Re: Luke and Peter (was E and C)
Brian Neuschwander (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:13:00 -0700
Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
> >Perhaps the reason A. Chadwick sees recent total global deluge in these
> >scriptures is more a prior theological imperative, than good exegetical
> >effort. Sure, these (Lu17 & 2Pe2) are references to the flood, but as
> >a historical (and prophetic) reference to man's sin and God's judgement,
> >not a lesson on geology. Where exactly do we find reference to the
> >comprehensive geological details of the flood A. Chadwick seems to find
> >there. Perhaps he (and others) can help.
> I find clear reference to the flood of Noah in these texts. Any assertion
> about the context of the flood would naturally have to refer back to the
> original story. The Lukian account does refer to "the flood came and
> destroyed them all"
Exactly the point. The Luke and Peter refs to the flood do not add any
detail (in fact have less detail) than the Gen deluge account. Good
hermeneutics keeps the current understanding/meaning of the text aligned
with the intent of the author/speaker. In the Luke/Peter cases there is
no geology lesson being taught. Something a little more important is
going on in those texts.
Often digressions from original textual intent for the sake of grinding
a theological (or even scientific) ax will often lead to missing the
real point of the texts. One can even have all the "right" doctrine,
yet still miss the point of the text.
Brian W. Neuschwander