He claimed above his interpretation could be changed by evidence. He just can’t say what that possible evidence would be.
It would take solid Scriptural evidence to change my mind about that interpretation.
Thanks for admitting a literal Genesis is not a scientifically supported idea but a purely religious one.
The words were presented in Greek. Does Greek grammar map perfectly to English grammar, Paul?
Would it be fair to say that no scientific evidence would ever change your mind?
https://creation.com/did-adam-have-a-belly-button
Having a belly button is clear evidence you came out of a womb. But neither Adam nor Eve came out of a womb, so had God created this on them it would have been God purposely misleading. Why would they have had them? It seems very doubtful to say the least.
1 Like
Yeah, because Scripture is the final authority, not outside evidence. Evidence is interpreted through a worldview, and Scripture is the starting point of my worldview.
Your honesty is much appreciated.
1 Like
And DNA sequence evidence is clear evidence of common descent. Why does one bit of evidence matter, but the other mountain of evidence doesn’t?
1 Like
Heh. Yet you have no problem with God creating a whole planet filled with deceptive physical evidence the planet isn’t 6000 years old and a global Noah’s Flood never happened. Go figure.
1 Like
@PDPrice I’m going to drop out of the conversation for now. I did appreciate chatting with you however. Thanks for the time, Paul.
2 Likes
PDPrice says no scientific evidence will ever be accepted by him yet he insists his YEC claims are scientifically supported.
I wonder if he can see the direct contradiction in these two positions?
2 Likes
I think the hypocrisy of accusing others of dogmatically rejecting YEC/ID could be more of a problem. Projection seems to be a common feature of YEC rhetoric. A close second is accusing scientists of using faith.
2 Likes
OK, my version says deliberately forget, but “deliberately” does make the two meanings similar. I’m fine with that.
Yes, I think you can deliberately overlook the Creation and Flood even if both of them did not happen literally as written. Like my George Washington example. You can deliberately ignore the moral of the story without the story being historically accurate. If the moral of the story is the point, then it’s perfectly appropriate to be concerned if people ignore it. In fact, we often care more about a child being able to apply the moral of the story than if the child can recite the story from memory.
Well, that’s too bad. I feel like my reading is pretty faithful to the verses, but I could be wrong I guess.
Why? That doesn’t make sense to me. Of course they can scoff or overlook a story regardless of whether the story is real history or not.
Let me just point out again. I do think Creation and the Flood are grounded in real history. But I don’t think it’s a requirement to believe that to understand 2 Peter 3.
3 Likes
I think the entire OT is myth, legend, and grandiose fabricated stories about leaders of a relatively insignificant ancient people. Egyptian and Assyrian history in that time period was much more relevant, much more culturally advanced that this group.
1 Like
You seem to be waffling here. If they are real history, then Peter is referring to real history in 2 Peter 3, because those events are the subject Peter is talking about. And given that, you now need to answer, “Who are the scoffers who are deliberately ignoring the fact that the land came out of the water and the fact that there was a flood?”
If Peter’s flood was local only, then the passage is non-sensical. Nobody scoffs at the possibility that local floods happen. Nobody deliberately ignores a local flood.On the other hand, LOTS of people scoff at the idea of the global flood! Read it that way, and these problems disappear.
What did Peter know about history? He was an illiterate fisherman and became the first Pope. His knowledge of history was very limited.
PDPrice’s interpretation is true because he told us it was true. Who needs that evidence stuff anyway? 
Peter was quoting Scripture and referring back to Genesis 1 & 6. He was never a pope because that concept was not even yet in existence. Paul opposed Peter to his face, as related in Galatians.
Well, I have to take notes on that one. I like it.
1 Like