aChristian,
I have studied the Greek text of Peter's words here in question and do not agree with your assessment of them. I can tell you why I don't, but I doubt you really want me to do so. So, I wont, unless you tell me you really want to discuss this subject matter further.
I do tire of this subject as I don’t see any of us persuading each other one way or another. One thing I can point out is that the assessment of 2 Peter is not only mine, but the assessment of many Greek scholars – perhaps even most of them. We are trying to assess Peter’s original intent as the author – not introducing our own preconceived notions of what his words might have meant. I think a simple reading of his words makes it clear what his beliefs were in this regard. I don’t believe that Peter had any reason not to believe the flood was global at that point in history. I believe he took the words of Genesis at face value. The most probable interpretation of his words point to this view being accurate.
However, your "most people have always understood the Bible this way" argument could also be made to support the understanding that the creative "days" of Genesis were definitely meant by the writer of Genesis to be understood as 24-hour days, and, up until the time of Galileo, to support the understanding that the Bible teaches that the sun revolves around the earth. How most people understand the Bible has not proven in the past that majority understandings are always right. And it does not prove such a thing today.
This may be the crux of our disagreement and why I believe Fundamental Christians and Catholics are more honest with the scriptures. I believe the language used in Genesis is clear – the author meant literal 24 hour periods. That’s not to say that he was correct or that other interpretations are not
possible, but most probably the original author of the myth didn’t have any knowledge of how old the universe really is and believed that god did it all in a one week period. That is where we differ. You take
possible interpretations and turn them into probable ones. The problem is that you do this out of historical context. Sure, today your interpretations seem to make sense, but back when the passage was originally written, the author most certainly did not possess the knowledge you have today. I believe the original authors
did believe the sun orbited the earth, whether right or wrong.
So, let's see. You don't like Fundamentalist Christians because you say they are brain dead. And you don't like liberal Christians who refuse to admit that the Bible contains myths because you think they are dishonest. But you respect people who believe that a book that is filled with myths is actually the inspired word of God. OK.
First of all, the respect is all relative. ;) I certainly respect Catholic belief that these fictional accounts are from god less than people who just believe they are myths, but I do respect them more in their honesty compared to Christians who twist the meanings of the words away from the author’s original intent, or at leas the most probable intent of the author.
I believe the fundies and the Catholics preserve the original intent of the authors. The sad thing is that the fundies have not progressed with modern enlightenment to realize that these ideas are clearly wrong. Thus they believe in fantastic myths that are not true. Liberal Christians such as yourself disappoint me because I believe you are not true to the original intent of the writers, but instead, you twist their obvious words to fit what you think they must have said in order to make the passage accurate by today’s standards. To me this is totally anachronistic. Secondly, you twist these scriptures to such a state that you believe they are actually true accounts in some form instead of taking the more probable approach that the stories are just myths.
I agree with Catholic scholarship because they don’t see any reason why the simple people who wrote these stories should be interpreted as meaning anything different than what they wrote. The people who wrote the stories were not scientists. And no matter how much I disagree with fundies in their belief in these myths, I do agree with them that they interpret the author’s original intent correctly. I just see this as a more honest approach.
My example with Paul Bunyan still stands. The Catholics and Fundies would take the story at face value. The Catholics would recognize that the story is fiction, but see some value in it. The fundies would believe it is a true story that really happened sometime in the past. A Christian such as yourself would try to interpret the story in such a way that it could possibly be a true account, and you would accept that the story really happened. I don’t see this as a reasonable approach (neither do I see the fundy approach as being reasonable). I actually see it as being dishonest to the original intent of the author.
Bringing this back to the flood account, I’m not saying that there isn’t some kernel of truth to your take on the matter. Perhaps there really was a flood that inspired the story. But even if there was a flood, it does not make the account as told accurate. Fictional stories are based on real events all of the time. There still is no evidence that there was a Noah or an ark. The story is extraordinary and there is no extraordinary evidence to back it. It seems to me that you have a different standard of evidence when it comes to extraordinary accounts from biblical and extra-biblical sources.
Have a good weekend.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
