Re: Noahic Covenant

From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 18:04:16 EDT

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: Not challanging scualrism of science"

    On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote to Dick Fischer:

    > (3) The testimony of two NT commentators - one of whom had certainly
    > walked with
    > Jesus. In the Greek of
    > Heb.11:7 and 2Pet.2:5 we find the word "kosmos" used; in the context of these
    > passages this can only be
    > rendered _world_ . Had _land_ been intended, then the word "chora"
    > was available
    > and would surely have been used. The inevitable outcome of the event
    > is confirmed
    > by the Lord Himself in the parallel passages, Mt.24:37,38 and Lk.17:26,27.
    >
    > Such considerations would hardly convince an educated potential
    > convert that the
    > Flood was _local_. And rather than accusing me of impugning the
    > integrity of the
    > Scriptures by drawing attention to these realities perhaps you
    >would now admit
    > that the only reason you believe as you do is because your faith in evolution
    > overrides such matters as simple logic and the just demands of God's Word.

    Vernon,

    We shouldn't allow our modern English use of the word cosmos to denote the
    physical universe to lead us to suppose that its meaning in the Greek NT
    must be a physical or geographical one. Its literal meaning was adornment
    or decoration. Although I haven't looked it up, I suspect that it is the
    root of the word cosmetic. My examination of its uses in the NT doesn't
    find very many instances where it seems to be used in a purely
    geographical sense. The word ge seems to be preferred for that. Chora is
    used for a geographical region, sometimes a very small one, but it is
    hardly just a smaller example corresponding to the larger cosmos. I don't
    see world of the ungodly in II Pet. 2:5 as being synonymous with planet of
    the ungodly.

    In Heb. 11:7 Noah's condemning the world doesn't sound like a clear
    statement about the extent of the Flood. The contexts of Matt. 24:37, 38
    and Luke 17:26, 27 indicate that these passages are about the
    unexpectedness of the judgment and not about the extent of the Flood. Note
    that in the next verse in Luke (17:28) a similar statement is made about
    Lot and the destruction of Sodom, which was certainly a local event.

    It is incorrect to assume that belief in a nonglobal Flood is a result of
    belief in evolution. Many progressive creationists, including some
    prominent ones, do not believe that the Flood was global. In fact, I can
    even imagine a young earth creationist (not of the ICR type) doubting that
    the Flood was global.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 19:29:54 EDT