On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:35:12, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>I am going to step way out of my field here, so I fully expect to
>be corrected quickly. Andy May said, " I beg the readers'
>forgiveness if I make any naive or unsupported arguments," I am sure
>that you will be very kind to me as you would be to Andy. :-)
>
>I just noticed something that I had never known before.
>
>Second Peter 3 5-7 is often used to support the concept of a global flood.
>
>It says.
>
>2 Peter 3:5-7 (NIV) "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's
>word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
>By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the
>same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for
>the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."
>
>What I noticed was a difference in Greek words which does not come across in
>the English. My greek/english dictionary, Thayers (I know the Theological
>types don't like that one) defines two words, Kosmos and ge as follows:
>
>"Kosmos" means (in order of use) "harmonious order", "ornament or decoration",
>the "universe or world", "the circle of the earth", "the inhabitants of the
>world".
>
> "ge" has the meanings (in order of use) "arable land", "the ground", 'land
>as opposed to sea', 'planet earth', and 'country'
>
>What this may mean is that the passage should read:
>
>2 Peter 3:5-7 (NIV) "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's
>word the heavens existed and the planet earth [ge] [chosen because of its
>opposition to heavens] was formed out of water and by water. By these waters
>also the harmonious order [kosmos] of that time was
>deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and planet
>earth [ge] are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and
>destruction of ungodly men. "
>
>The fact is that the Greek is trying to tell us that there is a difference
>between what was flooded and the planet earth itself. The use of 'ge' is in
>conjunction with heavens, seems to imply planet earth. So if the planet was
>flooded, why was 'ge' not used? The use of 'kosmos' is less constrained. The
>passage surely does not intend to say that the 'decoration' was flooded. Does
>it mean that the 'universe' was flooded? No. But kosmos when used in the
>sense of 'world' has the connotation of univearse, not planet earth. Or so it
>seems to me.
>
>This leaves 3 possibilities: "the harmonious order", "the circle of the
>earth", or "the inhabitants of the world". Two of these possibilities rule
>out a global flood. Only the circle of the earth would allow a global flood
>but it certainly doesn't have to. The circle may refer to the horizon.
>
>Thus, I would suggest that a global flood is not at all required by this
>passage.
Thanks to Glenn for raising this issue. I was tempted to pass over
it, but then I could be accused of "the overwhelming silence"! :-)
I agree with Glenn that there was no global Flood but rather a
local or regional Flood covering the known world of Noah's day. YEC's
appeal to 2 Pet 3:5-7 as decisive evidence that there was in fact a
global Flood:
"One of the most important Biblical passages relating to the
magnitude of the Deluge is to be found in II Peter 3 :3-7...consider
the implications of this passage with respect to the geographical
extent of the Flood. In speaking of the events of the second and third
days of creation, Peter uses the terms "heaven from of old, and an
earth" in a sense that is obviously universal. By the same token, no
one can deny that Peter also uses the terms "heavens that now are,
and the earth" in the strictly universal sense. Otherwise, Peter would
be speaking of the creation and final destruction of only a part of the
earth! Now the one event which Peter sets forth as having brought
about a transformation not of the earth only but also of the very
heavens, is the Flood! It was the Flood that constituted the line of
demarcation between "the heavens from of old" and "the heavens that
now are" in the thinking of the Apostle Peter. It was the Flood that
utilized the vast oceans of water out of which and amidst which the
ancient earth was "compacted," unto the utter destruction of the
kosmos "that then was.'' It was the Flood to which Peter appealed as
his final and inontrovertible answer to those who chose to remain in
willful ignorance of the fact that God had at one time in the past
demonstrated His holy wrath and omnipotence by subjecting "all
things" to an overwhelming, cosmic catastrophe that was on an
absolute par with the final day of judgment, in which God will yet
consume the earth with fire and will cause the very elements to
dissolve with fervent heat (II Peter 3:10). If the Flood was limited to
the region of Mesopotamia, it is difficult to see how Peter's appeal to
the Flood would have any value as a contradiction to the doctrine of
uniformitarianism, which assumes that "all things" have never yet
been upset by a universal cataclysm. Nor is it easy to excuse Peter of
gross inaccuracy when he depicts the Flood in such cosmic terms and
in such an absolutely universal context, if the Flood was only a local
inundation after all." (Whitcomb J.C., & Morris H.M., "The Genesis
Flood", Baker, Grand Rapids MI, 1993 reprint, pp14-15)
Firstly, it is a basic principle of hermenutics that Scripture must be
interpreted according to the worldview of its human writer. What
Peter means by the word "world" and what we mean by it may be two
different things. The Biblical writers often used the world "world" to
mean their *known* world. For example, Paul says in Col 1:6:
"All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as
it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood
God's grace in all its truth."
But unless it is maintained that the gospel had in the first century
already reached the aborigines of Australia and the Indians of
America, it must be understood that Paul means his *known* world.
Ramm points out:
"...It cannot demonstrate that totality of language necessitates a
universal flood. Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will
reveal many instances in which universality of language is used but
only a partial quantity is meant. All does not mean every last one
in all of its usages....The universality of the flood simply means
the universality of the experience of the man who reported it. When
God tells the Israelites He will put the fear of them upon the people
under the whole heaven, it refers to all the peoples known to the
Israelites (Deut. 2:25). When Gen. 41:57 states that all countries
came to Egypt to buy grain, it can only mean all peoples known to the
Egyptians. Ahab certainly did not look for Elijah in every country
of the earth even though the text says he looked for Elijah so
thoroughly that he skipped no nation or kingdom (1 Kings 18:10)"
(Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p164).
Secondly, the text itself does not support a geographically universal
Flood, although it does support an *anthropologically* universal
Flood. Here is a literal rendering of what 2 Pet 3:5-7 says, straight
from my interlinear New Testament:
"[5] For is concealed them this wishing that heavens were of old and
earth [ge] by water and through water having been held together by
the of God word,
[6] through which the then world [kosmos] by water being inundated
perished;
[7] but the now heavens and the earth [ge] by the same word having
been stored up are for fire being kept in a day of judgment and
destruction for the impious men."
(Marshall A., "The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament", Samuel
Bagsters & Sons: London, pp929-930).
Nothing in the above necessarily requires a geographically global
Flood. Peter draws a distinction between ge = "The Earth, Land...in
the geographical sense" (Bromiley G.W., "Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament", Abridged, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, 116),
and kosmos = "...the Abode of Humanity...the Inhabited World"
(Bromiley, p483).
My NIV Study Bible says:
3:6 ...The term "world" may refer to the earth or, more probably, to
the world of people (cf. Jn 3:16. All the people except Noah and his
family were overcome by the flood and perished. This does not
necessarily mean that the flood was universal. It may simply have
extended to all the inhabited areas of earth (see note on Ge 6:17)
(Barker K., "The NIV Study Bible", Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI,
1985, p1903).
That is, Peter's focus is deliberately *anthropological*, not
geographical. It was the then *human* world that was inundated, not
the then geographic world. Indeed, it could be argued that Peter is
actually teaching here a local (ie. anthropologically universal but
geographical local) Flood! :-)
I personally am strongly attracted to the idea of an anthropologically
universal but geographical local Flood. It would fit quite neatly with
my Pre-Adamite model, if "anthropological" is defined in its
theological sense as only the descendants of Adam (ie. excluding
anatomically modern hominids). The Flood then would have wiped
out all the descendants of Adam who had started to mate with
anatomically modern hominids (Gn 6:2. cf. 4:17; Lk 3:38) except for
Noah and his family, while they were still confined to a relatively
small geographic area in Mesopotamia.
Unfortunately Ramm too easily dismisses the idea of an
anthropologically universal Flood:
"Some assert that man never spread beyond the Mesopotamian valley.
This is impossible to defend in that it is so well proven that men
were to be found outside the Mesopotamian area long before the
flood." (Ramm B.L. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p163)
The fallacy in Ramm's argument above is in what he means by "man".
If he means anatomically modern hominids, then indeed they "were...
found outside the Mesopotamian area long before the flood". But if
he means "man" in the primary Biblical sense of a descendant of Adam,
then there is no way of knowing if these anatomically modern hominids
really were descendants of Adam.
On my young-Adam/pre-Adamite view they were not. I would argue that
Adam was an individual, prepared by God and taken from anatomically
modern hominid population and placed in a specially prepared garden
in Mespotamia (Gn 2:8), in the comparative recent past (say between
50-20 kya). There he was admitted into a unique relationship with
God (Gn 2:15), and taught God's will for him (Gn 2:16-17). When Adam
was ready God allowed him to be tested by Satan (Gn 3. cf. Job 1:12;
Mt 4:1) as a representative of all mankind. If Adam passed the test,
all mankind would be granted immortality (Gn 3:22), with a unique
authority over nature (Gn 2:19-20. cf. Mk 4:39-41). If he failed
the test, he would be subject to the normal laws of nature that bound
the rest of the creation (Gn 3:16-19).
I would further argue therefore that the Flood was universal as far
as Adam's descendants were concerned, but not universal as far as
anatomically modern hominids were concerned:
"Noah certainly was not a preacher of righteousness to the peoples of
Africa, of India, of China or of America-places where there is
evidence for the existence of man many thousands of years before the
flood (10,000 to 15,000 years in America). The emphasis in Genesis
is upon that group of cultures from which Abraham eventually came."
(Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p163)
I regard the Biblical accounts of Genesis 2-11 (Genesis 1 may have
been composed later), as fundamentally accurate history, albeit
partly symbolic, being passed down as family traditions from Adam and
his decendants, probably on clay tablets (Gn 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;
11:10, 27). In particular, I regard the Biblical accounts and
genealogies in Genesis 2-11 as extracts from real historical records.
Therefore, my understanding of who was Adam is constrained by the
biblical genealogies (I do not hold they were all father-son, but
equally they cannot be meaningfully be stretched too far), and by the
neolithic elements in Gn 4.
So in summary, IMHO "Second Peter 3:5-7", which "is often used to
support the concept of a global flood", in the original Gk., actually
supports an athropologically universal but not a geographically
universal Flood. It therefore fits well within a pre-Adamite model,
but only supports a global Flood model in English translations.
Once again, thanks to Glenn for raising this issue.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------