Why not take the Bible for what it says?

[rmwilliamsll]

Peter did say the flood covered the whole earth and the Greek is quite specific that the whole earth was intended. So, is Peter wrong?

“…This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - 1 Tim 2: 3, 4

God wills that all men be saved. does that mean universalism? or that women are left out?

everything you read needs to be interpreted.

2 Peter 3:6-7 "by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" (NKJV).

was the flood universal or global or both?
what does COSMOS mean?
depends.

there is no evidence for a global flood at all.
there is a mountain of evidence that the flood was not global.
there is no evidence for a universal flood and again lots of evidence against a universal flood. you can call that elevating science over Scripture. but the facts remain. there was no global nor universal flood. Peter is either wrong or the verse needs to be understood differently.

that has to enter into the hermeneutical process that yields the meaning of these verses. in the same manner, i am not a universalist, in fact i am a particularist, allowing all of Scripture to speak to the issue.

in the same way i understand that Peter believed that the flood killed all human life=universal, but there is no reason to believe that he thought it global. the word cosmos does not require nor actually support that interpretation.

...

 

[Critias]

“…This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - 1 Tim 2: 3, 4

God wills that all men be saved. does that mean universalism? or that women are left out?

everything you read needs to be interpreted.

2 Peter 3:6-7 "by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" (NKJV).

was the flood universal or global or both?
what does COSMOS mean?
depends.

there is no evidence for a global flood at all.
there is a mountain of evidence that the flood was not global.
there is no evidence for a universal flood and again lots of evidence against a universal flood. you can call that elevating science over Scripture. but the facts remain. there was no global nor universal flood. Peter is either wrong or the verse needs to be understood differently.

that has to enter into the hermeneutical process that yields the meaning of these verses. in the same manner, i am not a universalist, in fact i am a particularist, allowing all of Scripture to speak to the issue.

in the same way i understand that Peter believed that the flood killed all human life=universal, but there is no reason to believe that he thought it global. the word cosmos does not require nor actually support that interpretation.

...

In that case, the other 186 times that the New Testament uses cosmos for the world needs to be changed as well. And within context, it is to be understood as world.

 

[Critias]

Would you like to start with John 3:16 and change the meaning of cosmos?

 

[stumpjumper]

This is what is going on, no matter how many times a TE tries to deny that they have trusted scientists more than the Biblical authors intent. It is not that this act, alone, is damaging to ones security of salvation, it is the fact that they have allowed this to begin, where will it end?
{snip}

Let me ask all TEs something, do you think it is impossible for you, once you have accept Jesus Christ, to lose the salvation He has given you? I am not questioning your salvation, I am asking a simple, yet complex question. So please, keep your strawmen for another day.

Don't you think you should make a distinction between claims about science and claims about faith and salvation. Also, how do you know that the Biblical author's "intent" was to make a universal claim about the origin of life in general and our species in particular? The main claim of the first part of Genesis is that God created the world.

Do you honestly think that God requires you to believe in creation claim of a pre-scientific people to be saved? The Bible is a book of faith not a science or history textbook and faith in the goodness of the world and love for one another and God is all that is required for salvation. You do not need to bury your head in the sand and dispute the age of the earth and truckloads of scientific facts that support the fact and theory of evolution to accept God's love.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In that case, the other 186 times that the New Testament uses cosmos for the world needs to be changed as well. And within context, it is to be understood as world.

God so loved the cosmos.
are you a universalist then?
or why not?

same word, yet most Christians are not universalist.

Would you like to start with John 3:16 and change the meaning of cosmos?

this is the wrong place for the discussion.
but does God love the world or the people in it?
does God love all the people indiscriminately or some differently?
can you answer these questions from just
"God loves the cosmos"?



btw
the first meaning of cosmos is order or arrangement.
it seldom means globe or landmass.

 

[Critias]

As you put it, I will bury my head in the sand and follow what I believe is God's Truth from the only source that we know for a fact is Inspired by God.

Scientists interpretations are not known to be inspired by God.

And BTW, science says Peter is wrong about the flood. So what else could Peter have put into Scripture that was also wrong?

 

[Critias]

God so loved the cosmos.
are you a universalist then?
or why not?

same word, yet most Christians are not universalist.


btw
the first meaning of cosmos is order or arrangement.
it seldom means globe or landmass.

Seldom where? In the Bible, cosmos almost always means world.

Are you suggesting that all words must take their first meaning, or can we let context decide the meaning?

The context of the passages is in the scope of the world. Look to 2 Peter 3:7 and you see the support.

So, is Peter wrong?

 

[statrei]

As you put it, I will bury my head in the sand and follow what I believe is God's Truth from the only source that we know for a fact is Inspired by God.

Scientists interpretations are not known to be inspired by God.

And BTW, science says Peter is wrong about the flood. So what else could Peter have put into Scripture that was also wrong?

You act as if God has forbidden humans from using their brains when reading any books claiming to be from Him. He requires you to test everything, including what is in those books. Not to do so is to disobey Him.

 

[Critias]

You act as if God has forbidden humans from using their brains when reading any books claiming to be from Him. He requires you to test everything, including what is in those books. Not to do so is to disobey Him.

Am I disobeying God because I have chosen to believe His Written Word?

 

[statrei]

Am I disobeying God because I have chosen to believe His Written Word?

Calling it His written word does not make it His written word.

 

[Critias]

Calling it His written word does not make it His written word.

Oh, so the Bible has not been breathed from God to men?

 

[stumpjumper]

As you put it, I will bury my head in the sand and follow what I believe is God's Truth from the only source that we know for a fact is Inspired by God.

Yes the Bible is said to be inspired by God (actually God Breathed) but it does not mention the manner of inspiration. IOW, it does not mean that the Bible is meant to make literal claims about scientific or even historical events. Jewish interpretations of OT claims are generally allegorical as well as many of the Christian Fathers interpretations. Origen did not believe in a strictly literal reading of Genesis.

Anyway in regards to Peter and the other disciples, it took Jesus's death and resurrection for them to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I think the origin of life and whether or not Noah was even a historical figure was probably a side issue.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Seldom where? In the Bible, cosmos almost always means world.

Are you suggesting that all words must take their first meaning, or can we let context decide the meaning?

The context of the passages is in the scope of the world. Look to 2 Peter 3:7 and you see the support.

So, is Peter wrong?

cosmos in John 3:16 does not mean physical world.
nor does it mean all people, at least not loved(agape) in the same sense. but there is no way to tell that from just that verse.
likewise the proper interpretation of 2Peter requires more than just a word study of cosmos.

i'm conservative, i have a high order committment to the infallibility of Scripture that overrides almost everything else. Peter is not wrong, the interpretation of the verse as a global or universal flood is wrong.

..

 

[stumpjumper]

Oh, so the Bible has not been breathed from God to men?

The term "God Breathed" greek origin as used in 2 Timothy 3:16 is theopneustos and it was also used to refer to divine origin of dreams in scripture. It does not mean transcription from God to scroll.

 

[Critias]

cosmos in John 3:16 does not mean physical world.
nor does it mean all people, at least not loved in the same sense. but there is no way to tell that from just that verse.
likewise the proper interpretation of 2Peter requires more than just a word study of cosmos.

i'm conservative, i have a high order committment to the infallibility of Scripture that overrides almost everything else. Peter is not wrong, the interpretation of the verse as a global or universal flood is wrong.

..

So God doesn't love all people? Or God has favorites now?

Either Peter is wrong or science is wrong. The meaning of the verse is quite clear in the Greek.

 

[Critias]

Yes the Bible is said to be inspired by God (actually God Breathed) but it does not mention the manner of inspiration. IOW, it does not mean that the Bible is meant to make literal claims about scientific or even historical events. Jewish interpretations of OT claims are generally allegorical as well as many of the Christian Fathers interpretations. Origen did not believe in a strictly literal reading of Genesis.

Anyway in regards to Peter and the other disciples, it took Jesus's death and resurrection for them to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I think the origin of life and whether or not Noah was even a historical figure was probably a side issue.

And I have not said the Bible makes claims about science as we know science today. It does record historical events and many Jews did interpret the OT has historical accounts. They did and do believe there was a real Moses who received the 10 commandments from God Himself, ect.

The Church Fathers did view the Scriptures as recording history. Origen did believe that Genesis was a historical narrative even though he didn't believe in a six day creation.

Peter did speak of a world that was flooded and destroyed. Either science has it wrong or Peter is wrong.

 

[Critias]

The term "God Breathed" greek origin as used in 2 Timothy 3:16 is theopneustos and it was also used to refer to divine origin of dreams in scripture. It does not mean transcription from God to scroll.

Actually the Greek word here, Theopneustos, is used as one who moves something to action. Like the wind that blows and the trees act by moving. That is what the word reflects here.

 

[stumpjumper]

Actually the Greek word here, Theopneustos, is used as one who moves something to action. Like the wind that blows and the trees act by moving. That is what the word reflects here.

Correct and how do you get from "moves something to action" to dictated by God and must be interpreted literally?

 

[stumpjumper]

And I have not said the Bible makes claims about science as we know science today. It does record historical events and many Jews did interpret the OT has historical accounts. They did and do believe there was a real Moses who received the 10 commandments from God Himself, ect.

They believed that the Torah was revealed to Moses and that he was a historical figure but you are talking about the historicity about events in the torah. These are two different things.

The Church Fathers did view the Scriptures as recording history. Origen did believe that Genesis was a historical narrative even though he didn't believe in a six day creation.

Peter did speak of a world that was flooded and destroyed. Either science has it wrong or Peter is wrong.

Correct again. Origen did not believe in a six day creation which is what I am claiming. Genesis could be a historical narrative simply by saying that sometime in the past God created the world ex-nihilo. The Big Bang and evolution could be accomodated by that view.

How do you know that Peter's intention was to refer to Noah and the flood as an actual event versus referring to it as a story that has moral implications?

 

[gluadys]

Peter did say the flood covered the whole earth and the Greek is quite specific that the whole earth was intended. So, is Peter wrong?

Ignorant would be the correct term. He could not have known that the flood was not global as he relied on the Genesis account and had no other. He spoke the truth as he knew it, but his knowledge was not that of scientific discovery of the evidence. It has only been within the last 300 years that we have confirmed the fact that there has never been a global flood. We should not fault biblical writers for being people of their own time speaking what they believed to be true, even though it wasn't.

Of course, if you wish to retreat into the super-natural, there could still have been a global flood, but one totally invisible to scientific inquiry and contradicted by scientific evidence.

That again, takes us into theological questions.