 |
| Vancouver Courier: Vancouver flooded today. |
Very brief on the Genesis flood
The original You Tube video was pulled. I replaced it with the link below.
---
Dr. Ross's comments, minimally, biblically, present a reasonable interpretation.
2 Peter 3: 5-7
New American Standard Bible
5 For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Ross's view supports a localized, 'worldwide' flood effecting humanity and animal life.
Therefore some animal life is preserved within the Ark of Noah.
This is not a global flood, by Dr. Ross's interpretation, theologically. But from my previous study of 2 Peter this concept of 'world' and world system, as opposed to global, would (again) be reasonable. The use of figurative literal language at points, as opposed to plain literal is permissible within 2 Peter.
I would deduce that within this view, the 'new world' would have been untouched by the biblical flood, so for example, North and South America and Oceania would have not been flooded.
New Testament Greek
World: cosmos
Cited
STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος κόσμος kósmos, kos'-mos; probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):—adorning, world.
Controversially, this would raise the theological possibility, that if there were other human beings in the new world at the time of Noah's flood, they would have remained untouched, as would have been animal life in the new world.
This view from Ross would counter premises from critics stating that not all animal life could have been in the Ark. And as well, that not animal life was destroyed in the flood.
I would reason that not all insect life, was destroyed, for example, in the 'old world' or 'new world'.
Dr.Ross's views may be offensive to many within fundamentalistic Christianity, but they should at least be considered within scholarship.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
2 Peter 3: 5-7
New American Standard Bible
5 For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Ross's view supports a localized, 'worldwide' flood effecting humanity and animal life.
Therefore some animal life is preserved within the Ark of Noah.
This is not a global flood, by Dr. Ross's interpretation, theologically. But from my previous study of 2 Peter this concept of 'world' and world system, as opposed to global, would (again) be reasonable. The use of figurative literal language at points, as opposed to plain literal is permissible within 2 Peter.
I would deduce that within this view, the 'new world' would have been untouched by the biblical flood, so for example, North and South America and Oceania would have not been flooded.
New Testament Greek
World: cosmos
Cited
STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος κόσμος kósmos, kos'-mos; probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):—adorning, world.
Controversially, this would raise the theological possibility, that if there were other human beings in the new world at the time of Noah's flood, they would have remained untouched, as would have been animal life in the new world.
This view from Ross would counter premises from critics stating that not all animal life could have been in the Ark. And as well, that not animal life was destroyed in the flood.
I would reason that not all insect life, was destroyed, for example, in the 'old world' or 'new world'.
Dr.Ross's views may be offensive to many within fundamentalistic Christianity, but they should at least be considered within scholarship.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
No comments:
Post a Comment