RE: A Third Method of Apology

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Mon Aug 09 2004 - 00:41:43 EDT
Glenn wrote:

I agree with you about the inaccuracy. Why is the only alternative Dick
mention's Dick's approach, which the YECs, at least will say doen'st
allow for the truth of the Eve account.

I have no dispute with the historicity of Eve, taken from Adam's rib.  The only phrase that comes into question concerns her being "the mother of all living," which could only be true as it concerns Adam's kin.  And I think it is a statement about the monogamous relationship between Adam and Eve more than anything else.  She isn't the mother of all living primates, I don't think.  So the noun is missing, and we can all pencil in a missing noun.  If the book was handed from Moses to the Israelites, I am sure they thought of Eve as their mother, and rightly so.  I doubt they thought she was mother to the "giants" in Genesis 6:4.

Dick wrote of his method:

>1.  Genesis 1-11 is considered the factual history of the Semites, not
the entire human race.

I have posted this earlir:
The problem I see is that this creates two classes of people-the Semites
(Jews and Arabs) who are descended from Adam with the image of God and
others who don't have it. This creates weird situations like my family
in which my wife and children would be descendents of Adam and have the
image of God, and I wouldn't.

The "image" doesn't pass from father to son.  Adam was simply appointed by God to represent Him to the heathen as Christ was.  Cain was not "in the image," he had no such appointment.  So tell your wife she can't gloat.  Today, we come into the image of God when we conform to the image of Christ, in my view.

Now, if you prefer to believe that mankind was created in God's image (through evolution) in Genesis 1:26-28, and that Adam of Genesis 2 was a separate creation, who was also in God's image because he too was a man, then there is still no racial overtones, but I haven't heard you argue for that.

>2.  A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is preferred using sound,
consistent exegesis, and mindful of archaic Hebrew

Dick, I wouldn't say that your interp is literal in the sense that it
can't account for the order of animals in the fossil record matching the
order of the account.  Since you think the account is in history, as
opposed to the view I hold that it is the pre-planning of the
univers--before time, it means that you fail the concordance test.
Without concordance, it can't be literal.

If it is pre-planning, then it is still out of order.  Or did He plan it in one order, and it came about in a different order?

>3.  Scripture is inerrant in the autographs, but suffers currently from
errors in transmission, translation, and

Any time the Bible differs from the Gilgamesh Epic, you select the GE as
the correct account.  That bothers me.

As a famous President once said, "There you go again."  Just read that sentence you wrote.  You know that isn't true!  And you said it anyway.

Let me say this about the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh.  First, it was written in Accadian by Semites. Semites are direct descendants of Noah.  Why wouldn't they know something about the flood?  Moses didn't dream up the flood, he drew upon source materials perhaps while studying at pharaoh’s court.  The flood narrative was preserved by Semites through oral tradition, but earlier written versions of the flood, albeit embellished a bit, only help to corroborate Genesis, they don't degrade it.

Keep in mind the Gilgamesh epic was written prior to Genesis.  Although it is possible to take a true story and morph it into fiction, it isn't possible to take fiction and morph it into the truth.

>4.  KJV is preferred, though needs revision in light of historical

We know so much more about the Hebrew language than we did in King
Jimmies time, but you still want to use that translation in to an
archaic english whose word connotations, we don't understand sometimes.

Call me old fashioned.  I prefer the KJV for about eleven chapters.  After that give me the ASV.  Besides, how would you like to read Romeo and Juliet in modern English?  "Romeo, Romeo, where is you at"?

>5.  The "days" of creation are seen as days of God's time, not man's

Sure wish someone would match those days to the actual geologic column.
No day-age approach, which is what I would call your God-days will do it.

The days can't be equal time.  Day four is where God appointed the sun, moon and stars as timekeepers.  How long did that take?

>6.  Adam is considered to be the federal head of the human race, the
biological head of the Semitic race, and the first to
>receive God's covenant.

Does not explain religious monuments going back to at least 425,000
years ago. Your post caused me to put out a preliminary version of my
page on ancient religion. It
mentions you Dick. :-)

Thanks, I think ...

>7.  Faith alone has proved insufficient for understanding.

>8.  Scripture can be clarified by Scripture, and Bible interpreters
should consider revelations of modern science and
>ancient history.

How about the modern discoveries of anthropology outlined on my religion
page, or are they excluded?

All science as it touches on how we interpret the Bible is relevant.  Anthropology is relevant, but anthropology is not exacting.  It has to be interpreted.  You can't prove the monuments are religious.  Even if you could, you can't prove that means that Adam must have lived prior to that date.  Those are all giant leaps of faith.  And look at the biblical data you have to ignore.  Adam had to live prior to any religious expression?  Were there tents, livestock, musical instruments, and articles made out of bronze and iron as mentioned in Genesis prior to 425,000 years ago?  Where is the logic in that, Glenn?  Your swatting gnats while being eaten by alligators.

>9.  Impartial, unbiased data and evidence should guide us in
formulating theories of understanding, both theological and

It is amazing how often the word impartial is bandied around by people
who won't pay attention to anthropological data, Dick.

We ha   ve to weigh all the evidence.  How much weight we give each data bit it is the key.  Water-laid clay deposits were found at five key cities in Mesopotamia.  All but Ur were dated at about 2900 BC.  And Ur did have a smaller deposit Wooley dated at 2750 BC.  Is that close enough to consider it to be from the same flood, or is it 150 years too early?  How accurately can they date sand deposits anyway?  You date rocks.  Can trained archelologists make an error of 150 years in the absence of volcanic ash or index fossils?

>10. Scientific theories are best left to credentialed scientists, and
modern science poses no threat to Genesis 1-11,
>correctly interpreted.

How about the science of hydrodynamics?  Your view of the flood requires
a wall of water 3000 feet high at the southern end of Iraq, or,
superhuman pushing by humans to move the ark upstream against a flood. or

I know where Shurrupak was.  The landing site for the flood is disputed, though Jebel Judi has been bandied about, but neither is in Genesis.  I can't plot the course of the ark in its year-long yoyage.  Float a little, punt a little - who knows?  At least neither of us puts it on top Mount Ararat.  That's about all I can say.  Bob Best in his book, "Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic" has the ark end up in an estuary in the Persian Gulf.  After grounding, Noah and crew journey north.  According to Best, the Bible left out the journeying part.

>Again, what do you think?  Please realize that I have compiled a wealth
of historical data to support this method.

I think you need to pay attention to anthropology and quit trying to
twist it to fit your pet theory.

I put more weight on the history of Sumer and Accad than you do, but then I've read more of it than you have, and the reverse seems to be true.  You have read more anthropolical stuff than I have because nothing earlier than Jericho is germane to me.  (Jericho is a pre-Adamic city.)

Dick Fischer  - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Mon Aug 9 01:08:51 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 09 2004 - 01:08:51 EDT