Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

I don't think there is any implication of geography in this text. I disagree with this statement: "I do not see how that language about the coming destruction can reasonably be understood as less than universal. My original point was that this appeal to the flood would carry no weight in this argument if the flood were not understood by the author & his readers to have a similar scope."

Genesis mentions "scoffers" before the flood, and this text mentions scoffers in the last days. The scoffers in Genesis suffered a judgment from the flood, but it did not necessarily have to be worldwide for that to happen.

What about the extent of v 7? You obviously think that this refers to a global destruction. I think that is not necessarily the only way to interpret "heavens and earth." I think Peter used heavens and earth, just as Christ, Haggai, and the author of Hebrews used that term, in other words not as a universal judgment, but as an end to the old covenant, the end of the age.

So if the heavens and earth is not universal in v 7, the geographic extent of the flood in v 6 does not necessarily have to be. If nothing else, I am saying that this passage is no help in determining what Peter, or others of his day, thought about the extent of the flood, I don't think it says anything about it.

I am impressed with the imagery of fire and water. v5 "out of Gods word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and with water." v6 "By water also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. v7 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. " Fire is also mentioned in v 10, and 11. I dont fully understand what the meaning of this is, but it seems that he is contrasting the flood v the last days.

Ultimately, I am not sure if Peter was saying the flood was universal or not. But I dont feel bothered by it if he did. But what is potentially troublesome is the scoffers. The text in Peter seems to indicate that the scoffers are in the future. So far so good. But Jude claims that the scoffers are present. So if there was no judgment of the scoffers in the first century, Jude was wrong. And, Christ, Paul, John, and others who clearly expected a first century fulfillment were also wrong, and this I find very troubling.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Jack ; David Opderbeck
  Cc: ASA list
  Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

  Yes, v.7 refers to the day of judgment. What I said a couple of posts ago was 'that "judgment" is not the primary theme of II Peter 3:1-10.' I have not denied that the destruction of the world is connected with judgment. & I should not have said "it's not about judgment at all" - an exaggerated statement in response to repeated arguments which made the text entirely about judgment.

  The argument of the scoffers in Ch.3 is that the world has gone on without change from the beginning of creation & therefore the promise of Christ's coming is foolish. The author counters by pointing to the flood in order to show that "the heavens and earth" - the whole world - can be destroyed. I do not see how that language about the coming destruction can reasonably be understood as less than universal. My original point was that this appeal to the flood would carry no weight in this argument if the flood were not understood by the author & his readers to have a similar scope.

  That's it. It seems to me a straightforward argument & if it defies common sense then I don't know what common sense is. & the extent to which this destruction is connected with judgment doesn't change the argument.

  The reason judgment got to be front & center in this discussion is that David tried to use it to make a connection with the local character of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But that assumes (a) that judgment is the key idea in Ch.3, which it isn't & (b) that Ch.3 is dealing with the same scoffers as in Ch.2, & it isn't.

  But let me ask this: Is the reason why several of you are arguing that the author of II Peter didn't think the flood was universal just that you don't want to have to say that he was wrong about that? Or is there another reason?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 29 20:57:28 2007