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

Hi George, you wrote:

The flood was understood to be worldwide in the sense that it wiped out
all people except Noah & his family, just as (in II Peter) the coming
destruction of the world - & yes, judgment - will affect all people. I
do not think that the biblical writers - of Genesis or II Peter - had
any idea about a a flood which destroyed some human beings but left
others unscathed. The table of the nations in Gen.10 was intended to
include the whole inhabited world as the author & his culture knew it.

I think there are a few clues to suggest otherwise. Had the authors
suspected future readers would be so misled they might have chosen their
words more carefully. Why use "days" for epochs of creation when it
causes misunderstanding today, for example? Personally, I think the
authors were so aware they weren't alone in the world that they never
thought it necessary to spell it out. They were in the company of
Sumerians before the flood and the Sumerians had already resettled their
cities when Noah's brood returned to the area. They had to know. They
were never alone in the world. When Nephilim were on the earth in Gen.
6:4 in the pre-flood era and the post-flood sons of Anak are from them
in Num. 13:33, that's only heartburn for those of us who thought the
flood was universal. They were well aware. Even Josephus in talking
about Cain said: "However, he did not take his punishment as a warning,
but only became wickeder, studying only his own bodily pleasure, though
it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors." Who were Cain's
"neighbors"?

In other words, the knowledge of unrelated people tangential to their
culture was so manifest to them that they made only sparse mention of it
simply because they as a people are so introspective and the history
they wished to pass down to their posterity wasn't intended for others
to read. Why belabor a point that was so manifestly obvious to them and
should be to us? We should know the entire world's population was not
destroyed by the flood, why would we think they were less knowledgeable?

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:41 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu; dopderbeck@gmail.com; philtill@aol.com
Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

Boy, get up at 5:15 a.m. & you still have 3 posts waiting for you in the
same thread! I should have bundled these responses. & with Holy Week &
Easter fast approaching, I'm going to have to drop out of this pretty
soon. But -

You make an intersting point below about the word usage in II Peter 3
but I don't think it will bear the weight. kosmos does indeed sometimes
have the sense of "the world as the habitation of mankind" (BAG) & even
more limited meanings, but the 1st sense is the totality of everything -
the way in which we use the word "cosmos" today. In any case there is
an implication of totality - if it refers to humanity it means all
humans, not a subset.

II Peter does say literally that the world, not the earth, was destroyed
in the flood. But that has to be qualified by noting the distinction
between "heavens that existed long ago" and "an earth" of v.5 and "the
present heavens and earth" of v.7. This sounds as if "the present
heavens and earth" are different from the former ones.

But here I think is the bottom line. The real issue is not so much the
cosmological or geographical extent of the flood but its anthropological
extent. Historians may correct me if I'm wrong but the emphasis on
supposed geological evidence for a worldwide flood is largely an
artifact of recent "flood geology" partisans. While I think the
biblical authors do have a worldwide flood in view - world as they
understood it - their emphasis is on its impact on humanity. All of
humanity - kosmos in the sense you cite.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From: philtill@aol.com

To: gmurphy@raex.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; dopderbeck@gmail.com

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:38 AM

Subject: 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 <mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>

To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; David Opderbeck
<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>

Cc: ASA list <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

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 <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>

To: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>

Cc: ASA list <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

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
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redi
r=http://www.aol.com> 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 09:35:14 2007