Revelations Not Foretelling the Future?

[Mariolee]

So my friend has been taking theology classes at his catholic school, and he decided to discuss with me what Revelations was really talking about. He piqued my interest when he first stated, "Yeah, did you know Revelations wasn't really telling the future." He went on to tell me on how it was all code for some sort of political revolution against the Roman Empire. I know early Christians used codes to escape persecution, but this seems to be too much. This rose many alarms in my head, but I want to get your opinions first. Do you think this interpretation of the Bible has any real credibility behind it?

[Katabole]

Hi Mariolee,

Do you think this interpretation of the Bible has any real credibility behind it?

No.

The timeline of the book of Revelation is given in the first chapter of the book.

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, (KJV)

The 'I' is the writer of the book, John the apostle. John is actually in prison, but John claims he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. You will find the Lord's day written throughout the Old Testament and the New. The Lord's day is a 1000 year long period of time when Jesus Christ the Lord returns to the earth. In 2Pet 3:8 it lets you specifically know what type of day it is. John was taken into the future by the Spirit of God.

Once in the future he is given a task to perform:

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

And

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

John is told to write what he sees in a book and send that message to the churches. He is also told to write what he sees before, during and after the day of the Lord and write that in a book as well. At the end of the book of Revelation, John is returned back to his own time in prison. Most of the book is fortelling the future. Ch 12 is a paranthetical chapter and covers a greater span of time then any chapter in the Bible, from the beginning of time to the end of the Lords' day and beyond. You won't understand the book if you don't understand that.

The only so-called "code" is the numerical prophecy in Rev ch 13 which I understand to simply be the 6th seal, 6th trumpet and 6th vile. That's when Satan comes to earth disguised as Christ to perform his role as antichrist. Christ doesn't return until the 7th seal, 7th trumpet and 7th vile.

The word Revelation means to reveal or unveil and it is God's truth that is being revealed. God is not the author of confusion so maybe you should give it another read.

Hope that helps you.

[Canuckster1127]

So my friend has been taking theology classes at his catholic school, and he decided to discuss with me what Revelations was really talking about. He piqued my interest when he first stated, "Yeah, did you know Revelations wasn't really telling the future." He went on to tell me on how it was all code for some sort of political revolution against the Roman Empire. I know early Christians used codes to escape persecution, but this seems to be too much. This rose many alarms in my head, but I want to get your opinions first. Do you think this interpretation of the Bible has any real credibility behind it?

This is sometimes known as the Historical perspective of Revelation. It's a common view and alternative to the typical approach that Futurists take. It also tends to tie in part back to a partial preterist or a full preterist view, but it's by no means limited to that.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I should know more about this and I don't... kind of ashamed of it.

My only real claim about how Revelations works with the future has more to do with God's talent in storytelling - He, unlike any human writer in history, is great at telling two stories at the same time. I would be surprised if Revelation didn't have both immediate (to the first century) connotations and connotations to the future of the world as a whole.

[PaulSacramento]

Most scholars tend to view Revelation as "more than just one view" of things.
There is much in revelations of the goings on of 1st century Christianity and the persecutions it was going through and there is also much about the persecutions they WOULD go through.
It also gives us a view of how "things are in Heaven" and what is to come in the final judgment of US.
There is no timeline and it is very, VERY symbolic, as was apocalyptic literature of the day and genre.
Numbers don't mean much and they are certianly not literal, description of events are highly symbolic and "storytelling-like".
There are many images of multi-headed beasts and fierce angels and such, again very common in Hebrew apocalyptic stories ( influenced by their stay in Babylon).
You will find many similarities between Revelation and Enoch1 ( book of Watchers).
Just the genre.

[Katabole]

There is no timeline

Paul, do you then disagree with John's statement that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day in Rev 1:10? If you do, could you please document that there is no time line using verses of scripture?

You will find many similarities between Revelation and Enoch1 ( book of Watchers).

Why would you make a comparison between a book used for twenty centuries and accepted as scripture by the vast majority of Christians compared to a non-canonical book used by a small group of the Ethiopian copts?

Numbers don't mean much and they are certianly not literal, description of events are highly symbolic and "storytelling-like".

On the contrary, the book of Revelation is filled with numbers and they mean a great deal when it comes to a deeper study of scripture.

Check out E W Bullingers Number in scripture.

http://www.giveshare.org/library/numberscripture/

[rstrats]

Mariolee,

re: “Revelations Not Foretelling the Future?”

Any particular reason for adding an “s” at the end of Revelation?

[Legatus]

The Lord's day is a 1000 year long period of time when Jesus Christ the Lord returns to the earth"

Uh, where is this stated, as such, in the bible, that "the lords day" must mean 1000 years? Last I heard, "the lords day" was the name of the sabbath, which had moved from saturday to sunday, and thus changed it's name from sabbath to lords day. John had his vision on sunday, that is all. If this lords day was 1000 years that John was seeing, well, that is "millenial kingdom" time, right, so why does revelation speak of events prior to that? 2pet 3:8 does not say that when God says day he means 1000 years. If God means to say 1000 years, why not just say it? Read it agian, IS LIKE a thousand years, if he ment that his saying one day is saying 1000 years, well, then it would say "one days IS 1000 years". Also, read the whole thing again, that 1000 years period mentioned in revelations must actally mean one day, right? I mean, you can't just read one half of that verse and ignore the other half, if it is saying that when God says day he means 1000 years, then when he says 1000 years he must mean day, right? All God is saying in Peter is that God is outside of time, and sees all time, past, present, and future, as part if his eternal NOW. We know this is true because we see prophecies that have come true http://www.oldwireroadchurch.com/fulfil ... omises.php which shows that someone (God) saw these events before they happened and told us about them, and because we have sent satellites with very accurate clocks up into a fast orbit, and the clocks ended up a slightly off time relative to ground based clocks, which shows that time is a property of this material universe. God is a spirit, is not material, and lives outside this material universe anyway, and thus is outside of time.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
See, not a code, yestereday could mean 12 hour period or 24 hour period, and watch in the night is 3 hours only. If it were a code (and why put "secret codes" in the bible?), well, which is it, 3 hours, 12 hours, or 24 hours? Read it, "IS LIKE", "LIKE", "IN YOUR SIGHT", "ARE LIKE", "OR LIKE", all of which just mean 1000 years "feels like" only a day or so to God.

"A thousand years" is just a hebrew ideom for a long but finite period of time (more ideoms http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/24_idioms.html). Here is a post I found about that on another forum:
Revelation contains hundreds of allusions to the Old Testament and is thoroughly seeped in Jewish symbolism. In Jewish idiom and poetic thought, numbers were important. Ten was the number of quantitative completeness. (seven by contrast is the number of qualitative completeness. Three is the number of amplification. (for example, God is called “holy, holy, holy”) it stands for manyness. A thousand multiplies and intensifies this (10x10x10), in order to express great values [a perfect cube of ten – quantitative perfection] So,10x10x10 is quantitative completeness amplified. It is the perfect intensely complete period of time. Another example in Revelation demonstrates this:

Rev 5:11 – Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.


The number thousand is commonly used this way in the OT. For example:

Ps 50:10 - For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

Thus God claims to own the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10). This of course does not mean that the cattle on the 1001st hill belongs to someone else. God owns all the cattle on all the hills. But He says, “a thousand” to indicate that there are many hills and much cattle. See also:

Deut 1:11 – May the LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!

Deut 7:9 - Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments.

Job 9:2-3 – Truly I know it is so, but how can a man be righteous before God? If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out of a thousand.

Psalm 68:17 – The chariots of God are twenty thousand, Even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.

Psalm 84:10 – For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand.

Ps 90:4 – For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.

Ps 105:8 – He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations.

It was an idiom. We kind of today use the word “million” in the same way, and we must let the Bible tell us how to interpret the Bible.

Similarly the thousand years of Revelation 20 represent a vast, undefined period of time which fits in well with the OT descriptions of the Messianic reign as “everlasting” and “forever” which are Hebrew words designating a very long period of time but not necessarily forever as we understand it (for that would be in contradiction to what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15). A literal “one thousand” is not even the Hebrew idea of forever and would not fit in with the descriptions of the length of the Messianic reign. Remember that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, that the “rapture” ENDS the Messianic reign of Christ, not begins it. So by necessity, the “millennium” precedes the rapture.

In light of all of this, it is interesting that such a crucial doctrine to premillenialism as the thousand year reign, is only supposedly mentioned here. If a literal earthly millennium is so prominent in the thoughts of the apostles and such an important era in redemptive history we should it expect to appear multiple times in the NT NOT ONLY in the most figurative book of all Scripture.
1 Cor 15:20 1 Cor 15:21 1 Cor 15:22 1 Cor 15:23 1 Cor 15:24 1 Cor 15:25 1 Cor 15:26 1 Cor 15:27 1 Cor 15:28 Note that all will be made alive, this cannot be the Millenial kingdom, since otherwise that kingdom would contain all beleivers throughout history, old and new testiment, plus all other peoples, kinda crowded don't you think?

Also, you cannot just switch back and forth from figurative to literal and back to figurative in Revelations whenever you feel like it. You can't go figurative figurative figurative literal figurative figurative, with the "literal" part being the 1000 years part. It is either figurative writing, or literal, not switching back and forth without any notice given.

And this idea has resulted in such ridiculous notions as history being two thousand years plus two thousand years plus two thousand years plus one thousand year "millenial kingdom". Look at your calender, if this were true, God is 11 years late, right? Do you really think there is some kind of magical Christian numerology where God must do things in exactly 7 year (365 days x 7 exactly) or 1000 year (365 days x1000 exactly?) periods? I mean, do these numbers have any magical power by themselves, such that God must restrict himself to them? Are we to stand around on mountaintops as so many have before us, sure that we have deciphered the "secret" date of Gods return, only to be disappointed as all the others have been? Do we believe in numerology, and therefore believe in magic, and therefore beleive in witchcraft, which the bible forbids? Why are we so quick to convert the bible to secret codes (with no key given to decypher them) and witchcraft?

[rstrats]

Legatus,

re: “ Last I heard, ‘the lords day’ was the name of the sabbath, which had moved from saturday to sunday, and thus changed it's name from sabbath to lords day. John had his vision on sunday, that is all.”


Do you have any scripture to support those notions?

[Katabole]

Morning Legatus.

Well after reading your post, it is probably best that I don't say much because we have different views on eschatology. I don't believe in the rapture theory whatsoever Leg. I believe Christ will eventually bring the kingdom of God to Earth and that no one is flying away anywhere.
Yes, I have read the book of Revealtion quite a number of times, neary 40 I believe. I made up my mind over 17 years ago on what its prophetic utterance was expressing and until I feel I am proven wrong, I'll stick to what I understand. I am well aware of your viewpoint as I have had quite a number of debates and heated arguments with those who disagreed with my position, as you do.
The day of the Lord is one of those categories where there are different points of view. Much like:

The debate between Young earth creationism and old earth.
Between theistic evolution and creation ex nihilo.
Between those who believe in a local flood and those who believe it was global.
Between those who believe the food laws are done away with and those who don't.
Between those who believe Satan is real or symbolic.
Between those who believe in hell and annihilation.
Between those who believe in a rapture and those who don't.

Are those things necessary for salvation. No, they are not.

I am well aware of the figures of speech used in the Bible. There are 181 different kinds.

Leg, you believe in Christ, love and worship Him. I know that from your posts that I've read. That's fantastic! I'm sure many as I have stated, have and will disagree with my position. There are many millions of members of my church that would completely disagree with yours and I could probably write 150 pages completely dissecting what you said. Many books by many people have been written about it from both perspectives.

I don't know if you have read E W Bullinger's work on the Day of the Lord. I think Dr. Bullinger was a great scholar but I don't agree with everything he says. But this work is meticulous, intelligent and passionate, and in my opinion, the best work on the subject in the English language. Maybe you should give it a read.

http://philologos.org/__eb-ta/default.htm

[Legatus]

Legatus,

re: “ Last I heard, ‘the lords day’ was the name of the sabbath, which had moved from saturday to sunday, and thus changed it's name from sabbath to lords day. John had his vision on sunday, that is all.”


Do you have any scripture to support those notions?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm
Blue letter bible, looking up this, the original language (thus the original scripture), looking up Rev 1:10, and then Strongs 2960, here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 960&t=NASB
Lexicon Results for Strongs Concordence G2960 - kyriakos adjective
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) belonging to the Lord
2) related to the Lord
Thayers Lexicon
1) The supper instituted by the lord.
2) The day devoted to the lord, sacred to the memory of Christ's resurrection.
Seen in Rev 1:10 and 1Cor 11:20, in the latter refering to the lords supper, held on sunday.

results for the day of the lord
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/t ... ord&t=NASB
The references here being to the last day, day of judgement.

Results for the lord's day
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/t ... =NASB&sf=5
Matches Rev 1:10, the sabbath, and verious odd verses with day and lord in it unrelated to a day of judgement or end times.

[jlay]

Leg,

I think he is speaking of your claim that the sabbath was moved. There is certainly nothing in the scripture to indicate the 7th day sabbath was moved.

[Legatus]

Leg,

I think he is speaking of your claim that the sabbath was moved. There is certainly nothing in the scripture to indicate the 7th day sabbath was moved.

I was actually speaking of "the lords day", and how it was used in Rev 1:10, and how it was not used for any 1000 year periods in the original language, and was not the same as "the day of the lord", but was used for sunday, the day that many had taken to celebrating the lords supper (that being the day the Jesus rose from the dead), and many had also moved their sabbath to that day to more conveniently do the both of them together. And it is incorrect that it is not said that some had changed the day they held their sabbath, see here:
Rom 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Rom 14:6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
The apostles had to contend with this controversy, which day to meet, and basically said "chill out", and don't worry about it, after all, do you really think God cares if you meet on saturday or sunday, so long as you meet ? Or is it not written that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath Mark 2:27?

And if we are to say that 'day" in Rev 1:10 is 1000 years, based on 2 Pet 3:8, lets be consistant, Jesus rose on the thrid 1000 years, the thousand year millenial kindom will last exactly one day, etc.

[Legatus]

Well after reading your post, it is probably best that I don't say much because we have different views on eschatology. I don't believe in the rapture theory whatsoever Leg. I believe Christ will eventually bring the kingdom of God to Earth and that no one is flying away anywhere.

I think pretty much everyone has different views on eschatology, and I think that is somewhat deliberate of God, I think there are some things God simply does not want us to know, like the specifically stated non knowing of the date Jesus will return Mat 24:42 . I believe that the reason it is talked about in such figurative language is to tell us that God knows exactly what will happen, but we don't and don't need to worry about it since God has it covered. I also do not beleive in the rapture as such, specifically, a secret rapture is impossible, since Jesus very clearly said that when he comes it would be seen as far as the east is from the west, with the voice of an archangle and of a loud trunpet, not exactly secret, and the specific descriptions given say the only people caught up in the air are such Christians as exist on earth on that day, to meet with the Christians (including pre Christ old testiment believers) in the air, and then return with Christ immediatly back to earth. The two men in the field are a Christian and a non Christian, the Christian is caught up, then returns, and spends forever with the Lord, the non Christian is not caught up, sees Christ return, and is judged. Mat 24:30 Mat 24:31

I also beleive that many people spend far too much time thinking about it, going to prophecy conferences, and just acting more like rapturians than Christians. The only thing God said to do about it was to be ready, and to be ready we need to concentrate on what we are doing that God said to do here and now, otherwise we will be "so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good". I suspect that a lot of this is a trick of Satan, to get people to believe in Christ only because of an increasingly fanciful and made up eschatology, which, when it is eventually proven false will cause people to say 2 Pet 3:4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." .Basically, it looks like Satan is setting up a false straw man eschatology, which will be knocked down, and many peoples "faith" will be so tied up to their eschatology that their "faith" will be knocked down with it (or that's the plan, anyway, Satans' plans often don't work out). After all, many people "came to Christ" through eschatology these days, and some may believe not in Christ but in the eschatology, because it looks like the world is going to hell in a handbasket (so what else is new?) and eschatology promises a way out. Others will be dissapointed that their eschatology did not work out, but have actually come to Christ, and will stay with Christ, and be saved, even though their faith may be temorarily shaken for a time.

Some of these may have more impact than you know.
The debate between Young earth creationism and old earth.
To support a young earth, you must deliberatly ignore a huge amount of evidence that the earth is old. To do that, you must lie to yourself, repeatedly. That sets up a pattern of lying to cover up your former lies, a pattern that does not lead to God, and looks like something invented by the father of lies, not God. You may indeed be saved, despite your inorance, however, others will fall away due to your ignorance, since the trick by Satan is to get you to say something so very easily disproven that everyone will say that if the bible says that, it is merely fable and not true, and therefore the God of the bible is not true, and should not even be considered. This is now taught in every public school, it is far more important than some little minor disagreement, because of it the majority of people on the earth may not even consider coming to Christ, since the bible was "proven" not true. Of course, if you don't care if those people go to hell...

Between theistic evolution and creation ex nihilo.
For either of these to be true, there must be a God, for that matter, non theistic evolution is impossible without a God (even a universe where it is even possible is impossible without a god http://www.youtube.com/user/IDquest#g/a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw), therefore I would tend to sort of agree with this one. However, the idea from Satan is to say "evolution is science, non evlolution is anti-science, you don't want to be anti-science do you?". In fact, if you look closely at the bible, it leans toward evolution, "let the earth bring forth grass" not "and God made grass out of nothing", thus to dogmatically support ex nihilo (except for mankind, where the method WAS specified) you must once again ignore some physical evidence of evolution which once again results in you lying, and then lying again to cover up your former lies, a pattern that leads to a bad end. It can also lead some to say that evolution is science, therefore science is bad, therefore they reject science, and others say that the bible is therefore non factual since it does not agree with science and therefore one should ignore it.

Between those who believe in a local flood and those who believe it was global.
You may go to heaven in your ignorance, but you may lead others to hell, since what you are saying here is completly denied by the physical evidence, and once again you must lie to yourself and others, and cover it up with more lies, to avoid that evidence, not a good path. Once again you will have "proven" to others that the bible has been proven false, so they should not even consider that it might be true, did Jesus say you should lead people to hell? Perhaps we should consider that the place specified in the bible, "east of Eden", is where the people were, as seen here http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-c ... -gulf.html rather than making up a fable which Satan can use as an easily knocked down straw man.

Between those who believe the food laws are done away with and those who don't.
So, you can go to heaven even if you substitute works rightiousness for what Jesus did? Have you read the epistles, where this problem is covered over and over? Gal 2:11 Gal 2:12 Gal 2:13 Gal 2:14 Gal 2:15 Gal 2:16 Gal 2:17 Gal 2:18 Gal 2:19 Gal 2:20 Gal 2:21 causing Paul to say Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Gal 3:4 Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing? Gal 3:5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
So, yes, it is very possible to, by believing in food laws, in works rightiousness, to end up damned since you have rejected the gospel. It is possible to maybe not be strict about it and not believe that it is actually nessissary for salvation and still be saved Rom 14:3, but that is toeing a fine line there.

Between those who believe Satan is real or symbolic.
If you believe Satan, who appeared to Jesus hiself when he was tempted in the desert, is symbolic, you really have to stretch. If you can beleive that is "symbolic", what other things do you relagate to the catagory of merely symbolic? Was Jesus symbolic, was the cross symbolic, some say so, should we agree with them? To say that something that is stated as not symbolic is symbolic, and something stated as symbolic (such as revelation which states it is a vision) is not symbolic, we are going down a path that leads us to essentually making the bible largely symbolic, merely "fable" or "literature", and that can indeed lead to hell.

Between those who believe in hell and annihilation.
Well...granted. However, if you downgrade it to anhiliation, well, that's not so bad, you might be inclined to risk it...

Between those who believe in a rapture and those who don't.
Covered above, can lead to hell, can lead to a shaking of your faith if proven wrong, for many leads you away from doing what you should be doing in the here and now, does not lead to good things in any case. Beleive in rapture, get no rapture, faith shaken or destroyed. Not believe in rapture, get raptured anyway, merely a pleasant suprise.

Lastly, I do not nessissarily accept that someone is a Chrsitian simply because they go to church, after all, going to a garage does not make you a car. Also, Jesus said that many say they are believers but are not Mat 7:21 Mat 7:22 Mat 7:23, therefore, some of the above "beleivers" who may believe in these things, may not be believers at all. One should not accept something simply because the person who believes it says that they are a Christian, not even if they can back it up with "many miracles", but soley on what the word says.

As for the day of the lord, well, just because many may believe the wrong thing does not mean I should. I really don't care if millions or billions beleive something or disbelieve it, it is a non factor. The question is, what did God say. I covered what God said above, in my first post in this thread. God does not even mention "the day of the lord" in Rev 1:10, only "the lords day", stated as sunday occording to concordences and suchlike that look up the actual original language words used, their original definition, and where and how they were used elsewhere.

And remember, if 2 Pet 3:8 says that when God says one day, he means one thousand years, well then, when God says one thousnad years, he means one day, so that one thousand year millenial kingdom must last exactly one day. You can't have it both ways, if you believe the first part of that verse is some 'secret code" where God says one thing but means another wherever God says "day", well then, to be consistant, when God says one thousand years, he must mean one day. Or are you going to beleive half of this verse and throw out the other half/ There are penatlies for thowing out parts of the bible you want to ignore Rev 22:19. And check out Psa 90:4for what Peter is saying (again).

And as for that link about E W Bullinger, well, at least you gave a link, and I copied it, can give it a look. Many do not give links or anything, at least you have a reason for your beleif (it may or may not be correct, but at least you gave me something to judge for myself). I do have one question though, does he anywhere in that book argue that day means 1000 years because of 2 Pet 3:8 ? My search shows it may not, however, I cannot be sure as I do not know what exact translation of the bible he used and thus do not know the exact words to search for. The question here is after all, does Rev 1:10 refere to a 1000 year period, or just John having a vision on a sunday? And does 2 Pet 3:8 mean that we should alsways say that 'day" means "1000 years", and if so where, and why not here or there also, and why not also translate 1000 years to mean one day?

My objection is to saying that Rev1 :10 saying "on the lords day" means anything other than the day of the lords supper, sunday, which is how it is used in the bible here 1Cor 11:20, Strong's G2960 - kyriakos .
My objection is to using 2 Pet 3:8 in a way that is completly wrong from what it actually states, even to using the first half of it while turning a blind eye to the second half to suit your taste.
My objection is to using 2 Pet 3:8 this way while ignoring Psa 90:4, a verse I am sure Peter knew about and was just saying it again.
My objection is to turning 2 Pet 3:8, and the bible, into some kind of "secret code", where God says one thing but means another.
My objection is to accepting that when 2 Pet 3:8 says day it means 1000 years, while ignoring that if that is true, then 1000 years means one day. My objection is to throwing out parts of the bible that don't fit the idea we like. If you don't like what it said, go write your own bible.
My objection is to turning this into some kind of Chrsitian numerology, magic, witchcraft, where God is obliged to follow some higher than himself law of numbers and use times like exactly 365 days times 7, or 365 days times 1000 (or 360 days if you like).
My objection is how that sort of idea has resulted in people standing on top of hills waiting for the Lord's return, sure that they have figured out the date of his return based on their numerology, only to be dissapointed again and again, and bring Christ's name into disrepute.
My objection is to ignoring the way that the Hebrews of these times actually used these numbers as symbols to stand for the perfect amount of time (10*10*10, one thousand, the perfect peroid of time, of fullfillment), instead, twisting the clear word of God into our own twist on these numbers. God chose the laguages and the cultures behind those languages, and had a hand in shaping that language and culture, to assure that the bible said EXACTLY what God wanted it to say. We must accept what it said and the way it said it in it's original language, what those people ment when they said that (which has been exhaustively studied), and not substitute our own desired modern meanings whenever we feel like it. If you don't like the original languages and culteral meanings of those words and phrases God chose to write the bible in, go make your own universe, with your own cultures and languages, and see if you can do better.
My objection is to interpreating parts of the bible as figurative that are indeed stated to actually BE figurative, but then taking small snippets of that, sandwitched between figurative parts, and decideing that that one small part is exactly literal, such as that 1000 years. Figuarative figurative figurative figurative figurative LITERAL figurative figurative is just dishonest, you can't just arbitrarily decide which parts are which to suit your pet theory.

Or are we now to change or ignore parts of the bible that do not suit us, just as Adam and Eve chose to ignore what God had commanded so very long ago in the garden? THAT is what I am objecting to here.

[Katabole]

Leg, what you are interpreting is not my interpretation of 2Pet 3:8. I believe you are over analyzing something which Peter puts forth very straightforward.

Peter could have told us many things that we were not to be ignorant of. But the one thing he claims is for us to understand a comparison. 2Pet 3:8 is a double metaphor. A metaphor is a comparison using the words like or as. The word "AS" is used twice in the verse in the English KJV. Other versions use the word like. Peter lets us know that piece of information for our ease of understanding. The Lord's day is the same length of time as a thousand of our years. A thousand of our years are the same length of time as the the Lord's day.

Rev 20:1(KJV) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

The thousand years in verse two, three, five and seven are the thousand years Peter wants us not to be ignorant of, also called the Lord's day or day of the Lord.

Verse 2: And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him (during the Lord's day).

Verse 3: And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till (the Lord's day) should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Verse 5: But the rest of the dead lived not again until (the Lord's day) was finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Verse 7: And when the (Lord's day) is expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison.

This is the same Lord's day John is speaking of in Rev 1:10. John was taken into the future to that thousand year period, the Lord's day.

According to verse 19 in the first chapter, he is told to write the things that happen before the Lord's day, during the Lord's day and after the Lord's day, which he did.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Leg, I brought up the different examples because there is contention on those things within the Christian faith. They among other topics, cause disagreement. There are also no conditions on John 3:16, other than believing. I am an old earth creationist. I know, for example, a number of young earth creationists and they absoluely love Jesus. They may be theologically wrong, they may have convinced others to believe in YEC but that doesn't mean they won't gain salvation. Jesus doesn't say that young earth creationism refutes his ability to grant eternal life to someone who loves him. Otherwise, John 3:16 would not be there.

Same with Romans 10:13. If someone calls upon Jesus, they will be saved. Again no conditions attached. It doesn't say that if you believe in annihilation, for example, you won't be saved if you call on Him.

Plus, God is the judge. We do not know what goes on in a person's mind right before they die. We know God is faithful and we also know that Christ can forgive sin. If a person believes and/or calls upon Him, God will forgive and save them.

By the way, the seventh day Sabbath was changed by the Roman Emperor Constantine to Sunday in 321 AD, in order for the pagan Romans to accept Christianity, after he made Christianity the only legal religion in the Roman empire. Constantine rejected the biblical seventh day Sabbath and replaced it with Sunday. Israelites simply called the seventh day of the week the Sabbath.That is different than the first day of the week as mentioned in the Gospels. The Romans worshipped the sun on Sunday, that's why it's called it Sunday. Paul could have told the gentiles the Sabbath had been changed to the first day of the week. But according to Acts 17:2, he upheld the seventh day Sabbath. And the Gentiles in Acts 13:42 wanted to hear the Word on the Sabbath day. There is no biblical instruction to keep Sunday, that is, the first day of the week. That day was introduced to Christianity by Rome just before the council of Nicea, over 300 years after Jesus resurrected. So the day in Rev 1:10 is not Sunday.