Discerning Which Definition to Use

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

They have it correct. You have it wrong. It's another case of not understanding what is written. Eternal and Forever: Unending or Just a Very Long Time?You mentioned Psalm 104:5 in Message 4
and Ecclesiastes 1:4 You haven't quoted anything from Isaiah yet, so I can't comment on that one. Psalm 104:5 is part of a hymn of praise. Just as God is not liable for anything we sing today, he is not liable for anything they sang back then. These are songs to God, not from God. Just because an individual feels their land (not the planet) will never end, doesn't mean that it won't. They have no idea what the future brings. The time of the end is unknown to them. The writer isn't stating a known fact, he is expressing feelings.Ecclesiastes 1:4 is a lament and not a vision or instruction from God. Olam refers to an indefinite time, not never ending. The writer is trying to show the vanity of all things under the sun, and their insufficiency to make us happy.Even from our perspective, compared to an individual life, the planet does last forever. The average person doesn't know the end date.These are not instances of God saying, the land will never end.The end-time concept was a later belief around, if not after, the exile. Solomon, who supposedly wrote Ecclesiastes, would not have had that end-time mind set. If the Psalm was written by David or around his time frame, he also would not have had that end-time mindset. It was unknown to them.As I said before, neither of these has any bearing on what is written in 2 Peter.Instead of deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), you prefer to read meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). You deny this, but you haven't provided any support that your methods (not conclusions) are a legitimate means of interpretation or in choosing a word definition.It's a great method if you want to make the text mean what you want (eisogesis), but not if one wants to understand the natural meaning of the text (exegesis).

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

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.

---

Seriously, you don't understand the difference between quoting a scripture for a lesson and redefining what a word means when reading the text naturally?The NT writers quoted from the past. You don't redefine the Hebrew words in the OT with Greek from the NT. You don't redefine the writings of the OT with writings from the NT. The OT may inspire the NT writers, but the NT writers do not inspire the OT writers.You're doing the same thing the Priestly writer did. You're creating your own Bible.You have no respect for the natural reading of the text.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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.

quote:

---

figurative uses of a word are not re-definitions of the original word.

---

It is when it isn't used figuratively as in the case of yom and ge in the verses we've discussed.

quote:

---

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.

---

I've read the Bible cover to cover and I have no issue with the creative writings. I know how they are used, but you can't deem something figurative just because it doesn't agree with your belief or because the word has been used creatively by another author. There is no legitimate support for that method.

quote:

---

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...'

---

Earth is not used figuratively in those passages. Why do you feel earth is used figuratively? They both refer to land. What do you think they are saying?

quote:

---

Psalm 66:4 All the EARTH/ERETZ will bow down to you, And 'they' (PEOPLE) will make melody to you,

---

Earth doesn't lose it meaning in this verse. The phrase "all the earth" depending on how it is used can refer to just the human inhabitants of the land or all creatures inhabiting the land. It is the phrase that carries the figurative meaning, not the word earth and even the phrase may not always refer to people.In 1 Kings 2:2, the phrase "I go the way of all the earth" means he's going to die like any living thing. So this one isn't just referring to people, and the word earth doesn't mean die.Again, it is the difference in the meaning of the word and the meaning of the phrase or sentence.The use of earth/eretz in this phrase does not impact the use of the word earth/eretz in any other verse.IOW, we don't say that Genesis 1:1 can now be understood as saying "In the beginning God created the heaven and the people." because in Psalm 66:4 and 13:3 earth implies people in the phrase "all the earth".So your first two examples are not being used "figuratively" and in the second two the sentence determines the meaning of the phrase "all the earth". Sometimes it refers to people, sometimes it refers to death, sometimes it refers to all living things. The sentence tells us how to understand the phrase.

quote:

---

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.

---

I have no problem understanding the verses in their natural form. Your method of interpretation, on the other hand, is confusing, misleading, and unnecessary. It is your style that causes people to put the Bible away because your interpretations makes no sense and tend to run contrary to the natural reading of the text.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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.

quote:

---

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...'

---

You also said: and just inside the quote box: If you're showing figurative, why list the normal in the quote? Given your track record, I wouldn't assume you knew the difference. I apologize for the mistake.

quote:

---

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.

---

In Psalm 66, which is a song, the earth is not what is bowing down. The "All" is what is bowing down.Imagine singing this song in church. It means the same without the word earth as it does with. In poetry or songs, sometimes unnecessary words are added to maintain the rhythm or flow. These are people singing to God. They aren't singing to anyone else. The use of the word earth in this song is really unnecessary, but it doesn't sound as impressive. In this case the word "all" refers to people. In the verse I showed you, the word "all" refers to all living things.As I said, the meaning of the word earth isn't changed. The "all" refers to the people, not the word earth in Psalm 66.

quote:

---

Im sorry if you cant accept that, but thats the way we read it.

---

That's the way you read it and so far you haven't shown legitimate support for your method of interpretation.I have not disagreed that words can be used figuratively. Trotting out various sentences with figurative uses is just chaff.The point of contention is your position that because a word is used figuratively by one writer, constitutes the same meaning for the word used by another writer.The sentence determines the meaning to be used, whether figurative or literal.Paul's use of night and day doesn't influence the meaning of the word yom in Genesis 1.The phrase with the word earth in Psalm 66 doesn't influence the meaning of the word earth in 2 Peter 3:10.No passage loses its natural meaning (p'shat). Teachings that pull unrelated verses together to create a third meaning, should never contradict the natural meaning of the passage or strip a passage of its natural meaning.Show legitimate support for your position.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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.

quote:

---

i've done that but you dont seem to get it.

---

No you haven't shown a legitimate source. Legitimate means someone other than you. Legitimate means somewhere in the rules of language and grammar. So far you are presenting something that is not recognized by the normal reading populace.

quote:

---

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.

---

Did that in Message 77. Different writings, different purposes.

quote:

---

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; 6 and 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.

---

The world (kosmos) of that time suffered destruction. This is not the same as eretz or ge. Kosmos does usually refer to the inhabitants. Not The Planet

quote:

---

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.

---

Unfortunately I'm afraid to ask what you think the literal earth is. I'm not going to look up the flood story to see what word they used, but if they used eretz, they were referring to the inhabited land of the time. From my recollection of the story, the known land and everything on it was to be destroyed. Normally dry ground that is covered with water for over 40 days if not 150 days, is pretty much destroyed. Anything not used to living underwater, would have been destroyed. Eretz doesn't refer to the planet.Nope, Peter is saying the earth will be destroyed, sorry. There's nothing in the chapter that tells us otherwise. Good news is, he wasn't talking about the planet.

quote:

---

There is legitimate support for using other verses to establish what is literal and what is figurative.

---

There's a difference between using sentences surrounding a verse and using a different writer from several hundred years earlier. Plus, my guess is you're following those rules either.Then show the legitimate support. So far it's just you and from what you've shown, I question your knowledge in this area.Remember the opening question for this thread. You're deeming things figurative because they don't say what you want or match what you believe. That doesn't make them figurative.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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.?

quote:

---

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??? lol

​

What do you think Peter actually is saying in this verse.?

purpledawn writes:

​

Nope, Peter is saying the earth will be destroyed, sorry. There's nothing in the chapter that tells us otherwise. Good news is, he wasn't talking about the planet.

​

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??? lol

​

What do you think Peter actually is saying in this verse.?

---

I explained in Message 9. I explained in Message 23and Message 53and Message 73My reasoning is based on standard language and grammar rules. It is also based on standard Christian and Jewish interpretation rules.You have a problem with the natural reading of a text when the meaning is contrary to your personal beliefs or understanding. If you disagree that the word translated as earth doesn't refer to the planet, then you'll need to go to the appropriate thread for that discussion. The link is above.You do realize that even if you go with the meaning of planet for ge, the author wasn't saying the earth would crumble, implode or explode. He didn't say the land would disappear. Cleansing by fire. Just think of a forest fire. Out of the ashes springs new life.This is a map of the known "world" at about the time 2 Peter was supposedly written (100-160 CE). That is what the writer is saying will be destroyed, not the planet.Stop using the term figurative to cover what you don't understand or don't agree with.If you can't understand the text, then you can't understand the message. Read what the text says and stop trying to make it fit your needs. It's less confusing.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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?

The heavens will disappear with a great noise
the elements will melt from heat
the earth will be burned up
the works that are therein shall be burned upIn verse 7, the writer says the ungodly men will be destroyed, not all people. Since God isn't going to burn up the whole planet, he'll just move the godly people off to a cooler spot. Relocate them to the new heaven and new earth. There is nothing in the verses to suggest earth means anything figurative. There are no indicators. There is no phrase. Now obviously if the earth burns up, anything built on it, and anyone standing on it will also burn up.His point to his audience is that since everything is going to be destroyed, there is no reason to put stock in the material world. Godliness should be one's priority.

quote:

---

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?

---

It is land with people on it. I say inhabited land to differentiate from the planet. I could also say known land. Ge doesn't refer to people in 2 Peter 3:10. If Ge is destroyed obviously anything on it will also be destroyed, but that doesn't mean the word is referring to the people. If you disagree, show the indicators.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Good grief! No, I"m not doing the same thing. You're saying the word ge in the verse is figuratively referring to the people and not the land. I'm saying he is referring to known land as opposed to the planet since some feel that ge refers to the planet.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since you don't consider ge to refer to the planet, I won't speak in those terms. Don't you dare flip on me!

quote:

---

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.

---

Figurative is a deviation from the standard use of the word. In 2 Peter the writer didn't deviate from the standard use of the word ge.When we say the land is flooded, we know the water will affect anything associated with the land. The same when there is a fire. That is a standard use of the word.In 2 Peter 3:10, the writer is using the standard use of the word. If the land is burned up anything associated with it will also be burned up. There is nothing in the writing to signal that ge means only the people.In verse 13 he says "...we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. A
new land will be the home of righteousness, not new people.In 2 Peter 3:10, the writer is not using the word ge figuratively to mean something different than the standard use of the word.If you still disagree, please use the link provided and show me the figurative style being used in 2 Peter 3:10 concerning the word ge.