RE: Publicity for Genesis Reconsidered

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 05:50:40 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Publicity for Genesis Reconsidered"

    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for the post. Genesis Reconsidered continues to garner more and
    more publicity. Rightfully so, I believe. In fact, I believe this so
    strongly that I am learning how to create a website.

    At the moment, I plan to link to (and review) Genesis Reconsidered. I
    also plan to emphasize Biblical contraindications to YEC. I feel that
    these two "areas" have been severely neglected by Christians. I'm just
    trying to do my part to level the playing field. After all, we must all
    stand one day before a holy God. I don't want to have to explain to Him
    why I did nothing with the truth (realizing other people are on a different
    page than me) that I have been presented with.

    Before I reply in detail to your post, I want to mention something again.
    Once more, you have failed to bring the original Hebrew into your post.
    We have enough borderline posts that I simply ignore. Ignoring the
    original language in a sticky area is inexcusable.

    >Hi Jim,

    >You wrote to Peter concerning his belief and mine that Gen. 1: 27,28 refers
    >to God's creation of the human race prior to His creation of Adam and Eve.
    >You told him, "The YEC crowd will laugh at you. They know that just about
    >of the evidence points to Gen 1:26-27 being Adam."

    I don't see you disputing the fact that the YEC crowd will laugh.

    >The only "evidence" I know of which can be used to support the YEC
    >understanding and Dick Fischer's "only Adam and his line were made in God's
    >image" understanding of Gen. 1:26,27 is that Gen. 5:1,2 seems to identify
    >"man" of Gen.1:27 with the "Adam" of Gen. 2. However, as I and Peter have
    >both pointed out, there are ways of understanding Gen. 5:1,2 in which we
    >no such identification being made.

    Shying away from the Hebrew language is entering speculation territory.

    >You wrote: The Bible is Hebrew history.

    Absolutely. Positively. Certainly. Don't see why you're trying to change

    >As Peter correctly pointed out, the Bible, including Genesis, is far more
    >than Hebrew history. God's covenant with Abraham was made for the purpose
    >blessing "all the peoples on earth." (Gen. 12:3)

    Let's see, Mike. The apostle Peter was surprised that Gentiles became
    Christians. Gentiles are "grafted in." Perhaps all the peoples on earth
    are eventually blessed. But only through Christ. Christ is universal.
    The OT is very, very, very Hebrew.

    >But let's say that your narrow view of the Old Testament is correct.

    Ha! I don't know where to begin criticizing this sentence.

    A) Christ thought narrow was good.
    B) Narrow has nothing to do with anything. How many pages are in the OT?
        One interpretation of two verses makes my entire view of the OT narrow?
    C) Oh heck. I'm sure that I'll be able to make my point by just
        responding to the rest of your post.

    >Were not
    >the many nations of people who interacted with the Jewish people for the
    >thousands of years which passed between Adam and Christ as much a part of
    >"Hebrew history" as "every living and moving thing with which the water
    >teems," "every winged bird," and "all the creatures which move along the
    >ground"? Certainly they were! Yet in your opinion and that of some others
    >writer of Genesis felt God's creation of tuna, chickens and lizards
    >to be mentioned in his "Hebrew history" but not God's creation of
    >human beings.

    Yawn. Your case now rests on bringing tuna into the discussion? See what
    happens when you bypass the original language. Nothing more to this than
    time-consuming speculation.

    >Why would any historian have written such a "Hebrew history" in Genesis 1?
    >Certainly people like the Egyptians who enslaved the Israelites for
    >of years played a bigger role in early "Hebrew history" than "the great
    >creatures of the sea." Yet, according to you, the writer of Genesis felt
    >origin of sea monsters was a more important part of Hebrew history than the
    >origin of the Egyptians.

    Now we are really getting off track. Sorry, Mike, distraction won't win
    your case.

    A) Present the Hebrew text
    B) Heck, I'd rather talk clay tablets than your mystery historian. Just who
        is this person anyway? Mike, historians tend to study things that have
        happened in the past. People who write the Bible are called authors.

    >Properly employed, Gen. 1:27-30 is a powerful teaching tool to help show
    >young earth creationists that they misunderstand the Bible and the history
    >the earth. By reading Gen. 1 and 2 chronologically we can show them from
    >scriptures themselves that Adam was not the first man and that there is no
    >conflict between science, which tells us that men just like us have been on
    >earth for many tens of thousands of years, and the Bible which clearly
    >indicates that Adam was created by God only several thousand years ago.

    Yeah, except for the annoying detail called the facts. The facts are that
    Gen 1:26-27 is virtually identical to Gen 2:7. Maybe I'll have to go to
    seminary to get the Hebrew for myself. In the meantime, the more that you
    ignore it, the more that you convince me (and others) that the bucket of
    case is full of holes and badly leaking. Make sure that you're wearing old
    tennis shoes!

    >Why you cling to your, "Gen. 1: 26,27 is referring to Adam and Eve,"
    >I have no idea. I understand why Dick does. He thinks Adam was created "to
    >bear God's image" to the world. I disagree with him. But I understand his
    >position. However, I don't understand why you hold onto this belief.

    Ha! "Clinging" to this position is a piece of cake. It's you who is dancing
    all around the evidence that you'd rather ignore. Nice two-step! (not that
    I know what that is).

    Of course, Mike, I strongly agree with you on most things. You're just
    complicating things. 1Cor 14:33 states (NASB) "for God is not a God of
    confusion but of peace." In my trial website, that verse is in prime
    territory. Christians have been butchering and over-complicating Genesis
    decades and decades and decades. Genesis is


    That's it. YECs have most of it right. They just disrespect science.
    Imagine that, know-it-all Christians despising the "evil" secular world.
    Almost makes you want to drop-kick the Christians back where they came from.
    It's a good thing that I'm not in charge of that decision!

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 18 2002 - 21:18:44 EDT