriving at a sensible explanation. I am not a student of Greek, nor am I conversant with all the extant manuscripts. I would appreciate any enlightenment on how to proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 10:29:01 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2864
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
The original greek appears to use both words. The original earth is both "burned up" and "dissolved". Both words appear in the manuscripts so there is really no translation issue.
Does that help, or did I misunderstand the question?
Edit: the "dissolved" portion appears to have the connotation of something that is the in the process of being dissolved - i.e. the world you see is transitory. The world shall be burned up and is in fact in the process of being ended even as we speak. Rather than "dissolved" the meaning is more like "ended, loosed from itself". The joining of the ideas of becoming unglued from itself and ended are key.
< Message edited by GroupW -- 6/19/2008 10:40:13 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 12:03:04 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1754
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Another perspective would be that it refers the "Old Order of Things," namely the Jewish law system, and not literally the physical earth. Look up the term translated as "elements" and see how else it is translated and you will see how that view could be concluded.
One's conclusion would depend on one's eschatological viewpoint.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 12:33:36 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Another perspective would be that it refers the "Old Order of Things," namely the Jewish law system, and not literally the physical earth. Look up the term translated as "elements" and see how else it is translated and you will see how that view could be concluded.
One's conclusion would depend on one's eschatological viewpoint.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
In context, how one could say that this passage in any way supports replacement theology is beyond me. If anything it clearly encourages us to be careful regarding the details of our lives. Though I do believe that there will be no need for a "Jewish law system", or a Greco/Roman one for that matter, in the Kingdom. Talk about a speedy trial. Justice will be swift and certain.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 1:52:53 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1754
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
In context, how one could say that this passage in any way supports replacement theology is beyond me. If anything it clearly encourages us to be careful regarding the details of our lives. Though I do believe that there will be no need for a "Jewish law system", or a Greco/Roman one for that matter, in the Kingdom. Talk about a speedy trial. Justice will be swift and certain.
First of all, IMHO, the prophecy refers not to the future, but the past. It is not that there will be a replacement theology in the Kingdom. It is that the past Jewish system has already been replaced. If you think it has not been replaced, please tell me where the Jewish Temple and Aaronic priesthood are right now? It should be obvious that it is entirely gone. Vanished, if you will. How could the Jews have not been warned that the Temple and priesthood would have been destroyed and that they should no longer seek to reestablish it?
quote:
Though I do believe that there will be no need for a "Jewish law system", or a Greco/Roman one for that matter, in the Kingdom. And insofar as a "Greco/Roman one," it should be unavoidably noticeable that the Greek and Roman governments have been long gone over a 1,000 years ago AND the Jewish system.
quote:
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
The OT is filled with such apocalyptic language (destruction of the earth). The question is how to interpret it. We know, for example, that the moon did not "turn to blood" on the Day of Pentecost. And it is unlikely that it will literally happen in the future. Do you think that there will be a mass conversion of lunar material into human red corpuscles, plasma and platelets? You probably don't. If you think it will only appear to happen, then you are doing what I am doing: not interpreting it literally. Just differently.
The word translated as "elements" in 2 Peter 3:10 is used elsewhere with reference to the law system.
OR, do you think that the stars as massive as our sin will literally "fall from the sky."? As massive as they are, a few dozen earths would not fit into any single one of them (Matt. 24:29).
quote:
If anything it clearly encourages us to be careful regarding the details of our lives.
I agree, but that's not what the OP asked. The OP did not ask how we should apply this perspective in our lives. The OP asked how we should interpret the prophecy of a literal dissolution of the universe language.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 6/19/2008 2:32:10 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 2:30:16 PM
|
|
|
LCannon
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2/22/2007
From: Lebanon, OR
Status: online
|
2Peter 3:8-"Be aware however, 9 the risk of unbelief is their own responsibility[since Christ died for all] but the Lord is patient toward us not wishing for any to perish but is anxious for your obedience to His Cross. 10 The day of His judgment will come suddenly('vengeance is Mine...') and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat and the earth and its works will be purged away.(some into His Glory, some to their continued and just reward)11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness 12 looking for and eagerly awaiting the coming of the day of His Victory[that we share] when the heavens will be conquered and the elements will be purged to His righteousness! 13 For in His assurance we are anticipating a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."
_____________________________
"It may be that when the angels go about their task of praising God they play
only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they
play Mozart and then too our dear Lord listens with special pleasure."(Karl Barth)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 7:50:03 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
First of all, IMHO, the prophecy refers not to the future, but the past. It is not that there will be a replacement theology in the Kingdom. It is that the past Jewish system has already been replaced.
So, when was "the day of the Lord"? The passage is speaking in the future tense and it was written after the ressurrection. So, I am at a loss as to when it happened
quote:
And insofar as a "Greco/Roman one," it should be unavoidably noticeable that the Greek and Roman governments have been long gone over a 1,000 years ago. I don't even know why that would be an issue.
In the beginning you had said the "Jewish law system", so I was pointing out that Adonai Himself would administer justice in the kingdom. I was not clear on what "Jewish law system" you were refering to. In the event you were refering to Ha Torah, then it appears you are saying that it was done away with some time after Shavuot(Pentecost), if this verse is justification.
quote:
The OT is filled with such apocalyptic language. We know, for example, that the moon did not "turn to blood" on the Day of Pentecost. And it is unlikely that it will literally happen in the future. OR, do you think that the stars as massive as our sin will literally "fall from the sky."? As massive as they are, a few dozen earths would not fit into any single one of them (Matt. 24:29).
The OP asked how we should interpret the prophecy of a literal dissolution of the universe language.
Then since you believe this to be figurative speech, It would be best to elaberate and not just through out pet doctrines.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 10:37:51 PM
|
|
|
jcws
Posts: 4
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Thank your for your response and for trying to answer my question. I don't understand that the Greek uses both words. Here's a very poor attempt at a transliteration: katakaio is the word used in Strong's, and since it uses the KJV, I'm assuming that's what was in the manuscript the KJV translators used; eurethedetai is what's used in my interlinear, which uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text. So, see, it's two different words, and I don't see the katakaio anywhere in that verse in the interlinear.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/19/2008 11:10:06 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 2007
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
I like the Net Bibles translation:
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; when it comes, the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/20/2008 9:28:17 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2864
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcws
Thank your for your response and for trying to answer my question. I don't understand that the Greek uses both words. Here's a very poor attempt at a transliteration: katakaio is the word used in Strong's, and since it uses the KJV, I'm assuming that's what was in the manuscript the KJV translators used; eurethedetai is what's used in my interlinear, which uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text. So, see, it's two different words, and I don't see the katakaio anywhere in that verse in the interlinear.
Interesting. My interlinear differs. Now I understand your question though. Afraid I don't have the resources to answer it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/20/2008 9:51:32 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1754
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, when was "the day of the Lord"? The passage is speaking in the future tense and it was written after the ressurrection. So, I am at a loss as to when it happened
70 A.D.
quote:
In the beginning you had said the "Jewish law system", so I was pointing out that Adonai Himself would administer justice in the kingdom. I was not clear on what "Jewish law system" you were refering to. In the event you were refering to Ha Torah, then it appears you are saying that it was done away with some time after Shavuot(Pentecost), if this verse is justification.
Yes. Since the book of Hebrews was written after Pentecost and since Hebrews spoke of it as being in the process of fading away, it would follow that it happened in finality after Pentecost.
quote:
Then since you believe this to be figurative speech, It would be best to elaberate and not just through out pet doctrines.
I have no pet doctrine in this regard. I presented a possible explanation but you apparently don't want YOUR PET DOCTRINE to be challenged in any way, shape or form. I was willing to present throw out an interpretation and to let it go after that.
Keep in mind that if I do elaborate the course of discussion you suggest, I am at risk of opening up the discussion for an off-topic subject.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 6/20/2008 12:01:56 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/20/2008 3:08:39 PM
|
|
|
jcws
Posts: 4
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Group W.,
Thank you for sticking with me on the topic and for trying to help me out. I appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/20/2008 3:39:59 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2864
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
No worries, friend. Let me know when you get to the bottom of it. On the face of it, I wonder as you do if it's a manuscript issue, though by all accounts Westcott hasn't been improved upon much.
Still surfing on that question, but not optimistic that I'll get anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/20/2008 4:05:14 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
So, when was "the day of the Lord"? The passage is speaking in the future tense and it was written after the ressurrection. So, I am at a loss as to when it happened
70 A.D .
Nowhere in this chapter does it mention the Temple, a law or set of laws. So, how does one properly apply this verse to the distruction of the Temple.
quote:
quote:
In the beginning you had said the "Jewish law system", so I was pointing out that Adonai Himself would administer justice in the kingdom. I was not clear on what "Jewish law system" you were refering to. In the event you were refering to Ha Torah, then it appears you are saying that it was done away with some time after Shavuot(Pentecost), if this verse is justification.
Yes. Since the book of Hebrews was written after Pentecost and since Hebrews spoke of it as being in the process of fading away, it would follow that it happened in finality after Pentecost.
If you are talking about tthe Temple and the laws related to it, I would agree. It is no longer possible to literally keep those laws without a Temple. But if you mean the entire Torah, then I don't see where this passage even eludes to that.
quote:
quote:
Then since you believe this to be figurative speech, It would be best to elaberate and not just through out pet doctrines.
I have no pet doctrine in this regard. I presented a possible explanation but you apparently don't want YOUR PET DOCTRINE to be challenged in any way, shape or form. I was willing to present throw out an interpretation and to let it go after that.
I did not present any doctrine in this thread, so there is nothing to be challenged. However, when I interject my doctrinal views into a thread, I don't just leave it as a given. I expect to be challenged and therefore, try to explain how that doctrine applies to the thread.
quote:
Keep in mind that if I do elaborate the course of discussion you suggest, I am at risk of opening up the discussion for an off-topic subject.
That is my point. If the statement were properly explained and connected to the thread, it would not be off topic.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/20/2008 5:54:55 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11444
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Please stick to topic as jcws worded it in the OP. This is a discussion about the Greek terms in the verse, not about eschatological views.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/21/2008 10:36:55 AM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcws
Thank your for your response and for trying to answer my question. I don't understand that the Greek uses both words. Here's a very poor attempt at a transliteration: katakaio is the word used in Strong's, and since it uses the KJV, I'm assuming that's what was in the manuscript the KJV translators used; eurethedetai is what's used in my interlinear, which uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text. So, see, it's two different words, and I don't see the katakaio anywhere in that verse in the interlinear.
It would seem that there are a variety of variants for the part of 2 Pet. 3:10 that is in question according to A.T. Robertson in his "Word Pictures" commentary.
Shall be burned up (katakaēsetai). Repeated in 2Pe_3:12. Second future passive of the compound verb katakaiō, to burn down (up), according to A L. But Aleph B K P read heurethēsetai (future passive of heuriskō, to find) “shall be found.” There are various other readings here. The text seems corrupt. - Robertson's Word Pictures
Edit: I just found some more info that may interest you.
One of the most difficult textual problems in the NT is found in v. 10. The reading euJreqhvsetai (Jeureqhsetai), which enjoys by far the best support (Í B K P 0156vid 323 1241 1739txt pc) is nevertheless so difficult a reading that many scholars regard it as nonsensical. (NA27 lists five conjectures by scholars, from Hort to Mayor, in this text.) As R. Bauckham has pointed out, solutions to the problem are of three sorts: (1) conjectural emendation (which normally speaks more of the ingenuity of the scholar who makes the proposal than of the truth of the conjecture, e.g., changing one letter in the previous word, e[rga [erga] becomes a[rga [arga] with the meaning, “the earth and the things in it will be found useless”); (2) adoption of one of several variant readings (all of which, however, are easier than this one and simply cannot explain how this reading arose, e.g., the reading of Ì72 which adds luovmena [luomena] to the verb—a reading suggested no doubt by the threefold occurrence of this verb in the surrounding verses: “the earth and its works will be found dissolved”; or the simplest variant, the reading of the Sahidic mss, oujc [ouc] preceding eJureqhvsetai— “will not be found”); or (3) interpretive gymnastics which regards the text as settled but has to do some manipulation to its normal meaning. Bauckham puts forth an excellent case that the third option is to be preferred and that the meaning of the term is virtually the equivalent of “will be disclosed,” “will be manifested.” (That this meaning is not readily apparent may in fact have been the reason for so many variants and conjectures.) Thus, the force of the clause is that “the earth and the works [done by men] in it will be stripped bare [before God].” In addition, the unusualness of the expression is certainly in keeping with the author’s style throughout this little book. Hence, what looks to be suspect because of its abnormalities, upon closer inspection is actually in keeping with the author’s stylistic idiosyncrasies. The meaning of the text then is that all but the earth and men’s works will be destroyed. Everything will be removed so that humanity will stand naked before God. Textually, then, on both external and internal grounds, euJreqhvsetai commends itself as the preferred reading. - NET Bible
< Message edited by Machaira -- 6/21/2008 10:56:08 AM >
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/23/2008 2:49:18 AM
|
|
|
BibleL7
Posts: 493
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
|
In my checking the 20 versions in e-sword, it definately appears to be a difference in manuscripts of the original greek for though the majority of the versions say burned up there are several that say exposed. I do know that one of the versions that translates it exposed uses a different original text than the KJV. As to the Greek itself I am not a student of the language, and the only greek words I have access to is Stongs KJV. Sorry could not be of more help.
Just checked my NIV printed and it says that some manuscripts say burned up in the footnotes is all it states.
< Message edited by BibleL7 -- 6/23/2008 3:00:58 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/23/2008 11:51:33 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2864
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
Machaira-
Interesting commentary! Thanks. Intuitively, the italicized portion seems to make decent sense.
BT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/23/2008 12:02:13 PM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
Machaira-
Interesting commentary! Thanks. Intuitively, the italicized portion seems to make decent sense.
BT
Your welcome. I'm glad it was helpful.
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/25/2008 2:45:41 PM
|
|
|
jcws
Posts: 4
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Machaira,
Thank you for taking the time to study the verse. I'm glad I decided to come back and check the forum one more time.
At a later time, I will peruse your post. I had already checked Robertson's work, but left it just scratching my head at the "the text seems corrupt."
jcws
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/25/2008 10:17:44 PM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcws
I had already checked Robertson's work, but left it just scratching my head at the "the text seems corrupt."
jcws
Even though he's usually very helpful, Robertson's comment seemed odd to me as well -- even if it is difficult to determine which textual variant is correct. It's too bad he doesn't explain what he means by "corrupt."
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/26/2008 1:23:22 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 258
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Even though he's usually very helpful, Robertson's comment seemed odd to me as well -- even if it is difficult to determine which textual variant is correct. It's too bad he doesn't explain what he means by "corrupt."
I don't think he means corrupt as in there is something evil about it. He means corrupt in that the manuscript evidence is varied, and it is difficult to determine what, exactly, Peter wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 2 Peter 3:10 - 6/26/2008 5:08:06 PM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
Even though he's usually very helpful, Robertson's comment seemed odd to me as well -- even if it is difficult to determine which textual variant is correct. It's too bad he doesn't explain what he means by "corrupt."
I don't think he means corrupt as in there is something evil about it. He means corrupt in that the manuscript evidence is varied, and it is difficult to determine what, exactly, Peter wrote.
Sounds reasonable. I agree. Thanks.
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
