Posted on 11/28/2014 6:46:17 PM PST by Steelfish
Not how Peter described it: " in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way,"
Now it is possible to say destruction is a transformation of sorts, but I think it fits nicely with John's more poetic 'former heaven and the former earth had passed away' of Rev 21:1.
“Read the article, it is a quote from there.”
I did. Having a quote from a second party does not prove your claim.
“Dude, you need to be on the Pope’s staff. Your argument isn’t with me, it is with the reportage.”
No, you’re making assertions with no proof whatsoever.
“Not how Peter described it:”
Not surprisingly you’re missing the point. Doesn’t the same Peter say in verse 13 that there will be a new heaven and earth? Then that means the destruction of the old earth is not a destruction forever but a step toward transformation. That is EXACTLY what Francis is saying.
“Now it is possible to say destruction is a transformation of sorts, but I think it fits nicely with John’s more poetic ‘former heaven and the former earth had passed away’ of Rev 21:1.”
In the end, about THE END, the pope is not saying what you said he said.
Francis’ statements in the article conflict with what St Peter described. Whether Francis said them or not is something you have no proof of. As reported, Francis’ position is in disagreement with St Peter’s.
No, and John agrees with me as well, the old earth is gone, passed away in Revelation, destroyed in Peter's letter. The new heaven and earth as just that, new.
“Francis’ statements in the article conflict with what St Peter described.”
Nope.
“Whether Francis said them or not is something you have no proof of. As reported, Francis’ position is in disagreement with St Peter’s.”
No, actually it isn’t. I already explained how it is not.
“No, and John agrees with me as well, the old earth is gone, passed away in Revelation, destroyed in Peter’s letter. The new heaven and earth as just that, new.”
It is new, but that means the old was not just destroyed without something new. The old was transformed.
And that explanation was rejected on the basis of plain English. For it to be legitimate would require language torture. Pass away/destroyed vs. transformed. Was the Pope mistranslated again?
The old is gone, destroyed, passed away. In its place the new.
“And that explanation was rejected on the basis of plain English.”
Was rejected? Being rejected by you doesn’t mean anything.
“For it to be legitimate would require language torture.”
No, it wouldn’t.
“Pass away/destroyed vs. transformed. Was the Pope mistranslated again?”
I doubt it.
The new replaces the old, but the fact that it is new doesn’t mean it is not transformed. Think of it in the same way our bodies will be glorified at the resurrection. The old body passed away, we will still be ourselves, but now glorified. That’s a transformation rather than just a new creation ex nihilo.
Of course not, you proclaim it, it must be so, no matter what the language says.
Except that the text says the old earth is destroyed. Our bodies are a different matter.
You think your body won’t be destroyed after you’re dead?
My current one will be transformed, just as Scripture says. Who’s to say they will die?
“Except that the text says the old earth is destroyed. Our bodies are a different matter.”
Transformation none the less.
Destruction of language, need the Humpty Dumpty graphic.
“Destruction of language, need the Humpty Dumpty graphic.”
Just post a selfie.
I’d need yours to be accurate.
“I’d need yours to be accurate.”
No, you have all you need. Look in the mirror.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.