“deliberately overlook”
https://biblehub.com/greek/2309.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/2990.htm
@PDPrice, are you saying that deny and deliberately overlook have the same meaning?
Let’s say that I just don’t like to pay my taxes on time. So when the due date comes and goes, I simply ignore the deadline and do other things. Have I denied that I have taxes which are owed or have I simply overlooked/ignored my obligation? (Would my procrastination constitute denial of the obligation?)
If someone has been told by their dentist that they should floss after each meal—but simply don’t because it strikes them as inconvenient—have they denied that flossing is a good way to keep teeth and gums healthy?
2 Likes
Yeah, in the context of 2 Peter 3 we can say so. The scoffers in this passage are deliberately overlooking certain historical facts; this is tantamount to denying that they occurred.
I think @AllenWitmerMiller makes a good point (and one I was trying to make earlier, but indirectly). To me, it doesn’t seems like they were having a debate over the extent of the flood and the scoffers said “nah, it was local”. It seems much more likely that they were having a debate over the return of Christ and Peter is saying “but remember, God made the universe and judges it!” If they were denying anything, I think it was the active presence of God. It seems highly unlikely that the scoffers were specifically making a case for a non-global flood.
4 Likes
So even the though those words mean very different things, you claim “we can say so” when it suits the Young Earth Creationist need for a proof text. This is a prime example why those of us with a very high view of scripture wince at a lot of sloppy exegesis among far too many YEC leaders.
You say, “We can so.” I say, “No we cannot.” We have to let the Biblical text speak for itself and not contort it into our personal preferences.
That part we agree on. The text states that they deliberately overlook God’s sovereignty in creation and in the Noahic Flood.
That is like saying that eight is tantamount to eleven. (Or that red is tantamount to purple.) No. Absolutely not. I won’t call it lexicographic dishonesty because I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you are saying. But I’d be very disappointed if an exegesis student made such a claim in his paper.
Now, it may be true that some people who deliberately ignore God’s sovereignty in the aforementioned actions also deny them----but that is not what the text specifically says. One can’t (with any hermeneutical integrity) simply invent things whenever they are convenient for one’s argument.
If your approach were to be used by Bible translators, the result wouldn’t be a faithful rendering of the Greek New Testament text into English. Instead, it would be a forced paraphrase skewed to promote your particular brand of YECism. And that saddens me as a Christ-follower.
2 Likes
Am I to understand therefore that you can’t read Greek?
So you’re not translating or interpreting the text literally, you’re interpreting it figuratively. Why is it, do you think, that professional translators and lexicographers have failed to translate this passage accurately, the way you supposedly do? Can you provide any evidence for the relevant Greek word meaning “deny”? Are you aware that it can actually mean “be ignorant of”, and that the passage can be translated in these ways?
- they fail to see that
- they are ignorant of
- they fail to notice that
- they do not take into account that
- they forget that
- they have forgotten that
3 Likes
Are you aware that it can actually mean “be ignorant of”, and that the passage can be translated in these ways?
No, it actually cannot because it specifies they deliberately overlook these things.
None of this is even remotely correct. I’m not going to continue to debate you. If you want to know more, read this (and again, I’m not going to debate you on this):
It looks like @Jonathan_Burke and I were startled in the very same ways in regard to @PDPrice’s skewing of the text. We wrote virtually the same kind of refutation and posted almost simultaneously.
@PDPrice, do you think that our concurrence on your outrageous denial of what the Greek text actually states might give you good reason to reconsider your view of this scripture passage?
1 Like
No, I think your completely horrendous ravaging of the text is sufficient to demonstrate to me that I don’t want to continue to engage either of you on this.
Whenever you are confronted with evidence which defeats your position, you simply retreat. This is disappointing.
1 Like
You seem to think I’m at your disposal to personally refute everything you (or anybody else) has to say. Thankfully I am not. You can use creation.com as a resource if you are interested in my position on these things, and if not, then you’re just here to argue anyway.
@PDPrice, are you are able to read the Greek text of 2 Peter 3?
You’ve been asked about your exegetical training in the past but you’ve always dodged such questions (and many others.) Nobody is saying that you can’t comment on the scriptures without Greek and Hebrew language fluency—but we simply want to know how you came to have superior Bible interpretation skills.
1 Like
Ok so the guy who doesn’t know Greek is going to simply repeat his personal interpretation to me and ignore (or “deliberately overlook”?), all the standard English translations and commentaries which contradict him.
When you said that it cannot mean the translations I listed, you clearly failed to realise that I quoted every single one of them from a standard English Bible translation (NLT, REB, NAB, NIV, NRSV), scholarly commentary, lexicon, or professional Bible translator’s guide. Here’s a list of just some of the sources.
- Bigg, Charles. The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary, Second edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902
- Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. The Anchor Bible, vol. 37. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964
- Bratcher, R. G. A Translator’s Guide to the Letters from James, Peter, and, Jude. Helps for Translators. London, New York, Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1984
- Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988
You really are showing your ignorance here.
Very wise. You’re in no position whatsoever to debate me.
I already know more than you. You have nothing to tell me. What you need to do is sit down and listen to someone who knows more than you.
2 Likes
So are you saying that you have not come to this Peaceful Science forum to dialogue with others? Are you implying that your participation here is simply to preach to us what we should believe—and not seek to gain understanding of one another’s positions?
When someone joins this forum and starts posting, they certainly are making their positions available for scrutiny and critique. Yes, you can refuse to dialogue when it gets uncomfortable and avoid providing an adequate defense of your positions. Yes, you can dodge evidence and the refutations of your positions. But don’t be surprised that your most outrageous claims don’t go unchallenged.
1 Like
Your practice is to so nuance the Scripture until the Holy Spirit does not have a voice at all. You call @PDPrice ignorant, so I will go ahead and call you willful and negligent in your approach to Scriptures. I really do not care how much learning you splash around, the clear rendering of this passage is about scoffers who deliberately forget the truth of the ancient texts regarding creation and the worldwide Flood. So go ahead and call us ignorant. It won’t stick because we are invoking something far greater than your supposed bank of learning. We are invoking the very clear words of the Spirit of God and his intent through Peter the apostle, and no amount of learning will wave that away. You sir whoever you are, are completely out of line in calling @PDPrice ignorant and have really only demonstrated that you know how to mishandle the holy Scriptures.
2 Likes
I didn’t rely on my own knowledge, or appeal to my own authority. Instead I cited a host of perfectly orthodox Christian translators and commentators. You are claiming they are all mishandling the holy Scriptures. I’m unconvinced.
What’s that John Wesley? You had something to say?
It is said that another evangelist told John Wesley: “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book learning, your Greek and Hebrew.” Wesley is said to have replied:
“Thank you sir. Your letter was superfluous, as I already knew the Lord has no need of my ‘book learning’ as you put it. However, although the Lord has not directed me to say so, on my own responsibility I would like to say, the Lord does not need your ignorance either.”
Ok, thanks Big John!
1 Like
I’ve raised a lot of hogs in my younger days. However, I can’t say that I ever really washed them.
I come from a long line of Christian hog farmers. We only raised Christian hogs. (At least, to my knowledge, they were all repentant of their sins.) Perhaps their being Christian explains why I never had to wash them. Sanctification does that, ya know.
We always went to great lengths to avoid mud wallows where the hogs might get dirty. Nevertheless, if there had been a lot of rain in their pasture field and they were mud-covered just before I took them to the Amish auction barn about twenty miles away, I might spray them down with a garden hose just before transport. That was the closest they came to a baptism—although it was technically more of a sprinkling. (Perhaps they were Orthodox Presbyterian Church of America, like I was in grad school.)
I just thought this thread needed a little “cooling off” with some non-Flood water.
Meanwhile, I must take off for a few hours to preach at a Bible conference. We are having our first cold spell here so I’ve chosen Matthew 22:14 as my text: “Many are cold but few are frozen.” (Yes, I too can take liberties with the Biblical text when it suits my purposes. 
)
1 Like