What did Peter mean?

What did Peter mean? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

CrimsonMoon -> What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 10:07:03 AM)
If Peter was NOT referring to evolution, then what was he talking about when he warned the church that in the last days people will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6).

Carico -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 10:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon If Peter was NOT referring to evolution, then what was he talking about when he warned the church that in the last days people will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6). Peter was referring not only to evolution but to any theory that tries to deny God's Word. And these theories started becoming more rampant in the mid 19 century in the time of Jules Verne and Charles Darwin which ushered in the age of science fiction. And that's why science is Satan's biggest tool in today's society. Unbelievers don't know that God has their number because the bible describes their behavior perfectly.[;)]

ta_mosquito -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 10:18:52 AM)
Noah.

hellohellohi -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 10:48:20 AM)
quote: And that's why science is Satan's biggest tool in today's society. That is probably true I say. But have you ever considered that the problem of science goes deeper than, say, misuse of science? What if science as the desire for knowledge is in the first a pursuit driven from fear, anxiety, and lack of faith -- as opposed to a science that understands itself as the fulfillment of the commission to "name all things." Just a thought. Just wondering whether you are absolutely anti-science (as it is manifested since the Enlightenment), would agree with a re-working of science as "the naming of things and processes," or whether you accept some parts of existing science.

fiat_lux -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 11:22:49 AM)
quote: If Peter was NOT referring to evolution, then what was he talking about when he warned the church that in the last days people will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6). When I read those verses in context, rather than quoting those two alone, it seems to me that Peter is not speaking about evolution as the origin of life, but rather about people talking about the end of life. He's warning people not to think that Christ's return will never come, and not to say that things are just going to stay as they always have since the beginning. This meaning becomes clear when one continues reading into verses 7-10.

CrimsonMoon -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 11:54:42 AM)
I asked the question "out of context" only in an attempt to be brief. Here is the original question I asked in another thread: In the NT, Peter warns the church that in the last days, people will scoff that Christ isn't going to return and will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6). Peter is literally warning the church that in the last days people will "forget" that God created the world, and that the earth was destroyed by a flood. Peter goes onto say not to give up, Christ is coming soon -- but that soon to God is different than to a man. A day is like a thousand years, a thousand years is like a day. EVEN if Peter was saying that God created the world in 6,000 years and rested for 1,000 years, then the world is only 12,000 years old. BUT Peter is talking about the return of Christ -- that He said soon -- and 2000 years (ascension to the present day) IS soon to Christ, as though it were only 2 days. Peter's readers knew he was not adding thousands (and certainly not billions) of years to Creation, he had just stated that the world was destroyed by a flood. If one believes in a world-wide flood, proven by the evidence of it -- fossils, rock layers, etc -- there is suddenly no reason for the world needing to be billions of years old. So, if Peter was not referring to evolution when he said people would willfully forget that God destroyed the earth with a flood, then what was he talking about? Why is it so hard to believe God could have known about evolution and desired to warn the church against it?

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 1:25:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon If Peter was NOT referring to evolution, then what was he talking about when he warned the church that in the last days people will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6). Peter was not referring to evolution or any science. He was referring to those who lose faith or scoff at the notion of God's judgment because it is not coming quick enough for them. This was written to encourage Christians who were 1) disappointed that the kingdom had not come within a generation of the resurrection and 2) being mocked by unbelievers who scorned them for believing that God's kingdom would come and with it the judgment of the wicked oppressors and persecutors of the Christians. The scriptures were written to provide encouragement for faith, not to teach science.

Carico -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 2:27:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fiat_lux quote: If Peter was NOT referring to evolution, then what was he talking about when he warned the church that in the last days people will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6). When I read those verses in context, rather than quoting those two alone, it seems to me that Peter is not speaking about evolution as the origin of life, but rather about people talking about the end of life. He's warning people not to think that Christ's return will never come, and not to say that things are just going to stay as they always have since the beginning. This meaning becomes clear when one continues reading into verses 7-10. No, Peter is saying exactly what he said. People will forget that God created the earth out of water, which people have. So any time anyone makes up a new story of creation other than what the bible says, any story that contradicts the bible, he is forgetting what God said. it's that simple.

evry1needsgod -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 4:52:10 PM)
quote: Peter was not referring to evolution or any science. He was referring to those who lose faith or scoff at the notion of God's judgment because it is not coming quick enough for them. This was written to encourage Christians who were 1) disappointed that the kingdom had not come within a generation of the resurrection and 2) being mocked by unbelievers who scorned them for believing that God's kingdom would come and with it the judgment of the wicked oppressors and persecutors of the Christians. That's all great and beautiful, and even mostly correct, but what does Peter mean when he used the phrase "[and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." Don't you think this statement resembles the one in Genesis awfully close? It's quite hard to get around this. Also, in this same verse Peter said "that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed" If I recall, In Genesis it states "And God said" 8 times - Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26. I think it is quite plain and clear what Peter was referring, and to suggest otherwise is going WAY off on the limb, to the point where it is likely to snap. The Bible is quite clear on what it says, and this is a perfect example of Scriptures agreeing with each other. And wouldn't you know it, they agree on CREATION!!! Not evolution...

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 7:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: Peter was not referring to evolution or any science. He was referring to those who lose faith or scoff at the notion of God's judgment because it is not coming quick enough for them. This was written to encourage Christians who were 1) disappointed that the kingdom had not come within a generation of the resurrection and 2) being mocked by unbelievers who scorned them for believing that God's kingdom would come and with it the judgment of the wicked oppressors and persecutors of the Christians. That's all great and beautiful, and even mostly correct, but what does Peter mean when he used the phrase "[and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." Don't you think this statement resembles the one in Genesis awfully close? It's quite hard to get around this. Also, in this same verse Peter said "that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed" If I recall, In Genesis it states "And God said" 8 times - Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26. I think it is quite plain and clear what Peter was referring, and to suggest otherwise is going WAY off on the limb, to the point where it is likely to snap. The Bible is quite clear on what it says, and this is a perfect example of Scriptures agreeing with each other. And wouldn't you know it, they agree on CREATION!!! Not evolution... It is not a matter of scriptures agreeing with each other. The sort of agreement you are referring to requires that the two parties come to the same conclusion independently of each other. Peter is simply referencing Genesis. Remember that scriptures at that time did not have chapter and verse divisions. The only way to reference a passage in the Torah was to quote or summarize an actual passage. Pretty hard to do that without using much the same language.

drj11 -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 8:46:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico No, Peter is saying exactly what he said. People will forget that God created the earth out of water, which people have. So any time anyone makes up a new story of creation other than what the bible says, any story that contradicts the bible, he is forgetting what God said. it's that simple. You need to realize the role of myth in antiquity. People in general did not have the materialistic thinking that we do today (Yes even you who claim to be non-materialist are materialist, comparative to someone in antiquity). There wasn't any clear separation between history and myth, or science and myth like there is today. People would speak of mythological events quite matter of factly and talk of them as history, and indeed never really make the distinctions in their minds.

Carico -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 9:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: Peter was not referring to evolution or any science. He was referring to those who lose faith or scoff at the notion of God's judgment because it is not coming quick enough for them. This was written to encourage Christians who were 1) disappointed that the kingdom had not come within a generation of the resurrection and 2) being mocked by unbelievers who scorned them for believing that God's kingdom would come and with it the judgment of the wicked oppressors and persecutors of the Christians. That's all great and beautiful, and even mostly correct, but what does Peter mean when he used the phrase "[and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." Don't you think this statement resembles the one in Genesis awfully close? It's quite hard to get around this. Also, in this same verse Peter said "that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed" If I recall, In Genesis it states "And God said" 8 times - Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26. I think it is quite plain and clear what Peter was referring, and to suggest otherwise is going WAY off on the limb, to the point where it is likely to snap. The Bible is quite clear on what it says, and this is a perfect example of Scriptures agreeing with each other. And wouldn't you know it, they agree on CREATION!!! Not evolution... It is not a matter of scriptures agreeing with each other. The sort of agreement you are referring to requires that the two parties come to the same conclusion independently of each other. Peter is simply referencing Genesis. Remember that scriptures at that time did not have chapter and verse divisions. The only way to reference a passage in the Torah was to quote or summarize an actual passage. Pretty hard to do that without using much the same language. Sorry but the Book of the law (the pentateuch which are the first 5 books of the bible) and the OT were written down in Peter's time. And the NT never contradicts the OT. So it is indeed a matter of scripture agreeing in order to know what's from God and what's from man.

evry1needsgod -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/11/2008 9:53:50 PM)
quote: You need to realize the role of myth in antiquity. People in general did not have the materialistic thinking that we do today (Yes even you who claim to be non-materialist are materialist, comparative to someone in antiquity). There wasn't any clear separation between history and myth, or science and myth like there is today. People would speak of mythological events quite matter of factly and talk of them as history, and indeed never really make the distinctions in their minds. You forgot one thing. God did not inspire myths. The Bible is not a simple story book. It is not a mere piece of literature. Until you realize this, answering questions such as the one stated by the OP is pointless to those reading this forum.

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 9:05:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Sorry but the Book of the law (the pentateuch which are the first 5 books of the bible) and the OT were written down in Peter's time. Indeed it was. But not with chapter and verse divisions. Peter could not refer, for example, to "Genesis 6:24" because Genesis had not been divided up that way in the written text he had. quote: And the NT never contradicts the OT. Actually it does. In the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says "You have heard....but I say to you..."

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 9:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod God did not inspire myths. Who says? quote: The Bible is not a simple story book. Who says stories are simple? quote: It is not a mere piece of literature. "mere"? Are you suggesting that literature is an inferior form of communication? Why do we make anthologies of poetry while we trash yesterday's newspaper? Seems to me, we instinctively recognize that literature is a higher form of communication than mere reportage. Why assume that God never uses literary form with its many possibilities of more profound meaning?

evry1needsgod -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 9:23:26 AM)
quote: "mere"? Are you suggesting that literature is an inferior form of communication? Why do we make anthologies of poetry while we trash yesterday's newspaper? Seems to me, we instinctively recognize that literature is a higher form of communication than mere reportage. Why assume that God never uses literary form with its many possibilities of more profound meaning? So you value Shakespeare the same as the Bible. That's interesting.

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 9:33:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: "mere"? Are you suggesting that literature is an inferior form of communication? Why do we make anthologies of poetry while we trash yesterday's newspaper? Seems to me, we instinctively recognize that literature is a higher form of communication than mere reportage. Why assume that God never uses literary form with its many possibilities of more profound meaning? So you value Shakespeare the same as the Bible. That's interesting. The Bible certainly matches Shakespeare as literature and surpasses Shakespeare in its divine inspiration. Why do you consider literary merit and divine inspiration to be incompatible? You seem to be saying that since David's psalms are part of scripture, David's poetry must be inferior to that of Shakespeare. I don't see the logic in that.

evry1needsgod -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 9:55:42 AM)
quote: Why do you consider literary merit and divine inspiration to be incompatible? You seem to be saying that since David's psalms are part of scripture, David's poetry must be inferior to that of Shakespeare. I don't see the logic in that. David was a real man who wrote real poems. Psalms isn't a book of fairy tales/myths. David was a human being who actually murdered a man, who actually had an affair with Bathsheba, who actually hid from Saul, and who was ACTUALLY a man after God's own heart. Or, you can believe that all David wrote were mere stories, and that David was a mythical character, and you can therefore interpret Psalms to fit your ideology. The difference between Shakespeare and David is that Shakespeare wrote fictional stories of individuals in hiding, whereas David was a real man who was actually physically in hiding, who was depressed, and begging God for deliverance, while at the same time praising Him for His glory. Shakespeare's poetry was fictional, David's was not. That's the difference.

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 11:21:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: Why do you consider literary merit and divine inspiration to be incompatible? You seem to be saying that since David's psalms are part of scripture, David's poetry must be inferior to that of Shakespeare. I don't see the logic in that. You are really avoiding my question by bringing up a lot of extraneous issues. quote: David was a real man who wrote real poems. So was Shakespeare. quote: Psalms isn't a book of fairy tales/myths. True. It is a collection of hymns and prayers meant to be sung. Shakespeare's sonnets are not fairy tales or myths either. Btw myths are not fairy tales. You should not conflate different literary categories like that. quote: David was a human being who actually murdered a man, who actually had an affair with Bathsheba, who actually hid from Saul, and who was ACTUALLY a man after God's own heart. And Shakespeare was a human being who was actually born in Stratford on Avon, actually composed plays performed in the Globe theate, was actually married to Anne Hathaway and for all I know may even have been a man after God's own heart. Relevance to their respective literary compositions? None. quote: Or, you can believe that all David wrote were mere stories, Apparently you can believe that all Shakespeare wrote were "mere stories". How disrespectful of a talented genius. quote: and that David was a mythical character, In spite of the fact that we have no empirical confirmation of David's existence, I don't know of anyone who thinks David was a mythical character. You seem to be confusing authors with what they write. quote: and you can therefore interpret Psalms to fit your ideology. Anyone, including you, can interpret the Psalms in any way they wish. The question is whether the interpretation is sound and true to the text. Many interpretations are not, especially when they are ideological. A good interpreter needs to avoid prior ideological commitments. Such as that literal meaning is superior to literary meaning. quote: The difference between Shakespeare and David is that Shakespeare wrote fictional stories of individuals in hiding, Actually Shakespeare wrote a lot about historical figures too: Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Richard III, Macbeth, Henry V, King John, etc. These were all literal historical individuals. quote: Shakespeare's poetry was fictional, David's was not. That's the difference. I disagree. Poetry is always fictional even when it is about real events. The Charge of the Light Brigade was history, but no one mistakes Tennyson's poem on the subject for history. Likewise, the assassination of Julius Caesar was history, but Shakespeare's dramatization of it is not. David was a shepherd and compared God to a shepherd. That doesn't mean David was ever literally a sheep. David repented bitterly of his affair with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. But what he wrote about it was still poetry. The difference between David and Shakespeare is not that one wrote poetry and the other did not for they both wrote poetry. Nor is it that one wrote poetry about history and the other did not--for they both wrote poetry about history. Nor is it that one wrote poetry about personal experience and one did not--for they both wrote from personal experience. The difference between David and Shakespeare is that David wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Shakespeare only by human inspiration.

drj11 -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 12:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod David was a real man who wrote real poems. Psalms isn't a book of fairy tales/myths. David was a human being who actually murdered a man, who actually had an affair with Bathsheba, who actually hid from Saul, and who was ACTUALLY a man after God's own heart. Or, you can believe that all David wrote were mere stories, and that David was a mythical character, and you can therefore interpret Psalms to fit your ideology. The difference between Shakespeare and David is that Shakespeare wrote fictional stories of individuals in hiding, whereas David was a real man who was actually physically in hiding, who was depressed, and begging God for deliverance, while at the same time praising Him for His glory. Shakespeare's poetry was fictional, David's was not. That's the difference. It always seems there is this same reflexive reaction when the term 'myth' is used. It's not a derogatory term, I don't know why you seem to think it is. It's not a diminishing put down on the creation story, or on any truth or lesson the Bible may try to impart by way of myth. This insistence that myth is synonymous with a worthless fiction is one of the core fallacies of literalism. It's completely unfounded.

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 1:17:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 This insistence that myth is synonymous with a worthless fiction is one of the core fallacies of literalism. It's completely unfounded. Along with the insistence that fiction per se is worthless as a vehicle of revelation. That is unfounded too.

drmark -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 4:36:09 PM)
quote: If Peter was NOT referring to evolution, then what was he talking about when he warned the church that in the last days people will "deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water [and that] by these waters the world was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:5-6). 2 Peter 3:4-7 has been well described by some creationists as prophecy concerning the twin religions of naturalism and uniformitarianism which form the basis of evolutionism. Here is a representative article by the late Dr Henry Morris discussing Biblical vs secular uniformitarianism seen in this passage of Scripture. You might get a wider audience by discussing this on the Bible forum instead of these S&O threads.

CrimsonMoon -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 6:24:01 PM)
The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror.� Evolutionist David Hull Nature, vol. 352 (August 8, 1991), pp. 485-486. "....Death, destruction, and fury do not disturb the Mother of our world; they are merely parts of her plan....The god who created our cosmos couldn't possibly be good." Bloom, Howard. The LUCIFER PRINCIPLE: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History.pp 1-2 Theistic Evolution requires one to believe that God created death, pain, and suffering, and then looked around His world and called it good. That is the epitome of cruelty, not love. This is exactly what Richard Dawkins claims: �The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.� For all creation is eagerly waiting for that future day....Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in the glorous freedom from death and decay. (Rom 8:19:20) If God created death and decay, then He himself claims to have put His creation under a curse against its will, and then called it good. If you accept the creation account and the flood account as allegorical, and the story of Adam and Eve in particular, you encounter a serious dilemma. No Adam and Eve, no original sin; no original sin, no need for redemption; no need for redemption, no need for a redeemer (Jesus Christ); and therefore Christianity has NO foundation. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. For if by the one man�s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12, 17). All of these verses, the 10 commandments (Ex 20:8-11), Jesus' genoelogy, etc must all be myths and allegory if one believes God created death. If God created death, then the majority of the Bible is false, God is not loving, and he truly is the god Richard Dawkins claims him to be.

gluadys -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 7:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon If God created death, then the majority of the Bible is false, God is not loving, and he truly is the god Richard Dawkins claims him to be. Nevertheless it is a fact that many organisms died before humans ever lived. If that makes the Bible false in your eyes or God unloving and cruel, that is your conclusion and you should take your place at Dawkin's side. It is not my conclusion. I am prepared to continue to trust in the love and goodness of God without denying the evidence of animal (and plant and fungal and bacterial) death before the fall.

essentialsaltes -> RE: What did Peter mean? (7/12/2008 7:46:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon Theistic Evolution requires one to believe that God created death, pain, and suffering, and then looked around His world and called it good. That is the epitome of cruelty, not love. If death was created, who created it? If not God, who? Did Adam and Eve create death? Do animals have to die because of something that humans did?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI