2 Peter 3 and the Flood

What about the Persian Gulf Oasis?

What about it? There’s nothing like a flood involved, just a gradual change in sea level and a gradual submergence. Nor does it cover the area you want it to cover, and it didn’t subside. Better you should think of the Black Sea flood, which really appears to have been a flood. Still in the wrong place and not subsiding, though. This is grasping at straws.

3 Likes

Hasn’t there been some recent evidence for the Mediterranean being cut of from the Atlantic and drying out, then with ice age melt raising sea level and spilling over quite suddenly through the Gibraltar straight? This is why there is a “grand canyon” under the Nile, because the Mediterranean was at a much lower level.

This was several million years ago, I believe.

3 Likes

Do we know when this flood occurred, approximately?

Yes, though the timing is all wrong, and it’s in the wrong place, and the flood didn’t recede.

We would if we googled it.

1 Like

Yeah, I should have fact checked my memory first.

1 Like

For those not familiar with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, this is an important section:

WE DENY

That Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. [24]

An interesting analysis of the Chicage Statement appears at:

https://evidenceforchristianity.org/a-case-to-rewrite-the-chicago-statement-on-inerrancy/

7 Likes

POSTSCRIPT: I was in the room in an assisting capacity to the Drafting Committee (J.R. Packer, Norman Geisler, et al) as the aforementioned section of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy was being discussed. It’s probably a good thing that I was still YEC-oriented at that time because today I would have great difficulty keeping my mouth shut.

5 Likes

ANOTHER POSTSCRIPT about the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy Drafting Committee: I don’t want to leave the implication that Norman Geisler was a die-hard YEC. I would simply say that the entire draft committee wrote a statement that greatly bolstered the type of inerrancy position and style of hermeneutics favored by most Young Earth Creationists.

3 Likes

Even then, the GAE is entirely consistent with the Chicago Statements, and the Statements undermine @PDPrice’s position.

1 Like

Not if your position entails death before sin and denies a global flood. The Statements clearly say (as Miller just quoted)
We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Of course, I do readily admit that some of the framers themselves (like Geisler) failed to be consistent with the above statement in their own views.

and the Statements undermine @PDPrice’s position.

I don’t know what you’re referring to here.

Where does the Bible describe a global flood?

As to the Chicago Statement:

We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

What does the Bible teach versus what people (based on their favorite traditions) think the Bible teaches?

The idea of a global flood is a good example. It is certainly traditional in many circles but you can’t find it in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Genesis.

1 Like

Full disclosure - I am not anything close to an expert on the Chicago Statements. Having said that, I have a question and an issue. First, I haven’t seen anything directly related to death before sin. Is this part of the Chicago Statements? Second, I am yet to be convinced that “no physical death before sin” is accurate interpretation of the Bible.

2 Likes

That is entailed in the concept of “creation” in the context of Genesis 1, as is referenced in the Statements there.

Second, I am yet to be convinced that “no physical death before sin” is accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Why not? What evidence would convince you? Would it convince you if I demonstrated that

  1. Animals and people ate only plants before the Fall
  2. Death is considered an evil and an enemy
  3. God cares about the welfare of animals
  4. God’s nature is merciful and benevolent

… or would it take more than these things to convince you?

This is why I don’t see much help in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. People mean different things by the words and for the most part they mean it exclusively (as in, “if you don’t read it my way you’re out”) instead of inclusively (as in “if your view can be interpreted to fit within the range of meanings, you’re in”).

3 Likes

Would you mind pointing this out specifically? A supporting quote in context would help me out a lot.

I don’t recall any Biblical instructions to not eat meat in Genesis. This is application of a human interpretation. It is an additional interpretation step to assume that no blood-pumping vertebrate ever died.

Satan is evil and an enemy, yet God created Lucifer knowing the full consequences. God routinely does things that we cannot understand. I think it is a more appropriate interpretation, considering the entire Bible in context, that it is spiritual death that is the evil and the enemy. The balance of ecosystems on the planet require physical death.

Yes, I also believes he cares about humans much more, yet allows exploitation of innocents, and even unjust and horrible death to occur.

1 Like

Another thought - Genesis contains very specific instructions to not eat from one particular tree. If God intended to forbid the eating of meat, I would guess that would have been recorded, as well.

1 Like

Before I take the time to address any of these points you’ve made, I would need you to answer this one first:

Why not? What evidence would convince you? Would it convince you if I demonstrated that …

Fair enough, I wasn’t explicit. I am already convinced of points 3 and 4, so you can take those off the table. I don’t think you can convince me of point 1, but you are welcome to try. I could discuss point 2, but that might be better as a thread of its own. Since God’s own description of His creation was “very good”, despite having Hebrew words that could have been used for “perfect”, it could certainly be considered unfair to assume that original creation could not have contained a certain “wrongness” due to the presence of physical death. In short, convincing me of point 2 would likely not convince me that God’s creation did not contain animal death.

3 Likes