That 365,000 years ends, and has a beginning, therefore is not eternity. a kazillion years has a beginning and end, therefore is not eternity.
I might as well go bang my head against a wall though. IT will probably be more fruitful than trying to have a logical conversation with you.
I will stick to God’s imagery in 2 Peter 3:8 and not your explanation, Redhot…
Funny, I missed where God’s imagery says, “Eternity is like a day and a day is like eternity,” but rather, “A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.”
Huh.
Also, “God’s explanation” is over something decidedly finite: the amount of time between the First and Second Coming of Jesus. Unless you mean to say that God’s definition of “forever” is that amount of time. 
One man’s imagery is another man’s explanation and vice versa. It cuts both ways.
I was right, banging my head against the wall is more productive… ooh look at the pretty colors
If I keep it up long enough I’ll get to start eternity sooner 
Where does God dwell? Answer: Eternity…a day of time in this world God is saying would be compared to a 1000 years in eternity. Not hard guys.
God’s imagery not mine, Jeff.
But your personal interpretation just the same as counter-views are those people’s personal interpretation. Unless you’re claiming to be God’s personal mouthpiece.
I’m having a little trouble understanding all this. Does eternity-time just seem longer than earth-time? For example, if you were punished for a day in eternity it would actually feel like a thousand years. Is that what you’re saying Revival?
Of course not, the context in 2 Peter 3:8 is stating that God is not bound by time as we are and is longsuffering towards repentance. Psalm 90:4 " For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night". But I do believe that in eternity a day will seem like forever because there is no end to it.
You’re still taking two finite measures and saying that something in that equation represents infinity. No matter how much intellectual jumping around you do, the fact remains that the verse, especially in context simply does not say what you’re reading into it. We call that “eisegesis”–reading what you want to see into the text.
you ought to join me at the brick wall, the colors are very pretty and the pain goes away after a couple hits
How long does eternity last, snitz?
Which eternity? The first one or the second one?
Revival,
It doesn’t matter, since that verse is not talking about eternity. It’s talking about a very specific period of time–from Jesus’ first advent to His second. And no matter how many of these silly eisegetical jigs you dance, it’s still only going to be discussing that period of time and it’s still not going to be talking about eternity and it’s still going to be discussing only finite numbers.
You know, if a doctrine forces you to stoop to such silliness in your arguments (pulling in an unrelated passage and then not even reading what that passage itself is actually saying), you should really rethink it. The truth is, these discussions don’t seem to be about the Bible at all; they seem to be about you defending your dogma at all costs. And that raises the question: why do you feel it’s worth all costs to defend, even the costs of consistency and any semblance of solid exegesis?
Should we really worry so much, over Revival’s theodicy, when it is a theodicy built around defending a deficient-deity? After all, it appears to me that based on his interpretation of the Eli passage; God’s grace was insufficient, as would Christ’s sacrifice (by implication of Revival’s interpretation), God’s love and forgiving nature was also insufficient, and worst of all God’s justice was simply too inferior to provide genuine correction of the situation. And unfortunately, all of Eli’s descendents (even descendents if they survived today - of any length of distance, from cousin to cousin and everything in between) are doomed without trial to ceaseless damnation, based on the decisions of a human priest whose human nature was already compromised by the First Parent’s fall centuries earlier as well - to no fault of Eli’s own, or his sons.
So basically, Revival’s version of “God” is deficient, and his version of “Christ” is deficient; or else his versions of God and Christ are impotent, and as well Revival is also calling Ezekiel a liar (because God does in fact, according to Revival, punish the sons for a father’s sins, in direct contradiction to Ezekiel who saw God betwixt the Cherubim). So I can probably interpret from Revival’s establishment to Ezekiel’s erroneous statement in his writings that the Bible is not infact inerrant. Hence I am faced with three choices;
Reject Revival’s theodicy, interpretation, and theological themes; hence maintaining that there exists Biblical consistency, as well as consistency in the supremacy of God and Christ, namely their loving, just, and graceful natures; hence maintaining Universalism as true.
Accept Revival’s theodicy, interpretation, and theological themes; hence be faced with Biblical errors and so have to reject Biblical inerrancy (or in my case accuracy), thus rejecting that the passage concerning Eli is also accurate and so reject the whole premise that “God won’t save Eli or their family” that is drawn from the now said “erroneous” passage. Doing so along with rejecting the passage in Ezekiel that says God won’t visit a son with the consequences of the sins of the father, and all Biblical passages referring to any sort of interpretative “Eternal Damnation” - as being erroneous; hence an erroneous Bible.
In which case Revival’s theodicy, interpretation, and theological themes are self-defeating. In order to accept them I have to abandon Biblical accuracy and consistency, and in abandoning that I must abandon the foundation Revival claims his theodicy, interpretation, and theological themes are based upon - hence I must reject Revival’s claims, per abandoning Revival’s basic materials from which he draws his claims and their defense.
Basically, option 3. should I choose to accept it, would be a choice on my part for standing on “shifting sand” theology right along with him. Instead of standing on The Rock!
I for one, prefer option 1.
i agree, but i want to know your definition of eternity. You reject my understanding of
it what is your understanding of eternity. What is it and how long does it last?
“Eternity,” the English word, has something of a flexible definition:
A period of time without a limit in at least one direction or possibly both.
A state of being that transcends time altogether. Philosophically, I think “timeless” is a bit of a misnomer (though it adequately expresses, at least, the concept that there is no passage of time); perhaps “supertemporal” is more like it.
Much confusion has resulted from the conflation of these definitions and, especially, from reading either of these ideas into Greek and Hebrew words that don’t naturally express them.
Eternity is not in the greek or hebrew. Aion=eon. Olam=to the horizon.
It doesn’t matter what our definition of eternity is, the bible doesn’t even speak of it. Eternity is just like hell. Its a mistranslation, so who cares about who’s definition. The bible speaks of ages. We know nothing after the ages of the ages, well except God is all in all. That is the horizon, we can’t see beyond that.
Exactly, Redhot. Well, the Bible DOES speak of eternity, but only occasionally, and always as something particular to God. Never do the Greek or Hebrew words used of punishment refer to “eternity.”