Very brief on the Genesis flood

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.

Does the Bible Say Noah’s Flood Was Global or Universal?/by Hugh Ross November 2, 2016

---

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. 

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

The continued present

Theologically and philosophically and very non-exhaustively within this article, as long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by time; and by the unchanging nature of an infinite, eternal God that exists within created, finite time.

For humanity:

The past cannot be (literally) relived, but can be experienced in a sense, as in remembered and learned from.

The future can never be grasped, but can be planned for.

The present is all we can literally live in.

A positive in regard to a Christian, biblical, worldview is what I shall state is the continued present.

That is being within the salvific work of the triune God through Jesus Christ, when a believer dies, it is most reasonable that his/her disembodied spirit (soon, I am not stating dogmatically, instantaneously) resides in the spiritual realm of Paradise.

Bauer on page 614 describes Paradise from Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12 and Revelation 2 as a place above the earth. Now from my philosophical/theological perspective I do not take this plain literally, as in some place in the clouds, or above the clouds, or even beyond the solar system or beyond the physical Universe, as in a place that can be physically found via space/travel.

The Bible (New Testament more distinctly) teaches that Paradise is a place where spirits in Christ go after death, and Old Testament/Hebrew Bible saints went to spiritually after death. The Bible teaches this using figurative literal language.

There is also the issue of Paul's 2 Corinthians reference and his willingness to consider departing the body to be with the Lord in Philippians 1.

Upon the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, those in Christ have a restored, immortal body to live within the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21-22) and the culminated Kingdom of God.

The theological assumption is that Paradise is a temporary realm for those in Jesus Christ and Old Testament saints.

Paradise = Heaven1
The culminated Kingdom of God = Heaven2

Both present the continued present.

BAUER, W (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Some guy @work. Someone sneaked a photo.

Validity

VanDusen Botanical Gardens

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Interesting from philosopher Blackburn:

The primary meaning of validity, (philosophically, my add), is that within arguments, a conclusion (s) follows from premises. (389).

Premises and conclusions are not valid in themselves, but are true or false. (389).

Validity requires the correct form of logic. A valid argument. This can also be seen in my book reviews of the following...

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Stanford University

Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. 

(Cannot have true premises and false conclusion (TF) for validity, my add)

Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by assuming that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the argument is invalid. 

Validity and invalidity apply only to arguments, not statements. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call a statement valid or invalid. 

True and false apply only to statements, not arguments. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call an argument true or false. All deductive arguments aspire to validity.  

Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises. Unsound: an argument that is not sound.

Valid: Argument (s)

True: Premises and conclusion (s)

Notice, I will at times state that something is reasonable. This connects to the idea of validity, not necessarily truth or soundness. Although it may be so, in my view.

Brief on 2 Peter 3: options

Brief on 2 Peter 3: options

Necessary v. Contingent

1. The necessary must exist.

2. God is necessary.

3. God's plans are necessary.

4. The contingent exist.

5. The necessary supersedes the contingent.

6. Human beings are contingent.

7. Human being's plans are contingent.

8. Human being's needs are contingent. 

Therefore, the suffering of the contingent is permissible.

It could be stated that it is a weaker sense of necessity in point 3 than points 1 and 2.  

1. The necessary must exist.

2. God is necessary

I would view 1,2 as within absolute necessity.

Open Edition Journals: Philosophia Scientia What is Absolute Necessity? Bob Hale 16/2/2012 

Cited 

Absolute necessity might be defined as truth at absolutely all possible worlds without restriction. But we should be able to explain it without invoking possible worlds.

By my definition 1,2 are necessary in all possible worlds. 

3. God's plans are necessary. 

This could be explained as relative necessity.

Relative Necessity Reformulated Bob Hale & Jessica Leech Journal of Philosophical Logic volume 46, pages1–26(2017)

Cited 

The standard account defines each kind of relative necessity by means of a necessitated or strict conditional, whose antecedent is a propositional constant for the body of assumptions relative to which the consequent is asserted to be necessary.

The relative necessity of (3) has as antecedent the absolute necessity of (1,2).

Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.

In contrast, some may view God’s plans as contingent as opposed to necessary. If God’s plans for humanity are contingent, because he could have done otherwise, the fact these contingent plans come from a necessary being would still have them supersede the plans and needs of the contingent.
---

Further, God, within his infinite, eternal nature, would only be morally obligated to keep his revealed word, as in promises, in regard to contingent, human beings. These are documented in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament within a theistic, Christian worldview.

December 8, 2018

The necessary, what exists by necessity, to parallel this philosophical concept with that which is biblical, has plans that exist within the contingency of finite creation, in the context of the material universe and as well with the existence of finite angelic and demonic beings.

Biblically and based on theological and philosophical reason:

God, as what is necessary can complete divine plans with options, however, as they take place within a contingent reality...

I see two options:

1. Perfect will

Direct cause

2. Permissible will

Indirect cause

Allowing
---

2 Peter 2: 3 8

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

As I read in Erickson, that is a Calvinist theologian, taking his idea (paraphrased) as a reasonable theological possibility (361).

God's perfect will is that all are saved. (2 Peter 3).

God's permissible will is only those chosen are saved. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9).

There is also a reasonable objection that it is theologically possible that it is God's perfect will that occurs, at least in regard to human salvation and the citizenship of those within the culminated Kingdom of God. In that case, 2 Peter 3, is not discussing salvation but the repentance of those in Jesus Christ. The 'you' being those already covered by the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Those in the Christian Church reading the scripture.

As my mentor at Columbia Bible taught me, sometimes we live with theological tension. Add biblical and philosophical tension, in this case.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.