Why The World Will Not End in 2012, or Anytime Soon
by After living for over half a century, passing through the alignment of the planets and Y2K, I’m hearing it again. This time rabble has it that the world will end in 2012. Once that passes, there will be other “discoveries” made and years set. Based on the Holy Bible, the world will not be destroyed until a set number of years are completed in the distant future from the initial publication of this article. However, some other things will definitely end, which all of us must be aware of.
We do have to realize that the physical world will end as it is at some point. By the Holy Spirit Peter (2 Peter 3:10) writes, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” While that seems quite harsh, one should read in Revelation 21 and 22 about what follows the destruction of the earth. It is something to look forward to if one is ready.
World Vs. Age
So why do I assert that the Holy Bible clearly shows the physical world will not end in 2012, but the time is reserved for the distant future from the initial publication of this article?
First, let us clear up a matter regarding wording. In the New Testament (N.T.), which was written in Koine (Common) Greek, there are three Greek words which can be translated as “world,” one of which is “aion.” W. E. Vine[1] describes its meaning as, “An age, a period of time, marked in the N.T. usage by spiritual or moral characteristics…” From “aion,” we get the English “aeon,” meaning an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time, age.
The phrase, “end(s) of the world,” found in some versions occurs seven times in the New Testament: Matthew 13:39, 13:9, 24:3, 28:20, Romans 10:18, 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Hebrews 9:26. Except for Romans 10:18, the word for “world” is aion. The Greek word in Romans 10:18 means the inhabited earth where it is used to point out that the Gospel had been proclaimed great distances from Jerusalem.
Numerous events and conditions are prophesied by Christ Matthew 24, and if one is using an older translation, considering current events they can readily think that the world will soon be destroyed. But in verse 3, according to the actual Greek, the disciples did not ask Christ about the end of the world, but about the end of the age.
Many who study the Word of God feel there are a number of ages the earth must pass through before its destruction and re-creation. Some, like myself, see seven or eight time periods.
We are currently in the Age of the Church, or what some call the Age of Grace. Looking at the various ages that have occurred, each age concluded and the next began when certain significant events took place. For example, the first age, the Age of Innocence (or Paradise) ended with the sin of Adam and the promise of redemption from sins.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentVaibhav Diwaker
On July 25, 2010 at 6:07 am
Yeah…….I second your view………..hmmmm….interesting reading……
Eunice Tan
On July 25, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Amazing four pages from you that open our eyes and undertandings.
webseowriters
On July 27, 2010 at 7:46 am
excellent share
Anuradha Ramkumar
On August 3, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Gr8 write. I haven’t done this much research on this topic, but learnt a lot from your write.
carissimi
On August 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm
thanks for sharing for this…
Minister Marlene
On October 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm
I see what you say be ready. Whoever said 2012 that could not be true could it. Because we do nor know the day , hour, so how would we know a date. The rapture? I see tribulation coming and deep trouble for the chuch because soon, because we are against homosexuality, our doctrine would soon be considered against human rights. All the trouble brewing agaist religion seems like Christians are soon to become more and more unpopular, even considered rebel rousers and antagonists. Would that seem about, right to you?
Pete Macinta
On October 5, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Thank you all for your kind comments. It is by the grace of God.
Aye, Minister Marlene, that would seem right.
I, and others, expect a great and true revival, a sovereign move of God. Then, persecution.
ledger747
On October 12, 2010 at 10:57 am
It is in God’s hands. Who knows!
cjnuble
On October 21, 2010 at 11:21 pm
For me, end of the world is when I’m dead!
Pete Macinta
On May 12, 2011 at 6:19 pm
As one can see from these Bible facts, Harold Camping is wrong about May 21, 2011.
Franky
On June 3, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Just a few thoughts…
First there are only a few times the actual word antichrist is used in the Bible. When it does appear John is pretty clear on who the antichrist is, 1 John 2:18-22 with this last verse telling us that he who denies the Father and the Son is the antichrist.
Secondly, when it comes to the mark of the beast and not being able to buy/sell. Although I wouldn’t say this will never happen in the future historical background teaches that during the time of writing in the Roman Empire Christians were not allowed to buy and sell. Those who have the mark of the beast (those who are not believers) clearly could buy and sell. Those who had the mark of God (Christians), were obviously not allowed, instead they were heavily persecuted (eaten by lions, put on spikes and put on fire for light at garden parties etc).
Why do we as Christians focus so much on the mark of the beast and forget about the fact that those who are saved also in Revelation get a mark in the exact same place? Are we missing out on something or need to be ready to line up and get the mark of God on us? Revelation 9:4 shows us that their is this idea of the seal of God being on the forehead. We can’t pick and chose what we want to be literal meaning in some parts of the book and figurative in others. So if we are saying that the mark of the best is literal then where do I have to go to get this seal of God on my forehead?
Or could it be as simple as those who are unsaved clearly belong to Satan and bear his mark. In the same way those who are saved, professing Jesus as the Son of God, and that through His son, and our confession of faith in Him, asking Him for the forgiveness of our sins, and that through this we bear His mark. The mark of God…
So many things I want to ask/say so little time…
So one last question that I’m curious about…
A lot of people take Revelation 7:1-8 as literal etc
If this is so does that mean the tribe of Dan is out of the picture and doesn’t get to go to heaven and Manasseh gets a double blessing in heaven as he is mentioned in 6b and also would fall under the tribe of Joseph?
Just a few thoughts…could be way off. But I’m more into letting the Bible speak for itself rather then a bunch of people that want the Bible to mean something then make it happen by taking a bunch of verses out of context. Inductive rather then deductive…
I believe we must first get to know the Author of the book, the people he is writing to, the historical background, what are the people going through, why would the author being saying what he is saying to them? After all it is pretty clear that the book is written to the seven churches of that day. NOT to Pastor Bill’s church in PA, and Pastor Ken’s church in ND, etc etc in the year 2011.
The Bible is powerful, it has the power to change lives just like it did from the beginning. Knowing and considering these things doesn’t lessen the value of the Bible nor does it lessen the impact it can have for us. In fact when we start asking these kinds of questions it becomes even more powerful to us.
Example: In the time of the Roman Empire fathers could do whatever they wanted to to their biological kids. Including kill them if they wanted to without any fear of punishment. HOWEVER, if they were to adopt a child into their family they were not allowed to harm the child in anyway by law. In fact most of the time the family would place the child in the highest of honor among the family. Now with that in mind go read Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4, Galations 4:5, and Ephesians 1:3-14. Makes the passage come alive and even more powerful to me. The author (Paul) clearly knew what he was trying to get across to his readers. They would have had this picture and understanding in mind of when they were reading his letters. It made the letter come alive to them… For them to have Paul give them this word picture was probably pretty overwhelming that God would want to adopt them. To set them apart etc…
Anyway enough from me…again maybe everything I wrote you will completely disagree with. But I’m slightly concerned with the lack of context to the verses that back up all these theories. I would like to see verse in the full context before being used to back up and patch work some belief.
Blessings on what you are doing here with your website and have a great day!
Franky
On June 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Just a few thoughts…
First there are only a few times the actual word antichrist is used in the Bible. When it does appear John is pretty clear on who the antichrist is, 1 John 2:18-22 with this last verse telling us that he who denies the Father and the Son is the antichrist.
Secondly, when it comes to the mark of the beast and not being able to buy/sell. Although I wouldn’t say this will never happen in the future historical background teaches that during the time of writing in the Roman Empire Christians were not allowed to buy and sell. Those who have the mark of the beast (those who are not believers) clearly could buy and sell. Those who had the mark of God (Christians), were obviously not allowed, instead they were heavily persecuted (eaten by lions, put on spikes and put on fire for light at garden parties etc).
Why do we as Christians focus so much on the mark of the beast and forget about the fact that those who are saved also in Revelation get a mark in the exact same place? Are we missing out on something or need to be ready to line up and get the mark of God on us? Revelation 9:4 shows us that their is this idea of the seal of God being on the forehead. We can\’t pick and chose what we want to be literal meaning in some parts of the book and figurative in others. So if we are saying that the mark of the best is literal then where do I have to go to get this seal of God on my forehead?
Or could it be as simple as those who are unsaved clearly belong to Satan and bear his mark. In the same way those who are saved, professing Jesus as the Son of God, and that through His son, and our confession of faith in Him, asking Him for the forgiveness of our sins, and that through this we bear His mark. The mark of God…
So many things I want to ask/say so little time…
So one last question that I\’m curious about…
A lot of people take Revelation 7:1-8 as literal etc
If this is so does that mean the tribe of Dan is out of the picture and doesn’t get to go to heaven and Manasseh gets a double blessing in heaven as he is mentioned in 6b and also would fall under the tribe of Joseph?
Just a few thoughts…could be way off. But I\’m more into letting the Bible speak for itself rather then a bunch of people that want the Bible to mean something then make it happen by taking a bunch of verses out of context. Inductive rather then deductive…
I believe we must first get to know the Author of the book, the people he is writing to, the historical background, what are the people going through, why would the author being saying what he is saying to them? After all it is pretty clear that the book is written to the seven churches of that day. NOT to Pastor Bill’s church in PA, and Pastor Ken’s church in ND, etc etc in the year 2011.
The Bible is powerful, it has the power to change lives just like it did from the beginning. Knowing and considering these things doesn’t lessen the value of the Bible nor does it lessen the impact it can have for us. In fact when we start asking these kinds of questions it becomes even more powerful to us.
Example: In the time of the Roman Empire fathers could do whatever they wanted to to their biological kids. Including kill them if they wanted to without any fear of punishment. HOWEVER, if they were to adopt a child into their family they were not allowed to harm the child in anyway by law. In fact most of the time the family would place the child in the highest of honor among the family. Now with that in mind go read Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:3-14. Makes the passage come alive and even more powerful to me. The author (Paul) clearly knew what he was trying to get across to his readers. They would have had this picture and understanding in mind of when they were reading his letters. It made the letter come alive to them… For them to have Paul give them this word picture was probably pretty overwhelming that God would want to adopt them. To set them apart etc…
Anyway enough from me…again maybe everything I wrote you will completely disagree with. But I\’m slightly concerned with the lack of context to the verses that back up all these theories. I would like to see verse in the full context before being used to back up and patch work some belief.
Blessings on what you are doing here with your website and have a great day!