Re: To Concord or Not to Concord

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 10:26:37 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Prosperity"

    Paul wrote:

    >Dick wrote,
    >>Bible translators have caused most of the heartburn. They labored under
    >>the misconception that the entire human race commenced with a man (Adam)
    >>who lived roughly seven thousand years ago, that the entire globe was
    >>covered by the flood from which only Noah, his sons and wives survived,
    >>and that all of our languages began at the tower of Babel - which it
    >>turns out was a Mesopotamian ziggurat.
    >The consensus of modern OT scholars, who are certainly going back to the
    >original Hebrew and are interpreting the text in the light of its ancient
    >Near Eastern background, is that the "misconceptions" which you speak of
    >represent the original meaning of the biblical text, albeit the globe per
    >se was not in view. Nevertheless, Adam is the first human being, the flood
    >destroyed all mankind in a cosmic event that leaves no place for anyone
    >escaping, and therefore all languages were one after the Flood until the
    >events at the Tower of Babel. It is not the translations which are causing
    >the problem of a lack of concord with modern science, but the Bible itself
    >when viewed as a revelation of history and science. The real problem is
    >the apriori extra-biblical philosophical assumption that a divine
    >revelation could not be couched in terms of the science of the times. The
    >Bible does not claim to be a revelation of history and science. It only
    >claims authority for spiritual matters (2Tim 3:16).

     From our vantage point being 7,000 to 4,000 years removed from the events,
    naturally you and I can see the sheer local nature of Genesis 1-11. But
    why do you think the Bible writers were so stupid they didn't see that for
    themselves? You seem to put all the errors on the source, and infer that
    the translation is impeccable. How do you justify that position?

    The Accadians were the early Adamites and Semites. They knew very well
    that the Sumerians living in the vicinity spoke an unrelated language. The
    oral tradition of Genesis had to stem from this source just as the Hebrew
    language derived from the Accadian language. Yet you think the writer of
    Genesis was ignorant of this simple fact of multiple languages spoken in
    southern Mesopotamia both before and after the flood. Even though you and
    I are so clever we figured it all out. You give the Bible writers too
    little credit, Paul.

    Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
    Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 17:01:55 EDT