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

George,
you wrote:
 
...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 is a clever and interesting argument!
 
However, the author does make an important distinction between Noah's flood and the future calamity: he carefully distinguishes the terms "earth" (the actual ground) and "kosmos" (a reference to Noah's civilization). You swap uses of those terms in your statement above. I believe the author's clear distinction between them undermines your argument.
 
1. He reminds us first that God does control the "earth" (land) because it was under water and then he brought it out.
 
2. Then he reminds us that God destroyed the "world" (kosmos) in Noah's day. Note that the "earth" itself survived the flood. It would have been unintelligible to say that a flood actually destroyed the earth, when he just got finished saying that the earth had been under water once before during creation! So he avoided the word "earth" and correctly switched to the world "kosmos" to say what God destroyed in the Flood.
 
3. Then he asserts that the present heavens and "earth" (land again, not kosmos) are being reserved for a complete meltdown of the elements. That is not the same kind of calamity that happened in Noah's day, it is much greater! The future calamity will destroy the actual earth -- the very ground beneath us, and not just the people (kosmos) who walk on it.
 
Your argument was:
 
1. If the flood was a lesser scope than the future calamity, then it fails to prove God's ability to deliver, and thus the author's argument would be unintelligible
2. The author would not have said things that are unintelligible
3. Therefore he must have believed that the flood was not a lesser scope than the future calamity
 
But I believe your #1 is wrong. As I showed above the author clearly did know that the Flood was of a much lesser scope, and clearly he was not bothered by it. The complete melting of the elements of the earth -- and of the heavens as well -- is surely a bigger event than a mere Flood of any size! This non-equivalency of scope (completely destroying versus merely flooding) is different than the non-equivalency that you were discussing (universality vs. non-universality), but in terms of demonstrating God's capabilities it is in fact a much greater non-equivalency than the one you were discussing.
 
So the claim that the flood must be equivalent in scope to the future destruction of heavens and earth OR ELSE the author's argument must be unintelligible is (IMO) weakened and not sufficiently strong to carry the point.
 
I gladly admit that I'm motivated by my belief in inerrancy as a theological hermeneutic! :-)
 
God bless!
Phil
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: gmurphy@raex.com
To: drsyme@cablespeed.com; dopderbeck@gmail.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 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?
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack
To: George Murphy ; David Opderbeck
Cc: ASA list
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

George, this was your quote that started this portion of the thread: "To note just one point, the way in which II Peter 3:5-7 uses the story of the flood to argue for the possibility of the destruction of "the present heavens and earth" makes no sense if the writer of II Peter did not think of the flood as affecting the whole world."
 
Did you forget that we were talking about v 5-7, not just verse 4?
 
 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." (NIV)
 
The KJV, NAS, new KJV also all use the word judgment. I doubt you think that all of those translators are wrong, so you must be trying to make some obscure point, that has deviated from your original point. This passage is clearly about judgment. Despite the appearance of being erudite, it is getting to the point where your posts defy common sense.
----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: ASA list
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

1) You apparently don't know the difference between what a biblical text says & theological deductions drawn from it.
 
2) It should have given you some pause when I had to point out that you'd misquoted the text to bring the word "judgment" into it. You apparently had formed your interpretation of the text before reading it carefully. You ought to practice a little introspective Tendenzkritik.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Mar 30 02:39:03 2007