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]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

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

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

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

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[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 [greek] oikoumenh [/greek], 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 [greek] kosmoV [/greek] 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
[greek]oikoumenh̄[/greek]
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
[greek]kosmoV[/greek]
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...d8335fc7880ad9

[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...d8335fc7880ad9

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.