Re: Exegesis or Eisegesis?

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Thu Dec 27 2001 - 00:52:38 EST

  • Next message: Vince Calhoun: "RE: Exegesis or Eisegesis?"

    George Murphy wrote:

    >Dick Fischer wrote:

    >>The "bara" you refer to pertains to "Israel" (Isa. 43:1), descendant from
    >>Adam, who was created (bara) in "the image of God." Generic human
    >>beings, outside of Israel, not descendant from Adam, are not included
    >>in this verse. This has been the tendency for Christian apologists,
    >>extending to all of humanity what was written for only one nation.

    > I have probably said this before but in case there are any
    > newcomers to the list who may think that this idea is widely accepted
    > here I'll note again that
    > a) there is no basis in the OT for this notion, &
    > b) it makes nonsense of the Adam-Christ connections Paul uses in
    > Romans & I Corinthians.

    I'll be the first to admit that a common sense Genesis 1-11 interpretation,
    articulated piecemeal on this listserv over the years in alignment with
    scientific and historical evidence, while having been an encouragement to
    some, has also fallen on deaf ears, George's included. The fault is
    largely mine, I suppose, for not getting out on the road and speaking at
    seminaries and Christian colleges like I intended to do. I'll make that a
    New Year's resolution.

    To your point that there is "no basis," that is a mistake, unintentioned I
    am sure. The overriding difficulty is that theological interpretations of
    Genesis were etched in stone before the history of Sumer and Accad was
    discovered, recorded on clay tablets over 4000 years ago, but brought to
    light only during the last 200 years. Now that we have valid evidence in
    hand with which we could reinterpret and correct obvious flaws in
    translation and interpretation, but what I encounter is either conservative
    intransigence, or this kind of liberal, intellectual snobbishness. All I
    have offered is the most substantiated method of apology that has surfaced
    in the last two thousand years. And quoth the raven, "no basis."

    The original articles published about 7-8 years ago in PSCF, "In Search of
    the Historical Adam, Parts I and II" are still hosted on the ASA web
    site. I would think that any fair-minded individual upon reading them
    would at least concede that there is a foundational basis of historical and
    archeological data upon which this theological theory rests.

    As to the Adam-Christ connection, in my view, Adam began God's special
    relationship with what became the nation of Israel, at His death, Christ
    ended it. Adam was the first of the old covenant, Christ presented a new
    covenant. And just as Adam was not the first human being, neither was
    Christ the last human being. Adam was real and historical, just as
    Christ. Adam was a king, so was Christ.

    And just as Adam represented God on earth to bring man into a right
    relationship with Him, so was Christ God's representative to redeem
    mankind. Their roles were the same, only Adam being human, failed, while
    Christ was God incarnate, and succeeded. I believe Paul and I are on the
    same page, but if there are any differences, I yield to Paul.

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 27 2001 - 10:15:55 EST