Dear Gordon/Bob,
Thanks for these comments.
However, what if these writers really meant to convey the message
that the Flood
was universally destructive and truly global? How would they do it? What
alternative language did they have to hand? For Noah: was there anything better
than "eretz" (with its associated ambiguity)? For Peter: was there anything
better than "kosmos" - meaning "world order" or simply "world"? (By the way, in
respect of "kosmos" I note that of its 186 appearances in the Greek text of the
NT, the NAS has it translated 184 times as "world", once as "world's", and once
as "adornment".
You both appear to be forcing particular meanings on these words in order to
defend preconceived ideas concerning the Flood. Neither of you has
addressed the
matter of the logic of my #2 observation.
Gordon's point about the Lord's references to the Flood are, of course, valid.
However, that its outcome was expressed as an aside hardly negates my argument.
Sincerely,
Vernon
Robert Schneider wrote:
> See my comment below Gordon's:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Noahic Covenant
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote to Dick Fischer: [snip]
> >
> > > (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.
> > >
> > 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.
>
> > Gordon Brown
> > Department of Mathematics
> > University of Colorado
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> >
> Bob's comment:
>
> To follow up on Gordon's remarks on the meaning of "cosmos": he is
> correct that the word originally meant "adornment," and is the root of our
> word "cosmetics." According to Kittel's _Theological Dictionary of the New
> Testament_ (one vol. ed.), cosmos is used to mean "adornment," and "the sum
> of all creation (the universe)." But, an important meaning, found
> frequently in the Gospel of John, is "cosmos" as the "realm of humanity" or
> the "universe of human life" or the theater of salvation history. It is
> precisely in this sense of "human world" that the author of 2 Peter 2:5 uses
> "cosmos," according to Kittel. Thus, "cosmos asebon" ("the world of the
> ungodly") does not refer to the planet physically or geographically, as
> Gordon correctly asserted. Heb. 11:7 seems, according to commentator Myles
> Bourke (_The Jerome Biblical Commentary_), to be drawing upon the same
> tradition as 2 Peter 2:5, and uses "cosmos" with the same meaning.
>
> I strongly endorse Gordon's caution not to assume that modern usages of
> a word mirror those of ancient peoples. I would add, equally strongly, that
> words convey various meanings, as you know from any perusal of an English
> dictionary, and not assume that the way one OT or NT writer uses a word is
> the same way other writers use it. Some Christians do read words in
> biblical texts that way (even in translation), and often misinterpret a text
> as a result. Also, never assume that a writer would have used a certain
> word (e.g.chora--which does not mean "land mass" but "a plot of land"
> "countryside": "land" in a local sense, and many other meanings, as Gordon
> noted). Look up the passage in Greek and see what word the author actually
> used. He knew what he meant; we have to try to understand what he meant and
> not assume what he meant.
>
> BTW, there is good internal evidence and solid inferences that 2 Peter
> could not have been written by the Apostle Peter, but is a late work, dating
> around the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd c. AD (assuming
> tradition is correct that Peter was martyred in Rome in 64). It is likely
> another instance of pseudonymous writing, though this does not reduce its
> canonical status in any way.
>
> Grace and peace,
> Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 21 2002 - 19:19:33 EDT