Re: Exegesis or Eisegesis?

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 12:08:13 EST

  • Next message: Ted Davis: "Postmodernism and my statement"

    George Murphy wrote:

    > Yes, Paul probably did think of Adam as an historical figure. The
    > writer of Genesis 1
    >pictured a flat earth with a solid dome of sky & waters above the
    >heavens. & the point is ... ?

    After the flood, kingship was restored at Kish, a number of kings reigned
    there until "Kish was smitten with weapons," and kingship was transferred
    to Enoch, spelled by the translator "E-Anna(k)." Enoch in time became
    Erech either because the small town was absorbed by the rising city or for
    some other reason - maybe just the evolution of place names. If Genesis
    correctly reported that the city of Enoch was founded by Cain, that is only
    one man removed from Adam himself.

    What was known about cosmology 3500 years ago may differ from what we know
    today, but what we earn in the future about cosmology may change what we
    currently believe. Science marches on, people and places and geographical
    landmarks endure. The writer of Genesis named rivers and cities we can
    identify. That lends credibility. Genesis does not begin: "Once upon a
    time in a land far, far away ..."

    My point is there exists too much extra-biblical information that doesn't
    prove the existence of Adam conclusively, but certainly suggests it. Why
    were those pyramids carved in Egypt that names "Adam" (Atum) and "Seth,"
    hundreds of years before Moses or even Abraham was born? What would
    motivate them to make it up?

    Plus, if we assign Adam to fictional status, what about Noah or
    Abraham? Phasing in the historical characters is an impossible
    task. Fictional fathers don't have flesh and blood sons.

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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 12:00:35 EST