Amos

There you go, "and [as] a watch in the night" when you can't see." Obviously the post makes reference to intuition become rationale knowledge.

Are you people hiding behind ignorance or what?

Amos

No more like when you put your fingers on a high voltage line.

Jayhawker Soule

You are, of course, correct. On the other hand, while I lament this limitation, I both enjoy and benefit from his clarity -- not to mention such gems as:

Thanks, by the way, for the website. I'll use it gratefully.

Haran

Sure. My opinion is that the writer of 2 Peter 3:8 probably had Psalm 90:4 in mind. This same view can be found in many commentaries.

Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "modern interpretation to backfit Genesis into scientific observations"....

A note on the Psalm that may have even escaped the writer of 2 Peter... The text of Psalm 90:4 adds "and as a watch in the night". So which is a thousand years to God? As long as a watch in the night (about 4 hours), or as a day gone by? I would say that the Psalm was simply intended to show that God sees time quite differently than we do.

Haran

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

ROTFL!!! Too true. Kinda drives the point home, huh?

No problem. I've been collecting relevant websites for a while and decided that maybe others could use them as well.

Enjoy,
Haran

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Kosh

When I read the Psalms passage, I don't walk away
with the concept that a 1000 years is like a day
to God. The only thing I see in common between
them is the mentioning of a 1000 year period.
Then again, I'm reading it in English, so I wasn't
sure how much is lost in the translation.

The question is, before 2 Peter was written, did
the Hebrews even have the concept that to God
1000 years is like a day. Seems there are several
possibilities:

- "Peter" interpreted Psalms 90 that way and used
it to support his apologetics
- "Peter" made it up completely, and later readers
mis-interpret Psalms to support 2 Peter
- (way out there) Since nothing we have dates
before 9th century, Psalms could have been added
after the fact to support 2 Peter (I love a good
conspiracy theory!)

Basically, 2 Peter is now used by liberal Christians to support the day-age theory of
Genesis. Since 2 Peter was written specifically
as an apologetic to the failed return of Jesus,
I'm trying to determine if there is truly OT
support for the "thousand year" concept. Frankly,
as the saying goes "Scratch the skin of a Fundie,
and you'll find an atheist. Scratch the skin of
an atheist, and you'll find a fundie". I don't
buy into the day age theory, or any of the
apologetics that go along with it. Nor did it seem
to be obvious to the Church until recently.

Historically it looks like this:

- OT says earth created in 6 days, earth is 6000 years old
- Jews believe this to be literal
- NT says Jesus will return before end of generation
- Peter apologizes for Jesus failure to return,
introduces 1000 year concept
- Science shows earth to be millions of years old
- Christians use Peter's 1000 year concept to see
a "new truth" in Genesis and re-interpret genesis
to fit science.
- Christians point to Psalms to support 2 Peter

THe queston is simply, was was Psalms 90 really
trying to say? Because it certainly seems that
noboby got that 1000 year day/age concept from
it until 2 Peter.

Haran

I don't doubt you, but what is it about the wording that doesn't leave you with the idea of 1000 years to God is like yesterday, and even like a few hours for that matter?

I believe it was trying to say the time is different between us and God, not necessarily that 1000 years is exactly one day to God.

Why do you think that "nobody got that...until 2 Peter"?

Haran

Kosh

I DO get that from the reading. But I think
that is different than saying that to
God 1000 years is like a day to us.

To God, 1000 years is like yesterday

&lt;&gt; (not equal to&gt;

To God, 1000 yeas is like one day

Because if that were the case, the Fundies wouldn't have insisted (even now some of them
do) that the earth was created in 6 literal days...

Jayhawker Soule

It's clearly not up there with Macbeth 5:5, but maybe it's just poetry none the less -- perhaps even poetry grounded in some long forgotten idiom. If we look hard enough and long enough, we may come to discern a hidden meaning, but I wonder to what extent we're simply pretending to know more than we should have any expectation of knowing.

Kosh

Precisely.