Re: Non-truths that do not transform

I have not been following this thread, so this accounts for some confusion. 2 Peter 3:6 is written in Greek, not in Hebrew. It is always risky to make a definitive and general translation of a Hebrew word by reference to a Greek word. The Hebrew "eretz" can mean the earth as distinct, in the ancient Hebrew cosmology, from the heavens. It can also mean "the dry land" or "that upon which people stand." 2 Peter 3:5, which reads: "They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth (Greek "ge") was formed out of water and by means of water ("kai ouranoi esan ekpalai kai ge ex hudatos kai di' hudatos sunestosa to tou theou logo"). The operative word in verse 5 is "ge." It can mean "earth" as opposed to "heavens" or "dry land" as opposed to "sea" or "earth" as one of the four elements. Now, I would argue that in 3:5, "ge" means "dry land" since the writer is decribing its formation out of and separation from water (as in Genesis 1:9-10). In 3:6, the Greek word used by the author is not "(asteres) planetes" or "ge" but "kosmos": "di' hon ho tote kosmos hudati kataklustheis apoleto": "through which the world ("kosmos") of that time was deluged with water and perished." "Kosmos" means (among many other things) "world" in the sense of the entire ordered "universe," and he is describing the dissolution of the creation brought on by the flood, when the waters above the earth and the waters under the earth burst forth and covered the dry land (Gen. 7:11). This is the Semetic (Hebrew) model of cosmology (cosmogony), not the Greek; the author is not describing a spherical body. But even if it were the latter, the earth would be stationary, as George pointed out, not the planet of our contemporary solar system.

I checked for language with the Septuagint: it appears that the writer did not use the Greek version of Genesis. He was either translating from the Hebrew, using a Targum, or writing from memory.

For what it's worth. I'm not sure what the point of all this is.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: wallyshoes ; Vernon Jenkins
  Cc: gordon brown ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:18 PM
  Subject: Re: Non-truths that do not transform

  Briefly, no. Greek planetes means "wandering" so the planets were originally the "wanderers" as distinguished from the fixed stars. In Jude 13 "wandering stars" in a translation of asteres planetai. In a geocentric model the earth doesn't "wander" so of course isn't a "planet."

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: wallyshoes
    To: Vernon Jenkins
    Cc: gordon brown ; asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 4:24 PM
    Subject: Re: Non-truths that do not transform

      
    Vernon Jenkins wrote:

      Just recently, I drew attention to the Apostle Peter's reference to the event (2Pet.3:6) whichsuggests, beyond reasonable doubt, that to translate the Hebrew word 'eretz' as 'land' rather than(planet) 'earth' amounts to a distortion and a 'wresting of the scriptures' (2Pet.3:16,17).
       

    "Planet"?

    Did the writers of the Bible consider the Earth to be a "planet" -- like mars or Jupiter?

    Anyone know?

    Walt
      
      
      
      
Received on Tue May 3 23:53:22 2005