Discerning Which Definition to Use

a figurative use of the word does not mean there has to be the same word usage. Thats the point of the figurative.Pauls teaching about the 7th day is that it is still in progress. Moses teaching was that God rested on the 7th day to allow his purpose for the earth to come to a completion. It still hasnt come to a completion yet which is why Paul teaches that now is the time for us to 'enter into Gods rest'. He also says we are in a time of darkness which he calls the 'night' and the new 'day' is approaching.this is what happens in genesis chpt 1 too. The creative words begin in an evening, also called darkness, and end in a morning, also called light/day.Determining the figurative use comes from understanding Pauls & Moses teaching about the 7th day.

I dont need to do that because Peter does so himself in preceeding verses. This is why i keep saying that the sentence itself is not how to determine what the writer is saying or if the word he is using is meant to be taken figuratively or literally. You cant read the bible that way. You must take other verses into consideration which is what we do with the word yom in genesis.here is Peters own explanation of what the 'earth' is: The earth is figurative for mankind. This is also in harmony with other accounts such as Genesis 18:25 where Abraham says "It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous MAN with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the EARTH not going to do what is right?So the earth in 2 peter is figurative, its not literally the planet or the land, but is the people who dwell on it.But of course, if you dont take other verses into account when trying to determine this, then you take Peters words literally and assume the earth/land is going to be destroyed as many do.

i guess this is where we have completely different views on what the bible actually is.We view God as the author and he used different writers to reveal his truth in progressive stages throughout history. This is why there is not one single writer who discusses all of Gods will. They all discuss small aspects of truth which is why we need to read them together to understand all of Gods revealed truth.

Go back to msg 56. what does genesis say?Gen1:5And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.
And there came to be evening and there came to be morningWas there an evening and morning before the light and darkness? No.So the light and darkness (day/night) is associated with a evening and morning. And Pauls words about the 'night is well along and the day is drawing near' is linked with the 7th day of creation.Im not trying to give you a literal definition, im giving a figurative explanation. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

to accept that Peter is actually talking about the earth being destroyed means we must assume that the writers of Isaiah and Psalms, and other writers who spoke about the earth never being destroyed, are wrong.So which writer had it correct?Your method of reading the bible is flawed because it will lead you to contradiction after contradiction. I cant imagine that would give you much confidence in the Word of God.

It can be called evening or night, meaning darkness. Genesis said God called the darkness night. Other writers also called this time the darkness as the following verse in Proverbs 7:9 "in the twilight, in the evening of the day, at the approach of the night and the gloom" This verse shows the darkness and the evening are linked.The light portion is called the day and it begins with the morning. if you take it back a verse earlier, before he created the light he was working on the waters....'And Gods active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters' I dont know exactly what he was doing with the waters, but it all happened in the first day. If its dishonest, then all the bible writers were dishonest because they all do it. Especially the christians. Jesus, Paul, John, Matthew etc...they all quote from the hebrew scriptures when teaching.When Jesus was explaining the sanctity of marriage, he used the genesis account to condemn divorce....a custom that the jews had been doing for centuries.

figurative uses of a word are not re-definitions of the original word.Sadly, if you did read more of the bible you would find all the figurative uses of different words and you'd realise just how they are used throughout the bible.just for an example, have a look at instances of the figurative use of the word 'earth' in the hebrew and greek scriptures below My guess is that if you read these verses and applied the literal meaning of the 'earth/land/ground/soil' you'd be very confused and probably put the bible away because it would make absolutely no sense at all.

lol and you accuse me of not understanding english!I never said these two verses were figurative. I said "In Hebrew 'e'rets and in Greek ge mean earth/ground/soil/land
Gen 6:4 'The Neph′i‧lim proved to be in the EARTH/ERERTS in those days'
Matt 2:6 ‘And you, O Beth′le‧hem of the LAND/GE of Judah...'these 2 verses are examples of the use in the hebrew and greek for a literal meaning. You are so contradicatory. The 'earth' does not bow down to anyone. The earth is not conscious, it doesnt think therefore it doesnt worship God.The only things that do this are humans and therefore the 'earth' in this verse IS being used figuratively for people.Im sorry if you cant accept that, but thats the way we read it. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

i've done that but you dont seem to get it. Ah, so you agree that this verse is talking about people, yet it uses the word 'earth' thus showing a figurative use of the word earth. Ps 66:4 "all of the earth (eartz) they shall bow down to you and they shall make melody to you"literally the word means the land/ground/soil, yet here its being used figuratively for the people. the verse I posted earlier 2 Peter reads:2 Peter 3:7But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly menYou have said that this verse is literal. So the earth and heavens are going to be destroyed according to this verse 'apparently'But you cant explain why other writers said the earth will not be destroyed, that it will exist forever. You also bypassed the preceeding verses of Peter that show he is speaking figuratively of heaven and earth.in vs 5 he says "there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water"What was destroyed in the flood account? It wasnt the literal earth, it was the people in it. So Peter is providing his own answer with regard to what is going to be destroyed in the coming judgement...again its people not the earth.There is legitimate support for using other verses to establish what is literal and what is figurative. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

this is what i dont understand about your reasoning. You call for a 'plain reading' of the text. You state clearly about 2 Peter that he was "talking literally" about the earth. Then you say 'Good news is, he WASNT talking about the planet.Please explain it in english using uncomplicated grammar so my simple mind can comprehend what you actually mean... are are you speaking figuratively??? lolWhat do you think Peter actually is saying in this verse.?

I never said the 'ge' was the planet....i said it was the 'land/earth/soil' and in a figurative sense it is the 'people' who live on that 'land/earth/soil'If you dont understand why i'm confused, just look at this post. I ask you a simple question "What did Peter mean by the 'earth will be destroyed"Your answer is: Your answer(s) above give both the literal reading and the figurative reading even though you state that there is NO figurative use of the word ge in the verse.As I said earlier, the figurative ge is the people and he is actually saying the 'people' are going to be destroyed.
But how did you come to the conclusion that the 'inhabited land' (assuming you mean the people here) would be destroyed?

right, so you are doing exactly what I am doing. The word 'people' is not specifically mentioned in the verse, yet you are including people in your answer.you are applying a figurative use to the word 'ge' in this verse. Remember that 'ge' means 'land/earth/soil' It doesnt mean planet as you keep repeating. I agree with that.It means 'earth/land/soil' as in the ground we stand upon.So you ARE applying a figurative meaning to this verse by saying that you are differentiating between the 'inhabitants/people' and the planet.I wont ask you if you are agreeing with me, i'll just say i completely agree with you. You are correct even if you dont know how you came to the figurative application of ge. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

its fairly simple really"The HEAVENS and the earth that are now, are stored up for fire"if Peter is not speaking figuratively but literally, why would he include the 'heavens' in what is to be burned with fire? Will a fire have any affect on the sun or any other star in the heavens? And in what way would a fire on any distant star in the universe have any affect on the people on earth? This statement is a form of figurative speech you did not mention...its called hyperbole.from your link

burning up the heavens is not an exageration?

In a plain reading of the text, which is what you like to do, dont you think that burning up the heavens is an exageration???I certainly do. The heavens is so big that its mostly space, so how could it possibly be literal?If you dont mind me jumping over to another verse, i'd be happy to show you what the 'heavens' are in such a context. But you dont like that so just think about it.... can the space above our heads be burnded up with fire? (you dont have to answer that btw, but if you want to know what the figurative 'heavens' are, i'm happy to provide you the explanation according to other NT writers)