Question for Christians Who Deny Global Flood

[Perry]

What do you suppose Peter is talking about in II Peter 3:3-7? If you think the bible is hogwash, this question isn't addressed to you. Those of you who claim some form of Christianity, what do you think Peter was saying?

[bhukkadakota]

Peter didnt know what he was talking about. He just followed the words of priestly like all the other jews.

Per the OP, he requests Christian only responses, so I moved it to Cosmogony and edited out bd's response

[Bill the Cat]

I'm going to move this to Cosmogony201, as the OP intends to ask Christians only.

[jason]

What do you suppose Peter is talking about in II Peter 3:3-7? If you think the bible is hogwash, this question isn't addressed to you. Those of you who claim some form of Christianity, what do you think Peter was saying?
Why do you assume that he is refering to a global flood ?

He might be, but the text (at least in the NIV which I have handy) does not suggest that as the only understanding.

It referers to the world of that time being destroyed by the flood. But world is a word with many meanings of scope.

Jason

[Jedidiah]

It referers to the world of that time being destroyed by the flood. But world is a word with many meanings of scope.
Context, contrast between "the world that then existed" and "earth that now" exists, suggests to me that the word world should be understood as, "the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family."

Jedidiah

[jason]

Context, contrast between "the world that then existed" and "earth that now" exists, suggests to me that the word world should be understood as, "the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family."

Jedidiah
Exactly. It could be entirely anthropocentric language.

Jason

[grmorton]

What do you suppose Peter is talking about in II Peter 3:3-7? If you think the bible is hogwash, this question isn't addressed to you. Those of you who claim some form of Christianity, what do you think Peter was saying?

It would help if people would look at the greek and not try to do it all in English.

The word translated as world is kosmos which by Strong's means: orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world.

But as was pointed out, the word has many meanings. I can say, 'His world was shaken' and it doesn't mean that there was an earthquake, but that his orderly arrangement of his life was shaken up. One can view this word as meaning the world order was overthrown rather than that the entire earth was flooded.

And if you really want to be literal in English then you must literally believe the english descendant of the Greek word kosmos. you must believe that the entire cosmos i.e. universe, was flooded. Do you believe that? Did water fill the entire universe, cosmos?

[Jedidiah]

It would help if people would look at the greek and not try to do it all in English.

The word translated as world is kosmos which by Strong's means: orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world.According to Kittels "In the NT kosmos is never used in the sense 'order,' and it occurs for 'adornment' only once . . . in all other passages kosmos means world in some sense." One of those meanings is humanity.

You have pointed out the root of the word, rather than the use of the word in the greek.

I stand by my original statement.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

It would help if people would look at the greek and not try to do it all in English.

The word translated as world is kosmos which by Strong's means: orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world.

But as was pointed out, the word has many meanings. I can say, 'His world was shaken' and it doesn't mean that there was an earthquake, but that his orderly arrangement of his life was shaken up. One can view this word as meaning the world order was overthrown rather than that the entire earth was flooded.

And if you really want to be literal in English then you must literally believe the english descendant of the Greek word kosmos. you must believe that the entire cosmos i.e. universe, was flooded. Do you believe that? Did water fill the entire universe, cosmos?

Right on! World can often refer to the entire known world. For instance, the census in the birth of Christ went out to all the world. REALLY?! China had to take part in the census? No. It meant the known world.

In a sense, that's what it means here. The then known world was flooded. That would have been the Mesopotamian region. Context determines meaning

[Jugulum]

The word translated world in Luke 2:1: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed" is the Greek word oikoumenh , which refers to the inhabited earth or the inhabitants of the earth.

The word translated world in 2 Pet. 3:7 is a totally different word. It is kosmoV which means order, government or world.

It would be a good idea for those who want to defend the Bible to take the time to learn the original languages so they will have at least some credibility.I just glanced through the uses of kosmos and oikoumenē, and found something interesting.

First, the two definitions from Strong's:

oikoumenē - land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire: - earth, world.

kosmos - orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

The interesting thing is from Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5. The two verses are parallel accounts of the devil taking Jesus up to a high mountain and showing Him all the kingdoms of the "world". But Matthew uses oikoumene, and Luke uses kosmos. My amateurish, highly tentative, highly suspect conclusion is that the two words are used interchangeably, and both can mean something more limited than "the planet". "All the world that matters for what we're talking about" might be a rough definition. So, only going by the use of "kosmos" in 2 Peter 3:6, the Flood didn't have to be planet-wide. "The entire human population" or "the inhabited parts of the Earth" seems reasonable, looking only at the language this passage.

As a study aid, I'll paste the concordance entries for both words, copied from the e-Sword program's King James Concordance.

G3625
oikoumenh̄
oikoumenē

Total KJV Occurrences: 15

world, 14
Mat_24:14, Luk_2:1, Luk_4:5, Act_11:28, Act_17:6, Act_17:31, Act_19:27, Act_24:5, Rom_10:18, Heb_1:6, Heb_2:5, Rev_3:10, Rev_12:9, Rev_16:14

earth, 1
Luk_21:26


G2889
kosmoV
kosmos

Total KJV Occurrences: 188

world, 185
Mat_4:8, Mat_5:14, Mat_13:35, Mat_13:38, Mat_16:26, Mat_18:7, Mat_24:21, Mat_25:34, Mat_26:13, Mar_8:36, Mar_14:9, Mar_16:15, Luk_9:25, Luk_11:50, Luk_12:30, Joh_1:9-10 (4), Joh_1:29, Joh_3:16-17 (4), Joh_3:19, Joh_4:42, Joh_6:14, Joh_6:33, Joh_6:51, Joh_7:4, Joh_7:7, Joh_8:12, Joh_8:23 (2), Joh_8:26, Joh_9:5 (2), Joh_9:39, Joh_10:36, Joh_11:9, Joh_11:27, Joh_12:19, Joh_12:25, Joh_12:31 (2), Joh_12:46-47 (3), Joh_13:1 (2), Joh_14:17, Joh_14:19, Joh_14:22, Joh_14:27, Joh_14:30-31 (2), Joh_15:18-19 (6), Joh_16:8, Joh_16:11, Joh_16:20-21 (2), Joh_16:28 (2), Joh_16:33, John 17 (19), (2) Joh_18:20, Joh_18:36-37 (3), Joh_21:25, Act_17:24, Rom_1:8, Rom_1:20, Rom_3:6, Rom_3:19, Rom_4:13, Rom_5:12-13 (2), Rom_11:12, Rom_11:15, 1Co_1:20-21 (2), 1Co_1:27-28 (3), 1Co_2:12, 1Co_3:19, 1Co_3:22, 1Co_4:9, 1Co_4:13, 1Co_5:10 (2), 1Co_6:2 (2), 1Co_7:31 (2), 1Co_7:33-34 (2), 1Co_8:4, 1Co_11:32, 1Co_14:10, 2Co_1:12, 2Co_5:19, 2Co_7:10, Gal_4:3, Gal_6:14 (2), Eph_1:4, Eph_2:2, Eph_2:12, Phi_2:15, Col_1:6, Col_2:8, Col_2:20 (2), 1Ti_3:15-16 (2), 1Ti_6:7, Heb_4:3, Heb_9:26, Heb_10:5, Heb_11:7, Heb_11:38, Jam_1:27, Jam_3:5-6 (2), Jam_4:4 (2), 1Pe_1:20, 1Pe_5:9, 2Pe_2:4-5 (3), 2Pe_2:20, 2Pe_3:6, 1Jo_2:2, 1Jo_2:15-17 (6), 1Jo_3:1, 1Jo_3:13, 1Jo_4:1, 1Jo_4:3-5 (5), 1Jo_4:9, 1Jo_4:14, 1Jo_4:17, 1Jo_5:4-5 (3), 1Jo_5:19, 2Jo_1:7, Rev_11:15, Rev_17:8 (2)

adorning, 2
1Pe_3:3 (2)

world's, 1
1Jo_3:17

[jrstruthers]

Just as a side-light. The guys at Lamont-Doherty recently did a piece of research regarding biblical flooding. It is a very good piece of science! (the first that I have seen on this subject). They wrote an excellent non-fict book. The following links points to references of their work:

http://www.trovando.it/default2.asp?q=lamont%20flood

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6M-3T7JM89-8&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1997&_alid=307817961&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5818&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dcd53f488851e6f348d8335fc7880ad9

[Perry]

So whom then, do you think Peter was refering to as scoffers, and do you suppose he could've meant the coming scoffers would be scoffing at the idea of a local flood?

[kuboes1831]

So whom then, do you think Peter was refering to as scoffers, and do you suppose he could've meant the coming scoffers would be scoffing at the idea of a local flood?

Today it would include those who make the Scriptures look absurd. I will leave my readers to decide who does that

[grmorton]

Just as a side-light. The guys at Lamont-Doherty recently did a piece of research regarding biblical flooding. It is a very good piece of science! (the first that I have seen on this subject). They wrote an excellent non-fict book. The following links points to references of their work:

http://www.trovando.it/default2.asp?q=lamont%20flood

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6M-3T7JM89-8&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1997&_alid=307817961&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5818&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dcd53f488851e6f348d8335fc7880ad9

YOu are a bit out of date. Hsu and Pitman apparently are no longer defending that thesis. The archaeology doesn't fit, the paleontology doesn't fit and Hsu published an article in a volume of Marine Geology which was entirely devoted to refuting the Black Sea Flood concept but he didn't defend it at all. The problem now is that others won't know of this and they will continue to cite it.

If you want details, see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm

[jrstruthers]

Thanks for the update.

[Assyrian]

It would help if people would look at the greek and not try to do it all in English.I agree, and it is not just the word κοσμος we have to look at.

2Pet 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens (ουρανος, which is probably the nearest thing in Greek to our English 'cosmos' :teeth: ) existed long ago, and the earth (γη 'ge') was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
2Pet 3:6 and that by means of these the world (κοσμος 'cosmos') that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
2Pet 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth (γη 'ge') that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

When Peter is describing the creation of heaven and earth, he uses the word γη to describe the planet. He uses the same word to describe the final destruction of the planet.

Yet when he talks of the flood he switches to κοσμος. Now whatever meaning Peter saw in κοσμος and we could discuss the different possibilities, it seems very unlikely Peter was using it in the same sense as when he talked about γη the planet.

I think the passage is clear Peter was not talking about a global flood.

Blessings Assyrian

[Sahfed Guru]

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

How do you supposed it was in and OUT of water if it was a global flood?

[geochron]

What do you suppose Peter is talking about in II Peter 3:3-7? If you think the bible is hogwash, this question isn't addressed to you. Those of you who claim some form of Christianity, what do you think Peter was saying?

I think this is quite thought provoking



Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."



Who is it who tells us that the scientific view of "origins" must cause us to doubt Christ? Among "those [...] who claim some form of Christianity" (that was a nice, charitable touch, I thought :wink:) , the YEC seem to fit the bill exactly.

So what are their lusts? It seems to me their chief lust is the urge to feel better in the eyes of God that the rest of us. I think this is one of the more subtle ways that we are led astray, and something everybody needs to be constantly wary of. (Yes, including, perhaps especially, me.)

As for the rest, the Bible was written from the point of view of the people of that time, and with their understanding.

[grmorton]

What do you suppose Peter is talking about in II Peter 3:3-7? If you think the bible is hogwash, this question isn't addressed to you. Those of you who claim some form of Christianity, what do you think Peter was saying?

I think it means what you think it means. But the word translated as 'world' actually means 'orderly arrangement" You really should spend some time looking things up in the Greek before you interpret the Bible from the English only. The 'world' doesn't mean 'planet earth'.

[Assyrian]

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

How do you supposed it was in and OUT of water if it was a global flood?This verse is talking about the creation when God made the heavens and the earth by his word.

It is the next verse that talks about the flood.
2Pet 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

You know it is odd, but I find that it is Creationists who are willfully ignorant of the fact that 2Pet3 talks about the creation, usually in discussions about verse 8, but do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, when they claim the text has nothing to do with the creation. :lol:

Blessings Assyrian

[maudman]

As strange as it may sound Peter IMO isn’t even talking about Noah’s flood in these verses.
First Peter would have been telling in Aramaic which is a sister language to the Hebrew. Paul would have been the only one that would known much Greek because if his Education in Greek universities. Greek was at that time a language for the aristocrat of the Roman world. Hebrew would have been taught what was actually remaining of it in the Jewish educational Institutions that Paul was also attending in his Pharisaical trainings.



Assyrian you are correct about the creation perspective. But how does one even begin to think that this isn’t talking about Noah’s flood. And by the way this flood is more complete than the flood of Noah’s because in this flood no man lives.

First, to whom do you think Peter is talking, when he is talking about these things? I would like you’ll to consider something. Who would actually care about the things he is saying. Think it’s a bunch of Gentile convert are arguing? No way! Who were the only people that would have had a scroll that contained the writing from which he is quoting?

Gentiles were converted on faith not a rich understanding of Israelite culture. Peter is talking about those who would have the information. The Jews of his time is to whom he is talking and he’s not talking about Noah’s flood he’s is talking about the flood of Gen1: 2. The Jews of his time and those after this deliberation of truth believed in Noah’s flood. It is apart of their Holy Scripture. They were tracing their own descendent from Adam.
He is in fact talking about something that they are willing ignorant of. In other words it is something they have over looked and are willing to remain ignorant of it.
They don’t want to know. And the world that then was is the world that existed just after the creation.
Genesis 1:2 in all bible versions are in error and this is what people are willingly ignorant about today. They fail to convey what the translations are getting at.

Basically all bible are interpretation bibles. That’s right interpretation bibles because they aren’t translation they’re interpretations of the translated text!!!!! Of which many texts have many meanings. You’re reading translations of interpretations!!!!! And the only way your going to understand the real translation is to understand the people that wrote it.

What Peter is saying is that which is known as the creation story to most, isn’t really a creation story but a renewal of the Earth after it had been destroyed by a flood in the 2nd verse of Gen 1. The Jews of his time were willingly ignorant as well as Christians and Jews today.

Most Interpretations of Gen 1:2 read basically like the following.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The error here is in the interpretation of the word HAYAH (Haw-Yaw) and not the translation. means (to become or Became) Not (was) as in a pre-existing state of creation. It should read as follows.

And the earth(or Land) Became (hayah) and then (Tohuw) which means basically a desolation and (Bohuw) which means Indistinguishable ruin and Darkness (Choshek) from the Root (Chashek) can mean to become dark or darkened as well as darkness.

It should read from the translation like this.

And the land became a desolation and an indistinguishable ruin and darkness on the face of the deep.

Basically what the 1st few verses of Genesis are saying is this.
In the beginning of time, Some time in the Past not sure when, God created everything in the Heavens and on the earth. Then some unknown length of time later, something catastrophic occurred that made God's Creation come to utter destruction, it became a wasted place. This destruction manifested itself among other things as a flood. So complete was this destructive event that not only did the earth become an indistinguishable ruin, but even the sun stopped shining its light upon it, and all the earth was cast into utter darkness.
It looks as if the earth was blanketed with a thick cloud cover that cut off the suns light. Later it looks while Gods spirit is hovering over the waters his spirit creates a light or brightness lighting it. God then lifts this thick cloud cover and creates a space between the clouds that were on the surface of the water.
Was this air breathable? Not sure. It may have been with the term heavens as a possible interpretation. But anyway God causes dry land to appear by drawing water in a direction. Now the word (deep) in verse 2 in Hebrew may lend a clue to this Drawing of water to make dry land appear.
Strong's Ref. # 8415
Romanized thowm
Pronounced teh-home'
or thom {teh-home'}; (usually feminine) from HSN1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply):
KJV--deep (place), depth. Romanized thowm.
This Drawing could have been a receding of the water that had burst for from the abyss.

Peter was telling something to those who were and still are willing to ignore because of their own lust and vanity. They were willingly ignorant! They refused to see what was and is written in their own Holy Scripture. This flood is also mentioned in Jeremiah and apparently there were cities and man cause its say no man survived so it was complete.
There was a rebellion in the heavens of which approximately a third of the children of God had been corrupted and this may have been the result of that corruption. Basically Genesis in the first chapter is a renewing of the planet to a livable form for man.
Peace.

[Glenn P]

Wow, it's been a long time since I have seen anyone stick their neck out and defend the gap theory, maudman. I didn't know anyone still held it.

For the record, hayah is the word also used for "was," so your comments about Hebrew are incorrect. It serves either function.

[maudman]

Wow, it's been a long time since I have seen anyone stick their neck out and defend the gap theory, maudman. I didn't know anyone still held it.

For the record, hayah is the word also used for "was," so your comments about Hebrew are incorrect. It serves either function.


Neck on the block thats me.

Yes it can mean was but that makes it an intepretation. Those peering into the translation of the translated text had previously held beliefs and they were Interpreting from the translation not translating it. Genesis is a song. Sang in the oral tradition. Scholars interpreted from previous held beliefs. Heresy carried death with it when these things were be done as many were put to death for straying from tradition. But I think they were for the most part trying to do right.

Scofield also held the Gap approach in many of his deductions. Some of his references see it as a time of Angelic rebellion in the Gap. Looks like he was like Paul Mason selling wine before its time. But its the texts around (hayah) that determined its meaning not the word (hayah) itself. Early interpretations have it as a renewal in some of their usage of the texts.

enjoyed your comments

peace Theonomy

[Jugulum]

Early interpretations have it as a renewal in some of their usage of the texts.Which early interpretations?

[lfellows]

I think this is quite thought provoking



Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."



Who is it who tells us that the scientific view of "origins" must cause us to doubt Christ? Among "those [...] who claim some form of Christianity" (that was a nice, charitable touch, I thought :wink:) , the YEC seem to fit the bill exactly.

So what are their lusts? It seems to me their chief lust is the urge to feel better in the eyes of God that the rest of us. I think this is one of the more subtle ways that we are led astray, and something everybody needs to be constantly wary of. (Yes, including, perhaps especially, me.)

As for the rest, the Bible was written from the point of view of the people of that time, and with their understanding.


Lets see: YECers hold to the Bible as being God's word, not man's, and being true; those who reject the straightforward interpretation of Genesis claim that "all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation", denying God's word. Who are the mockers? Seems to me that those who call God a lier would be the mockers. Their motive: to justify themselves.

If Peter is not refering to the flood then why does 3:6 state "[w]hereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"? Why "the world that then was" unless "the wold" that now exists differs from it? A world wide flood would definately change the appearance of the world.

[Jugulum]

Lets see: YECers hold to the Bible as being God's word, not man's, and being true; those who reject the straightforward interpretation of Genesis claim that "all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation", denying God's word. Who are the mockers? Seems to me that those who call God a lier would be the mockers. Their motive: to justify themselves.Quote the whole passage, man. You're twisting this in all sorts of ways. It's not talking about people who believe in evolution, or in general misinterpret the intended meaning of Genesis. (And I'm YEC, so I agree that that's what they're doing.)

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."Peter was talking about people who deny the second coming of Christ, and back it up by saying that history has happened pretty much the same since creation--as though God has never really intervened in history or done anything. A Christian theistic evolutionist is not denying anything about Christ's second (or first!) coming. At best, they're believing a strained interpretation of a couple passages. At worst, they're taking fallible, atheistic-motivated speculations over the testimony of God, or denying the authority of Scripture. Either way, it's not what this passage is about.

And do you really think someone who believes in all the theorized evolutionary changes is saying that "all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation"?


If Peter is not refering to the flood then why does 3:6 state "[w]hereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"? Why "the world that then was" unless "the wold" that now exists differs from it? A world wide flood would definately change the appearance of the world.This is a refutation of the scoffers' notion that nothing signficantly different has ever happened in history. That would still be the case if the Flood were anthropologically universal, but not global--i.e. it did kill everyone except Noah and his family. (Look up the word translated "world"--it doesn't mean "planet/globe".)

The next verse is a bigger problem for TEs.
5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.That sets up a parallel between the destruction by water and the destruction by fire, making a "local Flood" interpretation of this passage more problematic. But with the possibility of the parallel being based on human universal destruction, the passage isn't explicit enough to be conclusive.

If you want to argue against a local Flood based on other passages, you can do that.

[Assyrian]

Hi Maudman

Assyrian you are correct about the creation perspective. But how does one even begin to think that this isn’t talking about Noah’s flood. And by the way this flood is more complete than the flood of Noah’s because in this flood no man lives.
Well I agree that 2Pet 3:5 is talking Gen1:2, actually Gen1:2-9 when God separated the land and sea. However I don't go in for the gap theory. Genesis seem to put all of this before life appeared on the earth.

Hi Jugulum,
I agree there is a parallel between the judgement by the flood and the final judgement, but Peter does give two very different subjects, in one it is the world kosmos, in the other the present heavens and earth. there are also two very different means, water and fire. The parallels are that it is God's judgement, by his word, and of course the human race was involved in both.

Blessings Assyrian

[Jugulum]

Who are the mockers? Seems to me that those who call God a lier would be the mockers. Their motive: to justify themselves.I'm curious...Let's take some of our local TEs. Say, rogero, Glenn, and Jim (oxmixmudd). How are they justifying themselves using TE? Do you know of any areas of morality in which they're rejecting biblical authority, or say "that doesn't apply nowadays," or some such?

Or is this just your bare unsupported assumption about people you've never met?

[Jugulum]

Hi Jugulum,
I agree there is a parallel between the judgement by the flood and the final judgement, but Peter does give two very different subjects, in one it is the world kosmos, in the other the present heavens and earth. there are also two very different means, water and fire. The parallels are that it is God's judgement, by his word, and of course the human race was involved in both.Yes, I agree that the primary parallel is God's judgement and its application to the whole of humanity.

I noticed the distinction between "the world" and "the present heavens and earth" last time I examined this passage. But look at the whole sequence together--there's a sandwich of created heavens&earth / old world / present heavens&earth that makes it fairly interesting.

2 Peter 3:5-7 (NASB): "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

So Peter talks about the originally-created heavens and "earth", then says that the "world" at that time was destroyed, then that the present heavens and earth will be reserved for fire. From those parallels, I could argue either way. The "present" distinction seems to indicate that the original heavens and earth were destroyed in the flood, and we have a new set. BUT, how were the heavens destroyed in the Flood? So maybe a local-but-anthropologically-universal flood does work in this passage. (Unless you consider the water canopy idea, in which case you do have the heavens being different.)


P.S. Sorry everyone, I lied. When I quoted 2 Peter in my previous post, I was accidentally copying from NIV, not NASB.

[Jugulum]

The "present" distinction seems to indicate that the original heavens and earth were destroyed in the flood, and we have a new set. BUT, how were the heavens destroyed in the Flood? So maybe a local-but-anthropologically-universal flood does work in this passage. (Unless you consider the water canopy idea, in which case you do have the heavens being different.)I forgot to say:

When weighing these possibilities, one thing we have to do is step back and ask what Peter had in mind while he was writing it--what's reasonable in that light, and what's not?

For example, when he said that the original heavens and earth were destroyed, do we really think that he was specifically thinking of a situation with a protective layer of water in the sky that was no longer there after the flood? Is there any evidence that such a notion was common enough that we can suppose Peter was talking about that, even though he didn't specify it in any way? I think that would be reading too much into the text.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm curious...Let's take some of our local TEs. Say, rogero, Glenn, and Jim (oxmixmudd). How are they justifying themselves using TE? Do you know of any areas of morality in which they're rejecting biblical authority, or say "that doesn't apply nowadays," or some such?

Or is this just your bare unsupported assumption about people you've never met?

Well, since you brought me into this ...

My belief in the Bible is such that I am unwilling to dismiss any of it as not applying to today - in the sense lfellows is implying. I do accept things like not being bound to keep the dietary law and I don't think one needs to be circumcised to be a Christian. Of course all those things are clearly described as no longer applying in the NT.

So we could get into a long and totally scriptural discussion of what in the OT 'applies' to us in the NT, but I imagine that there would be very little difference between myself and lfellows on those points. Likewise, if we were to discuss issues of morality or the nature of Christ's work on the cross, His resurrection, etc, we again would most likely find much, if not full, agreement.

My understanding of Genesis 1-11 is that it says exactly what God intended it to and exactly what we need to know. However ,I do not accept that the conflict between modern science and the six day interpretation exists because all the scientists are stupid or out to rid the world of the Christian faith. I think it exists because, w/o any reason not to, the church has interpreted that text in the most straightforward meaning - just as it interpreted the passages about the pillars of the earth and Joshua's long day implying the earth was fixed and the heavens rotated around it. Until Galileo pointed his telescope at Venus and Jupiter, there was no reason to think it meant anything else.

So, while lfellows and many like him think I compromise my faith and all of scripture, I think God simply meant something different than we always thought he meant because we were ignorant. And that means that our human fallibility caused us to not be fully aware of what God is saying. Now that we know a little more about world and the nature of the Universe, we can undestand more clearly what He really meant. It's still His word, and It still has all the authority it ever had. And only the scoffers think otherwise.

As an aside, it always amazes me that folks like lfellows believe that human fallibility can only apply to science and not to the interpretation of scripture. But I think a good look at the number of doctrinal factions and denominations that exist certainly prove that is NOT the case.


Jim

PS, This is meant to address only the accusation lfellows made that folks like me and Rogero and Glenn etc. can only be scoffers who reject out of hand any portion of scripture that does not fit our carnal desires. It is not meant to address the meaning of the text in Peter.

PPS, My status as a bonifide TE is a bit tentative. But I am definitely OE. But I by no means consider it an insult to be grouped with them :wink:


Jim

[Jugulum]

As an aside, it always amazes me that folks like lfellows believe that human fallibility can only apply to science and not to the interpretation of scripture. But I think a good look at the number of doctrinal factions and denominations that exist certainly prove that is NOT the case.Ah, but didn't you know that you and your own denomination/tradition/favorite preacher always have everything right? It's the other people that are fallible. That's a basic rule, Jim. I'm suprised you didn't know about it.


PPS, My status as a bonifide TE is a bit tentative. But I am definitely OE. But I by no means consider it an insult to be grouped with them :wink:Ah, I wondered about that as I said it. Don't worry, I'm sure lfellows sees you the same either way.

P.S. Regarding the "that doesn't apply nowadays" comment, I wasn't thinking of now-inactive OT regulations as discussed in the NT. You said pretty much what I would say. I was thinking of things like, "It's OK if we live together before we're married--that's a pretty archaic rule. We can ignore it."

[Assyrian]

Yes, I agree that the primary parallel is God's judgement and its application to the whole of humanity.

I noticed the distinction between "the world" and "the present heavens and earth" last time I examined this passage. But look at the whole sequence together--there's a sandwich of created heavens&earth / old world / present heavens&earth that makes it fairly interesting.

2 Peter 3:5-7 (NIV): "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

So Peter talks about the originally-created heavens and "earth", then says that the "world" at that time was destroyed, then that the present heavens and earth will be reserved for fire. From those parallels, I could argue either way. The "present" distinction seems to indicate that the original heavens and earth were destroyed in the flood, and we have a new set. BUT, how were the heavens destroyed in the Flood? So maybe a local-but-anthropologically-universal flood does work in this passage. (Unless you consider the water canopy idea, in which case you do have the heavens being different.)
Even the water canopy would only explain one 'heaven' being changed, not the heavens. I used to go in for the vapour canopy in my YEC days, but the old canopy theory has pretty well collapsed under its own weight.

I think Peter may be have been using different words to indicate the time periods he was talking about, rather than saying the present heaven are any different.

2Pet 3:5-7 for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God, through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed; and the present heavens and the earth, by the same word are treasured, for fire being kept to a day of judgment and destruction of the impious men.

Blessings Assyrian

[Jugulum]

Even the water canopy would only explain one 'heaven' being changed, not the heavens.Unless the Earth + atmosphere will be "destroyed" by fire in the judgement. But it may strain reasonability to suggest that Peter had that it mind. And what about the stars? Was Peter saying that the stars been changed, too? Or did he see the stars as separate from heavens? How would that make sense?


I used to go in for the vapour canopy in my YEC days, but the old canopy theory has pretty well collapsed under its own weight.

I think Peter may be have been using different words to indicate the time periods he was talking about, rather than saying the present heaven are any different.

2Pet 3:5-7 for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God, through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed; and the present heavens and the earth, by the same word are treasured, for fire being kept to a day of judgment and destruction of the impious men.

Blessings AssyrianSo there are two parts to that passage, talking about an old judgement and a new judgement. It occurs to me that we could take the absence of "world" in the second part to be significant--maybe the difference was intended to imply a difference in the two judgements.

But really, when we start getting this nitpicky about things that aren't the main thrust of the passage and don't have obvious answers which we can reasonably suppose were intended by the author, I'm inclined to think we're reading too much into it. I don't think this passage has any strong, clear indications that the flood was or wasn't local. So I don't think anyone should try to use it in that way.

[Assyrian]

Unless the Earth + atmosphere will be "destroyed" by fire in the judgement. But it may strain reasonability to suggest that Peter had that it mind. And what about the stars? Was Peter saying that the stars been changed, too? Or did he see the stars as separate from heavens? How would that make sense?
I was looking at your suggestion that the phrase present heavens and earth indicated the heavens and the earth had been destroyed in the flood. If you take it that way it actually proves too much. I think present simply means the ones now.

I suspect Peter did believe the current universe, earth and heavens would all be burnt up and replaced by a new earth and heavens. It's all very Jewish apocalyptic.


So there are two parts to that passage, talking about an old judgement and a new judgement. It occurs to me that we could take the absence of "world" in the second part to be significant--maybe the difference was intended to imply a difference in the two judgements.

But really, when we start getting this nitpicky about things that aren't the main thrust of the passage and don't have obvious answers which we can reasonably suppose were intended by the author, I'm inclined to think we're reading too much into it. I don't think this passage has any strong, clear indications that the flood was or wasn't local. So I don't think anyone should try to use it in that way.
You could argue that earth and world are synonyms, but Peter seem to be careful about the words he uses. For the creation or the heavens and earth, their destruction by fire, and their replacement by new heavens and a new earth we have the word ge. For Noah's flood we have kosmos, not just in 2Pet 3:6, but also in the other Noah reference 2Pet 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.

However, if I can put it this way, I think the evidence is stronger to say that Peter does not prove a global flood, than to say it proves a local one.

Blessings Assyrian

[runtmc2jc]

I'd like to throw some poo-poo in the game. There is much geological evidence for a vast (if not global) flood which I've delved into in other posts. Recently reading Psalm 29, the word used which is translated as 'flood' (v10), outside of Genesis is found only here and refers to Noah's flood.
What interests me is the apparent associated catastrophic events mentioned just before this in the Psalm, detailing the destructive action of the 'voice of the Lord'. I wonder what v3 means....v4 (in a literal sense) could be describing something like what happened at Mount St. Helens, where trees were leveled by the volcanic blast. V6 likewise could be describing an earthquake, anyone who's experienced one can relate to the hills/landscape bucking in this manner. More study is needed to decipher v7 and beyond.
My point is, Noah's flood most likely was caused by something cataclysmic, possibly cosmic in origin, and not merely by some excessive rain. (the 'fountains' of the great deep were broken up and the 'windows' of heaven were opened - what "rainstorm" would caused the fountains of the deep to be broken up?)
Here's the poo-poo. If the genetic nature of mankind was tainted (Genesis 6 controversy), and Noah and his immediate family were the only ones 'pure', ( this genetic corruption was designed to prevent the coming of the untainted Messiah, who would forever crush the evil one through his life, death and resurrection), then G-d must surely destroy all of mankind, wherever they abide. (would that be local, or global?) - in my mind it would be wherever man was, and the geological record is replete with examples of global catastrophe by the agent of water, probably accompanied by other catstrophic forces.
I do think Psalm 29 is referring to the Middle East, but this does not necessarily preclude areas beyond.

[franktalk]

runtmc2jc ,

As you know what guides everyone is their world view. So if you have someone that looks at data and sees truth in the data as interpreted by man then there is nothing that will change that mind except a change to that world view. So some will look at man's interpretation of the past and twist scripture to say something it does not. This is a feel good way for them to keep God and science as interpreted by man. One cannot serve two masters. And of course there is only one truth. I of course don't know the truth except that spoken by God through scripture. Once I accepted that then it is easy to place man in the unknowing.

So when I see features on the earth that appear to me to be from a massive flood I assume that the flood did it. When I see all kinds of life I thank God for the variation and beauty of this world. Yes, it is fallen but one can see God everywhere.

All one has to do is not assume a uniform past. This makes of course all things possible. That single step allows for the complete walk in faith. So when someone points out 14.5 billion year old light, I see time dilation. When someone sees a redshift, I see stretching of space. When someone sees mutations I see a breakdown of a design. After all the creation is wearing down.

I enjoy science but I see it through the glasses of faith. And of course I say I don't know a lot. It gets easier all of the time.

[Pilgrim]

It would help if people would look at the greek and not try to do it all in English.

The word translated as world is kosmos which by Strong's means: orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world.

But as was pointed out, the word has many meanings. I can say, 'His world was shaken' and it doesn't mean that there was an earthquake, but that his orderly arrangement of his life was shaken up. One can view this word as meaning the world order was overthrown rather than that the entire earth was flooded.

And if you really want to be literal in English then you must literally believe the english descendant of the Greek word kosmos. you must believe that the entire cosmos i.e. universe, was flooded. Do you believe that? Did water fill the entire universe, cosmos?

I'll just quote Jaltus here: If it's from Strong, it's probably wrong.

[franktalk]

grmorton ,

In order to do a word study in scripture you must first look for verses that use the word in a clearly understood way. Then by example you can extend the meaning to other verses sometimes. A dictionary of any source is a bad reference. Scripture was written for us to unlock over centuries and in the meantime realise that we just don't know. I think this was done on purpose and fits with our goal of living through faith. Many find this a stumbling block and cannot imagine a God that would not give us clear meaning to the Word. I feel just the opposite, a clear understanding would take away some of the mystery of God and by extension would take away our living through faith. After all we are designed by God so who would know what we need more than Him. His plan is often misunderstood and can given the right world view provide a stumbling block. This is not His intention but if we take on the world as our guide then we can be lead to ruin.

[oxmixmudd]

grmorton ,

In order to do a word study in scripture you must first look for verses that use the word in a clearly understood way. Then by example you can extend the meaning to other verses sometimes. A dictionary of any source is a bad reference. Scripture was written for us to unlock over centuries and in the meantime realise that we just don't know. I think this was done on purpose and fits with our goal of living through faith. Many find this a stumbling block and cannot imagine a God that would not give us clear meaning to the Word. I feel just the opposite, a clear understanding would take away some of the mystery of God and by extension would take away our living through faith. After all we are designed by God so who would know what we need more than Him. His plan is often misunderstood and can given the right world view provide a stumbling block. This is not His intention but if we take on the world as our guide then we can be lead to ruin.

I find it interesting you would say this and then demand that the 'plain reading' of Genesis be a requirement. To me it is just the kind of application of faith you describe here that is required to understand that even though the Bible is written in a phenominological way relative to an ancient cosmology (and possibly mythology) that it is still the Word of God. From my perspective then, we are both making very similar applications of faith, we just have different points where 'I don't know' is applied. You apply "I don't know" to why the evidence of the natural world is so incompatable with what you understand Genesis to say. I apply "I don't know" to how Genesis could still be the inspired word of God if It is written in the context of the ancient's understanding of the Cosmos. But in the end, we both say: yes it is God's Word in spite of what we do not know. (and each likely thinks his own is the 'better' application of faith).


Jim

[franktalk]

oxmixmudd ,

You are correct that I don't know the absolute meaning of scripture and in this lifetime probably never will. But I do trust God to make scripture for all people and as such a plain reading seems most appropriate to me. I of course could be wrong. But since God calls those who think of themselves as wise as fools then I think the plain text understanding is probably closer to the truth than another more convoluted understanding. I tend to be blunt with my comments and as such they may appear to be a directive by me that there is but one truth and I have a lock on it. Let me assure you that is not the case at all. Pilate had truth in front of him and he did not know it. I feel we are all in this situation. And in this environment only faith in God can save us. Many people study scripture thinking that a complete understanding will lead to God. God is sitting beside you and waiting for you to start a conversation. That is important, not the detail of scripture. The book of Job has an outline of the entire Bible in it. If you had nothing but the book of Job and modeled yourselve after Job you could not do much better. Out of God's mouth He declared that no other was like Job.

[oxmixmudd]

oxmixmudd ,

You are correct that I don't know the absolute meaning of scripture and in this lifetime probably never will. But I do trust God to make scripture for all people and as such a plain reading seems most appropriate to me. I of course could be wrong. But since God calls those who think of themselves as wise as fools then I think the plain text understanding is probably closer to the truth than another more convoluted understanding. I tend to be blunt with my comments and as such they may appear to be a directive by me that there is but one truth and I have a lock on it. Let me assure you that is not the case at all. Pilate had truth in front of him and he did not know it. I feel we are all in this situation. And in this environment only faith in God can save us. Many people study scripture thinking that a complete understanding will lead to God. God is sitting beside you and waiting for you to start a conversation. That is important, not the detail of scripture. The book of Job has an outline of the entire Bible in it. If you had nothing but the book of Job and modeled yourselve after Job you could not do much better. Out of God's mouth He declared that no other was like Job.


Maybe it works both ways. There are a lot of people on both sides of this debate declariing themselves wise in various ways, and the opposite view arrogant, unfaithful, stupid, or some combination of all the above. Maybe, just maybe, the scripture is wriiten in such a way that we are required to be humble in all aspects of one's understanding. Of the text AND of the natural world, and in all aspects required first and formost to remain faithful in spite of that which can't be clearly understood, and humble enough to recognize that faithfulness in others even though it takes on different forms (without denying the central truths of the Gospel). That the truth is in some ways in between all the extremes we have running around, so that anyone who declares himself as having the answer and the 'one true understanding' of the situation will, in the end, find himself having been the victim of pride.


Jim

[franktalk]

Jim,

Many times I will enter a discussion and argue points of science or scripture because I think it is wise to seek knowledge. How one defines knowledge and how one uses that knowledge are critical in setting up a personal world view. In Romans we are told that it is the invisible things which are the most important, so reliance on naturalistic seen things without the invisible leads away from God. This is where I jump into the argument and try and make the case that the unseen past does not need to match the current world. I of course do not know the past any more than anyone else. But I do tend to look at it through scriptural glasses and toss the assumptions of man. The models I talk about are made to take current data and fit it to scripture. Now scripture can be understood many ways so I use the plain text understanding. This may not be right but it does open up a discussion about the assumptions of science and may lead to progress on a personal level.