Joseph,
It seems there are few following our debate. Maybe only one. And he has twice already declared you the loser of this debate. But you refuse to admit defeat. And I am fairly sure that you never will. Faithful says he has followed some of your other debates in which you have clearly lost but have refused to ever acknowledge any error on your part. So what is the point of this? I've made up my mind on these issues. You've made up yours. And it seems like any others here who may be following this debate have made up theirs. I'm willing to "let it go," as Faithful suggested that you do earlier. It doesn't seem like you are going to take that advise. It seems to me then that I will have to be the one to do so. That means I will have to allow you to have the last word, and by so doing you can convince yourself, and maybe only yourself, that you have triumphed in this discussion.
But before giving you the last word I will again answer your "questions," against my better judgment and against the probably very wise advise of others.
1. Now, aChristian, if the world in your Romans 11:12 example is the world of all Gentiles, and the world in your John 7:7 example is the world of all opposers of God, then why isn't the world of ancients in my 2 Peter 2:5 example NOT the world of all ancients?
In Romans 11:12, Paul clearly used the word "kosmos" to refer to the Gentile world in contrast to the Jewish world. That being the case, we can see that the Greek word "kosmos" was at times used by the writers of the New Testament in the same way we often use the word "world" today. People today often speak of various "worlds" such as "the industrialized world," "the Christian world," "the Muslim world," "the civilized world," "the third world," and "the entertainment world." Paul's use of the word "kosmos" in Rom. 11:12 clearly shows that the Greek word for "world," which Peter used in 2 Peter 2:5, was at times used by Bible writers to refer to a limited part of the earth's population, just as we use the word "world" today.
You wrote: God planned to rescind the death penalty levied against all of the people in the "land of Noah," provided they repent--according to you. 2. aChristian, don't you think this fact--if it's true--should be in the Bible, and spelled out in no uncertain terms?
I think it is in the Bible. As I wrote earlier, "I think it goes without saying, and always has, that if some people at the time of Noah's flood had repented that Noah would have found room for them on the ark." I have always understood this fact, even when I believed that the flood of Noah's day was global. All other Christians I know, those who believe the flood was global and those who believe the flood was local, believe the same thing. That if some people at the time of the flood had repented, Noah would have found room for them on the ark.
3. Isn't it extremely important for believers to be shown examples of their god being forgiving, and not just ones which show a vengeful, angry god, such as the one who ordered the infants and suckling babes to be killed? What better example of god's intended forgiveness could the Bible writers have described? Why didn't they?
They did. They told us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. (2 Pet. 2:5) The internal context of this verse clearly indicates that Noah held that position at the time of the flood, not afterwards. Your suggestion to the contrary, when all the Bible tells us about Noah's activities after the flood is that he got drunk and naked and cursed his son, is ridiculous. Another very good example of God being forgiving is found in the book of Jonah. There we read that even though God told Jonah He was going to destroy Nineveh, and told Jonah to preach a message to that effect, that God did not do so because many people in Nineveh repented. An even "better example of God's intended forgiveness" (your words) can be found in the New Testament. There we are told that God allowed His only begotten Son to die a terrible death on a Roman cross in order to pay for all of our sins.
4. Why wouldn't God want to make sure that readers knew he was prepared to let onto the ark anyone in the "land of Noah" who repented, if that was really the case?
I've always understood the story of Noah's flood in that way. I just asked three Christians here, one an exJW and two who were never JWs. They say they also have always understood the story of Noah's flood in that way.
5. Also, will you explain why no Bible writer says a single thing about how the great effort expended in building such a huge ark was in vain--according to you? It was mostly empty--according to you--because the great horde of sinners God hoped would repent and show up at the ark to be saved never repented. All those folks God had hoped he could use to repopulate the earth never showed up! Why does no Bible writer tell us this?
Some things go without saying. Besides, I see no reason for them to have specifically discussed that particular aspect of the flood story. As I have said before, and as most Christians understand, God used Noah to prefigure Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that following "the great effort expended" (your words) by Jesus Christ on the Cross He offered salvation through water to all who would heed His call to repent, take advantage of "the great effort expended" for them by Him and gain salvation. However, Jesus also knew that like Noah's ark, His "ark" of salvation would end up being "mostly empty" (your words). For he said, "Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many will enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few will find it." (Matt. 7:13,14)
I hope you will find it, Joseph.
