2Pe 3:5 sunestw/sa — The feminine singular form suggests construing the participle

only with gh/ rather than as a periphrastic with the plural h=san with both ouvranoi,
and gh/ as subjects.
2Pe 3:6 w-n — Finding a plural antecedent is challenging. The diagramming reflects
what appears to be the consensus: the two antecedents are u[datoj and lo,gw|. I am
attracted to the idea that the plural reflects the two primeval bodies of water: above the
earth and under the earth, both of which were involved in the flood. However,
understanding w-n to refer only to water seems to make u[dati redundant. Furthermore,
the reference to “the same word” in the subsequent clause seems to imply a sustained
focus on the word of God, implying that the word has been involved in both the
preceding stages of the world’s existence: creation and the flood.
2Pe 3:7 — The diagram coordinates this clause with the immediately preceding material,
making it part of the truth that the ungodly ignore. I am also attracted to the idea of
coordinating it with the opening clause: what the ungodly willfully ignore are the earth’s
major events in the past (it is harder to say that someone willfully ignores something that
has not yet happened). But the same Scripture that records creation and the flood both
implies (Gen 8:22) and explicitly states (Psa 102:25ff.) the impermanence of the earth as
we know it, indicating also that fire will be the means of its eventual destruction (Deu
32:22; Zep 1:18, 3:8). My diagramming is based on the fact that this line of thought is
highly defensible if not superior (the thought is not so clearly parallel to the opening
clause), supported by the consideration that the mechanics of the diagram are simpler this
way.
2Pe 3:7 tw/n avnqrw,pwn — This genitive could perhaps qualify both kri,sewj and
avpwlei,aj, but the other six instances of “day of judgment” in the NT lack a qualifying
genitive. One OT instance does have a qualifying genitive, but it is subjective (“the day
of the Lord’s judgment”), whereas this passage would require an objective genitive. An
unqualified kri,sewj leaves open dimensions of judgment beyond that of ungodly
humanity.
2Pe 3:5 sunestw/sa — The feminine singular form suggests construing the participle
only with gh/ rather than as a periphrastic with the plural h=san with both ouvranoi,
and gh/ as subjects.
2Pe 3:6 w-n — Finding a plural antecedent is challenging. The diagramming reflects
what appears to be the consensus: the two antecedents are u[datoj and lo,gw|. I am
attracted to the idea that the plural reflects the two primeval bodies of water: above the
earth and under the earth, both of which were involved in the flood. However,
understanding w-n to refer only to water seems to make u[dati redundant. Furthermore,
the reference to “the same word” in the subsequent clause seems to imply a sustained
focus on the word of God, implying that the word has been involved in both the
preceding stages of the world’s existence: creation and the flood.
2Pe 3:7 — The diagram coordinates this clause with the immediately preceding material,
making it part of the truth that the ungodly ignore. I am also attracted to the idea of
coordinating it with the opening clause: what the ungodly willfully ignore are the earth’s
major events in the past (it is harder to say that someone willfully ignores something that
has not yet happened). But the same Scripture that records creation and the flood both
implies (Gen 8:22) and explicitly states (Psa 102:25ff.) the impermanence of the earth as
we know it, indicating also that fire will be the means of its eventual destruction (Deu
32:22; Zep 1:18, 3:8). My diagramming is based on the fact that this line of thought is
highly defensible if not superior (the thought is not so clearly parallel to the opening
clause), supported by the consideration that the mechanics of the diagram are simpler this
way.
2Pe 3:7 tw/n avnqrw,pwn — This genitive could perhaps qualify both kri,sewj and
avpwlei,aj, but the other six instances of “day of judgment” in the NT lack a qualifying
genitive. One OT instance does have a qualifying genitive, but it is subjective (“the day
of the Lord’s judgment”), whereas this passage would require an objective genitive. An
unqualified kri,sewj leaves open dimensions of judgment beyond that of ungodly
humanity.