rhutchin

The key to the understanding of this verse is to trace back words to their antecedents. They are:

us-ward (longsuffering to us-ward)

any (not willing that any)

all (all should come)

To whom does the auther mean when he writes, us-ward?

Are the words, "any" and "all" referring back to us-ward? If not, to whom (and in what verse do we find them) do they refer?

Can anyone do a grammatical (or other) analysis of the verse and trace these words back to their antecedents?

aa5874

And what about 'The Lord'? 'The Lord' must be found to be real and can function before 2 Peter 3:9 can have any significance. Let's not waste our time on semantics.
Do you have any knowledge of 'the Lord' or are you just fascinated by the four letter word.

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, the key to understanding the verse is understanding the Greek, which obviously you do not understand. Consider the following from ancient historian Richard Carrier, who is working on his doctoral dissertation, and is an expert on Hebrew and Greek:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/bible.html

Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship (1999)

Richard Carrier

<snipped for bandwidth - please check link>

Johnny: Rhutchin, you are way out of your league here. You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. I will bet that you will not be willing to discuss 2 Peter 3:9 at the BC&H Forum.

Consider the following translations of 2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV)

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. (NASB)

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (English Standard Version)

the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation, (Young’s Literal Translation)

Jude 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (KJV)

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (KJV)

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (NIV)

Johnny: You are basing your arguments on your supposition that the Bible is inerrant, and has no contradictions, but you have not provided any credible evidence whatsoever that the Bible is inerrant, and in fact, you do not have any idea whatsoever what "the Bible" is. If the originial version of the Bible was inerrant, what evidence do you have that current versions are inerrant? Is it your position that skeptics are not able to revise the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people with the revisions?

How much do you know about the New Testament Canon? I assume not much. Consider the following from ancient historian Richard Carrier:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

<snipped for bandwidth>

Johnny: Rhutchin, as usual, you do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Even if your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 is correct, you still lose because it is not possible for decent people to will themselves to accept a God who endorses favoritism. If God wishes to punish decent people for not being able to will themselves to endorse favoritism, and killing people with hurricanes, including babies, that is his choice, but decent people do not have any choice in the matter. You can call hurting people and killing them good if you wish, but only an evil person, or God, would endorse such barbaric and detestable behavior.

God frequently reveals himself to people who NEVER accept him, while frequently refusing to reveal himself to some people who WOULD accept him if they knew that he exists. This suggests that he does not exist, or that if he does exist, he has poor character. If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, surely at least some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. If an ordinary man was willing to die for some people (some skeptics are willing to die for some people), helped some people, hurt some people, and killed some people, most people would consider him to be irrational, bi-polar, and mentally incompetent. Why should the actions of a God be considered any differently?

The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people. No decent person can accept a man or a God who is a hypocrite.

lenrek

This thread is more about BC&H discussion. Thread move from EoG -> BC&H

rhutchin

The "Lord" would be that entity described in the Bible. In this case, we treat the Bible as a self-contained book and define what it says about the Lord by that which it says about the Lord.

It does not matter whether the Lord actually exists and does not require that a person believe that the Lord exists. The issue is to determine what one verse, in context with the surrounding verse, purports to say. It basically reduces to an exercise in grammatical analysis.

rhutchin

The links did not work. If you have a chance, please correct them.

Technically, to say that a person is an "expert" in Hebrew and Greek means only that they have studied those languages and can pretty much understand what was written. However, both languages are "dead" languages that are not spoken today and for which no one has a perfect understanding of the meaning of everything written in the Bible. "Experts" in Hebrew and Greek can be found on both sides of issues of interpretation.

rhutchin

You do not provide any real analysis of 2 Peter 3:9 even being unable to condense Carrier's main points. Can we conclude that you really have nothing to say?

Johnny Skeptic

1 Timothy 2:3-4 say “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (NIV)
At http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/bible.html, ancient historian Richard Carrier, who is an expert in Greek, says:

“There is no way this can be twisted to support Calvinism. There is absolutely no ambiguity about what Paul means: when he says all people, he means all people, and not some of all different kinds of people.”

“Perhaps god wants what he actually arranged to be impossible, but that is to credit god with astonishing stupidity, and self-defeating behavior (is god neurotic?). But the plain, obvious interpretation is also supported in 2.6, where Paul says Jesus was 'o(the one) dous(giving) 'eauton(himself) antilytron(as a substitute-ransom) 'yper(on behalf) pantwn(of everyone), which cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the sacrifice of Jesus, by being a ransom for everyone, is the source of salvation of everyone (who seeks salvation in Jesus, the obvious implied exception in the entire chapter). He thus did not die to atone for the sins of the elect, or for the sins of some of all kinds of people, but for the sins of all people. No other meaning is allowed by grammar or reason.”

“The fact is that there is no ‘one manuscript tradition’ for any of the books of the bible, and that by reconstructing an archetype manuscript from a logical analysis of the available, often incomplete and error-filled manuscripts, scholars are actually producing a more reliable approximation to the original manuscript tradition--which is otherwise completely lost. We do not have, for example, the original letter written by Paul to Tim, but only hundreds of imperfect copies. Since ‘all’ manuscripts have errors, it is not possible to pick one and say that it, and only it, is true, since it clearly cannot be. The only way to reconstruct a one, true manuscript is to engage in collation and analysis of many manuscripts. Though rarely can this be ‘completely’ accomplished, it is a simple fact that a manuscript reconstructed by SCHOLARS [Johnny: emphasis mine] will always be closer to what, for example, Paul actually wrote, than any existing manuscript.”

“And the fact remains that no translation, no matter how faithful, can ever truly replicate what the bible actually says in the Greek. This is a serious problem, for it means that no Christian ignorant of Greek has ever read the actual bible. Even the Muslims realize this, and hence have required that the Koran always be read by serious believers in the original Arabic. And it is not enough of a solution to merely learn Greek, for the meaning of allusions and words and grammatical constructions in 1st century Koine Greek is often inexorably tied to an understanding of how the language and associated ideas were used and understood in the 1st century. In other words, one must study Greek literature at the time, and social and economic and political history, and religious and philosophical history, to really start to grasp many of the nuances in the Greek. Wilson, for example, shows no knowledge of Greek rhetorical conventions of the 1st century in the passage analyzed above (or is deceitfully concealing such knowledge), and as I explained above, all Calvinists ignore the contextual significance of a letter being written under the Roman Empire. Proper interpretation requires such an understanding.”

This is quite cute. Rhutchin admits that he knows nothing about Greek, but he has no problem arguing with a Greek scholar. Will he produce any evidence from Greek scholars that supports his position? We shall see.

Of course, rhutchin loses hands down no matter what because no God who does not want everyone to be saved is worthy of being accepted. If a man had two children who were drowning, and refused to try to save both of them, he would be ostracized from society, even from Christian society, and he would possibly be convicted of negligence and sent to prison. If an ordinary man were willing to suffer and die for some people (some skeptics are willing to suffer and die for some people), and killed some people (God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout followers, and babies), he would be considered irrational, bi-polar, and mentally incompetent. Why should the behavior of a God be considered any differently?

I challenge rhutchin to reasonably prove that the Bible is inerrant. He is a Calvinist. Most Calvinists believe that the Bible is inerrant. I assume that rhutchin will get little support at this forum regarding Calvinism and inerrancy. Hey rhutchin, why don’t you start a thread on inerrancy at this forum and see how much support you get? Please don’t forget to produce some experts on Greek who agree with your argument that God does not want everyone to be saved. I frequently correspond with Richard Carrier by telephone and e-mail. I might be able to get him to participate in this thread. Would you like to debate him regarding the meanings of the Greek in 1 Timothy 2:3-4? Most readers at this forum on both sides of the aisle will tell you, just like Richard Carrier said, that a good understanding of the Greek is essential when debating the New Testament.

rhutchin

I read Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/

It had nothing to say about 2 Peter 3:9. Maybe you had another citation in mind.

It seems that you cannot substantiate your position (or even attempt an explanation of the position you think is applicable to this verse).

Let's consider this a dead issue until you come up with something constructive.

Maybe you can do some thinking on your own (and not just accept what others tell you) and try to resolve the antecedent issues.

After that, you might even read the entire passage and deal with the logical argument that Peter makes.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

While this thread could be left to dissolve in the ether I saw a few assertions that were curious. So here are a few of the obvious questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic by reconstructing an archetype manuscript from a logical analysis of the available ... manuscripts, scholars are actually producing a more reliable approximation to the original manuscript tradition

Johnny, how would you or Richard Carrier determine that a particular group of scholars were involved in a "logical analysis" ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic Since ‘all’ manuscripts have errors

How do you know this ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic it is not possible to pick one and say that it, and only it, is true, since it clearly cannot be.

On what basis do you or Carrier make this "clearly cannot" claim ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic it is a simple fact that a manuscript reconstructed by SCHOLARS ... will always be closer to what, for example, Paul actually wrote, than any existing manuscript.”

Yet two groups of scholars working from different paradigmic bases may offer very different result texts. And if they are radically different a sensible conclusion is that one would likely be further from what Paul wrote than the other, and further from Paul than a particular source manuscript. So on what basis does Carrier say that a schola'rs text will "always be closer..." ? In fact what he claims is close to being a logical impossibility considering the variety in the results from scholars.

Granted, you were only quoting Richard Carrier and may not have much to say in support of his various assertions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery