New Testament Heresy on Creation

[AnswersInHovind]

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

 

[laconicstudent]

No, you are supposed to let Scripture dictate your views on Theology, not the other way around.

In any event, NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This is just plain silly, and we now see a clear illustration of the dangers of personal infallibility.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

No, you are supposed to let Scripture dictate your views on Theology, not the other way around.

In any event, NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This is just plain silly, and we now see a clear illustration of the dangers of personal infallibility.

So you agree then that 2 Peter defies Genesis 1, but believe its still just as true?

 

[Mallon]

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation

Indeed. Evilutionists are horrible people who hate the Bible.

I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

 

[laconicstudent]

So you agree then that 2 Peter defies Genesis 1, but believe its still just as true?

No, I think it defies your personal interpretation of Genesis 1. You are the one setting your opinion above Scripture, not I.

 

[laconicstudent]

Indeed. Evilutionists are horrible people who hate the Bible.

I did find the irony rather mind-boggling.

 

[Jadis40]

I did find the irony rather mind-boggling.

I can't help but think the exact same thing.

 

[jeffweeder]

Oh my.
Im goin to bed now.
2peter lives.

 

[Jig]

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

I disagree with you completely. This is how I see 2 Peter 3:5 "...out of water and by water."

With proper biblical hermeneutics in mind it is apparent that Peter drew upon Genesis 1 here and was not giving a philosophical answer regarding the “stuff” of the universe. If you read Genesis 1 a watery chaos DOES covers the earth. Peter did not need to be citing any near Eastern religion to garnish that information. This watery chaos made making life impossible for human beings. So in creating the world, God separated the waters by making the expanse of the sky so that the waters were above and below the expanse (Gen 1:6–8). The waters on earth were collected so that dry ground would also exist (Gen 1:9–10). Hence, when Peter said that the world was created “out of water” (ex hydatos), he probably had in mind the emergence of the earth and sky from these waters. Discerning what he meant by the world being formed “by water” (di hydatos) is more difficult but the need to assume some ancient philosophy is driving Peter's theology is not necessary. God simply used water as an instrument in forming the world. Perhaps Peter even stressed water for rhetorical purposes since it is the agent of judgment in the next verse.

 

[ivebeenshown]

2 Peter 3
5For 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:
λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ,
is ignored for they this maintain that heavens there were long ago and earth out of water and in water that came together by of God word

What Peter wrote does indeed fit Genesis 1.

Genesis 1
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The waters came together, which allowed the dry land to appear, therefore it stood out of the water (appearing as dry land) and in water (surrounded by water.)

 

[Dark_Lite]

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

When you have to start rejecting other Scripture in order to hold on to your theology, then you should realize that something is wrong with that theology.

I think you're at the point where you're beginning to realize creationism is untenable. I could be wrong though.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

2 Peter 3
5For 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:
λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ,
is ignored for they this maintain that heavens there were long ago and earth out of water and in water that came together by of God word

What Peter wrote does indeed fit Genesis 1.

Genesis 1
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The waters came together, which allowed the dry land to appear, therefore it stood out of the water (appearing as dry land) and in water (surrounded by water.)

You and jig bring up good points. I never noticed before that Genesis 1 also teaches creation ex-materia like the babylonian and egpytian religions did.

There is the same watery chaos in the beginning, and a lot of similar actions like the seperating of the waters.

The Hebrew word for create, doesn't actually mean "create" as we understand it. It means to shape, carve, form, etc... meaning when God "created" the heavens and the earth, he was forming them. Proper hermeutics shows that this passage shows God forming (consult any Hebrew Lexicon with detailed word definitions and etymology) the world from pre-existing matter, meaning that Genesis 1 also does not agree with a Biblical account of creation and should be thrown out. It very much borrows its methods from ANE mythology (seen not just in the watery chaos, but throughout, such as the sea monsters, the division into 7, the paralell structure between days 1-3 and 4-6, and seperation of the waters, etc. etc.)

So I guess Genesis cannot be trusted either, since it seems to be influenced by the culture of the ancient world.

Thanks for showing me this guys, I never realized Genesis 1 wasn't Biblical either.

Oh, and also, most of the OT should be rejected. It is completely filled with ANE imagery. For example, people dying is constantly described as "being swallowed into the pit", which is classic death god imagery in the ancient near east. This flat out denies God's power over sin and death. So Old Testament, you are out too. (especially Psalms. I've never seen such a high concentration of storm god imagery being applied to Yahweh - a good example is Psalm 77 where the crossing of the red sea is described using imagery from Marduk's battle with Tiamat)

 

[laconicstudent]

Well, I never thought we'd find a Origins Theology topic that the Evolution and Creation crowd can all agree on. But I think we can all agree that this is waaayyyy out of line.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well, I never thought we'd find a Origins Theology topic that the Evolution and Creation crowd can all agree on. But I think we can all agree that this is waaayyyy out of line.

Indeed.

The law (referred to by Christ himself as 'Moses', being the Pentateuch) and the prophets and psalms are all mentioned by Christ. These were established before Christ's ministry.

Matthew 5
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Acts 24
14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

As Jesus said regarding the books of Moses...

John 5
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[juvenissun]

I've come to reject 2 Peter as scriptural because it actually denies the Genesis account of creation.

He says in 2:5, "long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," (NASB)

The ancient view of creation found in every ancient near easter religion was that the god's formed the world out of a pre-existing chaos.

The oceans were thought to be the remnants of that chaos. Thus, water represented chaos.

Here we have Peter basically saying the same thing.

This passage may look like it coincides with Genesis, because in the earth's first stage, it was a watery wasteland, but the world was not made FROM that water and BY that water. The water was made, and then everything else added. 2 Peter is definately talking about the water chaos being ordered to create the world.

Like evolutionists are blinded by the surrounding culture and don't see God's truth in creation, so the author of 2 Peter was blinded by his surrounding culture and believed a lie. Thus, I say we reject 2 Peter as canonical.

(Mainstream scholarship thinks 1 and 2 Peter were written by different people, so we can keep 1 Peter in)

ivebeenshown said it very well. I just add a little bit from another point of view:

According to science, the universe has H and O first, then comes Si.

 

[Siyha]

You and jig bring up good points. I never noticed before that Genesis 1 also teaches creation ex-materia like the babylonian and egpytian religions did.

There is the same watery chaos in the beginning, and a lot of similar actions like the seperating of the waters.

The Hebrew word for create, doesn't actually mean "create" as we understand it. It means to shape, carve, form, etc... meaning when God "created" the heavens and the earth, he was forming them. Proper hermeutics shows that this passage shows God forming (consult any Hebrew Lexicon with detailed word definitions and etymology) the world from pre-existing matter, meaning that Genesis 1 also does not agree with a Biblical account of creation and should be thrown out. It very much borrows its methods from ANE mythology (seen not just in the watery chaos, but throughout, such as the sea monsters, the division into 7, the paralell structure between days 1-3 and 4-6, and seperation of the waters, etc. etc.)

So I guess Genesis cannot be trusted either, since it seems to be influenced by the culture of the ancient world.

Thanks for showing me this guys, I never realized Genesis 1 wasn't Biblical either.

Oh, and also, most of the OT should be rejected. It is completely filled with ANE imagery. For example, people dying is constantly described as "being swallowed into the pit", which is classic death god imagery in the ancient near east. This flat out denies God's power over sin and death. So Old Testament, you are out too. (especially Psalms. I've never seen such a high concentration of storm god imagery being applied to Yahweh - a good example is Psalm 77 where the crossing of the red sea is described using imagery from Marduk's battle with Tiamat)

I see what you did there

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Clever clever. Arguing a point you don't actually subscribe to in order to demonstrate another point entirely.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[shernren]

My little brain is highly confused. If there is some kind of high-level use of sarcasm occurring in this thread, I don't seem to be grasping why or how or what the point is.

 

[philadiddle]

My little brain is highly confused. If there is some kind of high-level use of sarcasm occurring in this thread, I don't seem to be grasping why or how or what the point is.

I think it's brilliant. It shows where the narrow view of creationism and the rejection of ANE influence must inevitably lead you.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

I just add a little bit from another point of view:

According to science, the universe has H and O first, then comes Si.

Hey, cool observation.


Papias