Which doesn’t prove it is a historical account but just a commonly accepted story.
The ancient writer was just repeating what he had been taught from his youth. BTW, I believe the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah is real, but then it isn’t in Genesis 1-11.
You need to look at what revelation Peter received from Jesus. It isn’t what was common knowledge. If you need a hint, the revelation was of things to come, not things in the past that were known.
You wish.
This. I stand with my grad school literature professors on this: the first rule is not to add to what’s in the text. Dr. Michael Heiser puts it this way: “I only care about what the text will sustain.”
They disregard the above, and they disregard the next rule: always read a text in its historical, cultural, literary context.
Yep – I observed it on an elk that had been brought down by a big cat (mountain lion like). It looked strange because I’d never seen an elk tip its head back that far, not even to pull apples off a tree.
The young-earth view has anthropocentric lenses as though we humans are the only reason that God made anything; they never stop to think that God may, like many artists, just enjoy creating beauty. The argument from elegance or beauty was a powerful one for our informal intelligent design club. We get hints of the beauty in cosmological terms by being able to effectively look back in time by looking far away and seeing galaxies in different stages of development, but God got to watch it all continually, not just in snapshots.
That point is often neglected. One of the early geologists managed to shift to seeing an old Earth by reminding Himself that God is faithful and can thus be counted on to run the world according to unchanging laws. One of the biggest travesties of YEC is that it insists on laws that change – which reflects badly on God.
In a way, we should be saying both, but emphasizing the second more; or perhaps also “there I once was”.
Modern people mostly don’t grasp just how literate and knowledgeable ancient people were. Here’s a decent comparison: where we have thousands of books to choose from and remember various details from our favorites, they had the scriptures, and all the attention we give to thousands of books they gave to the scriptures. They also read things like the book of Enoch that informed their view of the world.
This is a big reason why it takes dedicated scholars to understand what the Apostles took for granted; to them it was the cultural “broth” they lived in, while to us it is an esoteric study involving tough disciplines.
Peter said no such thing.
The text doesn’t say that.
Why should I waste time on an irrelevant proposition? I don’t use that argument because at root it isn’t an argument.
There’s no such claim in either letter. In fact what Bill_II said about the passages you quoted apply to both letters entirely: there is very little in them that Peter wouldn’t have known from before he knew Jesus, and nothing that he wouldn’t have known before Pentecost. He quotes from Old Testament scripture, from Jewish mythology, and from Greek legend, and views those through the lens of the Incarnation, but there is no special knowledge involved.
The problem is that you throw out stacks of verses that only you think have anything to do with an issue, and claim contradictions that no one else sees. I’ve tried to figure out what you think is a contradiction several times and can’t find one, so frequently I just skip those portions.
Lewis has the concept of “deep magic”, something that underlies reality but cannot be seen without being shown and perhaps not even then. The idea comes from both scripture and science, that there is a deeper reality that governs the reality that we see/understand with our (fallen) senses and minds, and that some things operate according to the “deep magic”, the rules that underlie the rules we see.
In this case the “deep magic” is God’s sovereignty, and its foremost premise is that all the rules that we see governing nature are just descriptions of what God is always doing, the way He is always running/sustaining the universe. So when something appears to violate the rules we know, its foundation is deeper, in the “deep magic” of God’s sovereign will. Another common way to express it is that God is continually re-creating the universe from moment to moment; what we call “supernatural” is then just a little adjustment in a new iteration of existence. This bases the “supernatural” on God’s creative power that upholds all things.
It’s sort of connected to the idea that there is nothing in existence that God didn’t create, that if anything exists it does so because God created it. The most sensible way to view that is that every moment is a new creation, an iteration made from the one before, yet still open to newly created things or things created anew, created differently from the moment before.
In a way that does away with the idea of miracles since every least little thing in every moment is created just as much as were photons when God commanded light to be. But from another perspective it does away with what we call the secular and returns us to the ancient worldview that says that everything is ‘spiritual’ because it is all God’s work.
As ancient scripture its authority does not come from the criteria that we use, it comes from the criterion of source: whether or not it is historically or scientifically true is not the foundation of its authority, the foundation is Who it came from. YEC is trying to make the scriptures work according to a modern view of authority and totally misses the reason that God’s people in ancient times regarded it as having authority. So even as “a commonly accepted story” it wouldn’t be seen as having authority unless it came from God.
Heh.
But the argument against a literal reading due to Genesis being ancient literature remains either way, and it is that argument that utterly invalidates YEC.
Adam can’t wrap his head around the fact that I don’t really care about what he calls “TEism” or any other -ism, I just care about the inspired text and what it actually says.
oh bull dust St Roymond. You are faced with two major theological dilemmas for which you should have answers:
Christ died physcially on the cross for the wages of sin is death - which clearly denies the claim by TEists that Gods warning to Adam and Eve about eating of the tree in the middle of the garden is only spiritual. The resurrection also denies a spiritual only death as that is clearly physical.
The Apostle Peter claims to have direct revelation from Christ, then immediately after making that claim cites Noahs flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah as evidence that God can save the godly from trials and punish the unrighteous!
It is very clear that the text definately does say exactly that regarding Peters personal revelation, the flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorah in 2 Peter.
I get the feeling that you are suggesting that Peter was referencing fairytales when talking about Noah and Lot?
Unfortunately Richard, if you really understand biblical theology, you would recognise how, when reading language, one knows the difference between allegory and literal meaning.
Some examples for you to practise with
Luke Chapter 1
5In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah, and whose wife Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron. 6Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and decrees of the Lord. 7But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well along in years.
Revelation 1
9I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance that are in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus. 10On the Lord’s day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11saying,e “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
In the above examples it is very clear that:
the first example in Luke is an historical account of a real world event in the past (Luke is recounting the conception of John the Baptist)
the second example in Revelation is a vision given to the Apostle John which is futuristic in nature…clearly not recounting a historical event from his ancient past
Now read Exodus Chapter 1
Berean Standard Bible Par ▾
The Israelites Multiply in Egypt
(Genesis 46:7–27)
1These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family:
2Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah;
3Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin;
4Dan and Naphtali;
Gad and Asher.
5The descendants of Jacob numbered seventya in all, including Joseph, who was already in Egypt.
6Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died, 7but the Israelites were fruitful and increased rapidly; they multiplied and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them.
Read Genesis Chapter 1
Berean Standard Bible Par ▾
The Creation
(John 1:1–5; Hebrews 11:1–3)
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
The First Day
3And God said, “Let there be light,”a and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.”
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.b
Are you honestly going to make the claim that the writings of Moses are allegorical or that the writers intent in Exodus is not concerning a real historical event?
It is not that hard…and yet St Roymond appears to have you convinced that you are too stupid as a modern individual to correctly interpret scripture despite your having demonstrated regularly on these forums what appears to me to be an excellant grasp of the use of and comprehension of lanuage!
I argue that the only way for St Roymonds theology to work is to ensure that individuals who follow it do not cross reference bible texts to ensure accuracy of his interpretations (if/when he cites any bible texts that is)
So in answer you claim directly, how do you support the claim scripture makes no historical statements when clearly the first example i cited above in Luke Ch 1 does exactly that?
Therefore, individuals have a choice:
No one is claiming “scripture makes no historical statements” despite your best efforts to say otherwise. The problem is why do you think that what are clearly rewritten earlier creation stories are actual history.
False dichotomy.
When viewed correctly the book of God’s special revelation and the book of God’s natural revelation agree and both speak truth.
Again, the problem is only in your imagination. It comes from your insistence on forcing a modern semi-scientific viewpoint on ancient literature.
That’s not in the text. I’ve read all of 2 Peter in three different translations and then in the Greek (and got reminded just how different the Greek in this epistle is) (also tripped over ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται, which is quite a mouthful) and Peter says no such thing. The closest he comes is with ἐδήλωσέν (eh-DAY-low-senn), “he made clear”, and that’s not much of a claim to any revelation.
Oh – I also encountered one of my favorite Koine words; I like it because of how it sounds: ἐπόπται, (eh-POP-tie), “eyewitnesses”.
Theology has nothing to do with it, and as far as the Genesis Creation accounts neither allegory nor literal meaning apply. You really need to climb out of the straitjacket of your modern semiscientific worldview and actually study the scriptures. You keep insisting on this false dichotomy and are doing so dishonestly since you have been corrected numerous times.
That’s another false dichotomy. Honest men would ask what literary genre the ancient writer used and what his worldview was in order to hear the meaning that the first audience would have gotten.
And your dichotomy is also dishonest because what you really mean by the first option is that your personal view is right and therest of us are wrong.
That is the whole point. He doesn’t! He references to it. Nothing more, nothing less. He is using scripture properly, for what it is.
It is not about the reality, but what the people of the time (the audience) believed. You can take the understanding withut havig to accept the reality.
Richard
No, that dichotomy does not exist. Scripture does not compete with science. They are not on the same subject…
Richard
My friend, this is not evidence of anything other than leapfrog thinking - the world is a pond full of lilypads (datapoints) and one leaps from pad to pad across open water.
College students who begin to study time spans and the pace of evolution understand that evolution is s l o w a s m o l a s s e s L E F T O U T S I D E i n J a n u a r y.
Whatever mental process allowed you to consider stasis as proof of simultaneity escapes my grasp.
Be well in the Lord, but Genesis is theology not fact. I provided you reasons why this is so - and my reply seems to have fallen off the table. Here it is again.
Verses 1 and 3 in chapter 1 declare that God created time itself, plus space, matter, and light all at once. Genesis calls this Day One. Creation itself calls it the big bang.
Verse 2 grandfathers in the view of the cosmos that everyone accepted: the universe began as water; a hard dome came over the water; the earth was dragged up from the water, which became the seas.
Genesis places the action thusly:
Day One Creation of the universe
Day Two separation of the waters (half above the firmament)
Day Three Earth raised from the depths and set atop the waters; then God commanded it to produce plants.
Day Four God created the rest of the visible universe and set the sun, moon, and stars within the vault of the sky, hence beneath the firmament erected on Day Two, with the forever supply of rain held above it.
Day Today Creation (of God, always trustworthy and true) reveals Earth as a sphere iron surrounded by magma, with a thin crispy crust of continents embraced by films of water (seas). Planet Earth orbits the nearest star, and the moon orbits Earth.
Clearly Day Two and Day Four do not describe Creation. But verses 1 and 3 describe God performing the act of Creation, in a manner that connects with hard fact.
In peace and love,
Joel
I found II Peter to be the second toughest Greek to read in the NT, thanks to the unfamiliar vocabulary and usage. (The hardest was II Corinthians. I don’t know whether Paul was using colloquialisms or actually writing ungrammatically, but some of it was not decorous standard Koine – he comes across as seriously pissed off.)
It’s in the top three, anyway. Hebrews was tough for those who took the standard Koine approach, but for me it was a delight because I’d been reading Xenophon and Aesop. Revelation gets pretty wacky, too.
As I read 2 Peter again yesterday it brought back memories of reading it in class and how it was a struggle for everyone. The vocabulary is heavy with rare words including long compound verbs and the grammar gets . . . well, yesterday I was thinking how uneven it is, in some places resembling nice Alexandrian Greek and others seeming just – I can’t think of a better word – clumsy.
I know I have a notebook in storage with all my II Corinthians translation notes but as I recall I had a heavy academic load that term and don’t really remember translating. Translating and reading should be done when there’s plenty of time to ponder! I do remember sudden shifts of topic without any bridge and that he was really tearing into them for something (now I’m going to have to go read it again!).
But Paul does have moments where he gets excited and his grammar breaks down, especially sentence structure. My thought was always that sometimes he thought through a letter and composed carefully while other times he just wanted to get the letter sent and rushed through.
Though I haven’t read CS Lewis, in 1986, my brother and I biked trough Oxford and visited the Eagle and Child pub (aka the Bird and Baby), a place where he and Tolkien would meet. I peed in the urinal there. Don’t mean to toot my horn, but I’ve been “close” to CS Lewis, so I know a few things.
I very much appreciate your thoughtful and instructive explanation. I feel uncomfortable disagreeing with CS Lewis and you, but I am unconvinced that there is a “deep magic”. To me, if something violates the rules we know (by which I assume you mean natural law), then that thing is just not true, not a deeper foundation nor God’s sovereign will.
When someone claims that a woman gave birth without intercourse, I throw a red flag. It can’t be. Calling a virgin birth “deep magic” is an expression of Christian faith wearing new word clothes but still impossible. To me, it’s one or the other: the natural or the supernatural.
It’s pretty common in nature, though not much in mammals. For higher animals, the real miracle of a virgin birth is having it be male.
because writers such as the apostle Peter very clearly are making reference to historical events to support their doctrines. It is common to cite past events as evidence supporting ones claims and this is exactly what the apostle Peter is doing.
Peter is specifically stating:
if God can hurl Satan and his angels down to the abiss for their transgression of the law (note Peter uses the word "sins here, meaning the law pre existed the creation of the earth)
if God can punish the wicked in Noahs time and yet save Noah and his family from the world wide deluge (the flood),
if God can destroy Sodom and Gomorah and yet save Lot from that destruction…
God can also save the Godly and punish the unrighteous!
Peter is very specifically making the claim:
that Satan sinned in heaven and was cast out along with his angels
Noah was saved in a global flood that destroyed the world
Sodom and Gomorah were really destroyed by fire from heaven
and at the end of time the righteous will be rescued and the wicked punished for their transgressions!
This is a very very obvious revelation of the 2 Peter 2.
I think its impossible to attempt to claim 2 Peter 2 is not citing a literal historical account of Satan being cast out of heaven, a world wide Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah!
That is a very modern take and not how Peter would think. Peter would place more importance on the authority of the source and before you get too excited a story told by an authoritative source would be accepted as truth even if the story isn’t actual history. We have books in the canon simply because they were considered authoritative.
Nice addition to the text.
I am pretty sure Jesus said this in public so it really isn’t a “revelation”.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.