Re: [asa] Oil and Tubalcain

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Sun Dec 31 2006 - 09:00:03 EST

  . > I will also point people to an article on which I
> challenging the concept that Adam is neolithic. It challenges the claim
> that
> iron working was going on in the Tubalcain incident.
> See
> I will not stick around to debate the issue.

This is not much to debate on the issue as we are only dealing with half a
dozen words in Gen 4.22. These give no historical markers for anything.

Further we should see Genesis for what it is. It does not give a historical
record of early society as it just gives some snippets. What evidence is
there that the author of Genesis believed he was giving a historical account
in the sense we would define history today? A very good article on
historiography in the Old Testament is to be found in the IVP Dictionary of
the Old Testament - historical books. The writer makes it clear that OT
historical writers were not writing straight history but were using history
for theological purposes. They are general and imprecise and we go wrong to
impose Modern ideas of history on to them and that is a cause of so much
scepticism of the bible over the last 200 years. Another article in DOT -
hist books is on large numbers and there the author states that the authors
were "employing numerical hyperbole in the narrative accounts" for uses both
polemical and theological. Now apply that to the big numbers in Numbers and
the superannuated Patriarchs! Now this sounds liberal doesn't it? But the
author is D Fouts OT prof of Bryan College Dayton. Perhaps if we applied the
same principles to early Genesis we would have no problem with billions of
years and wont get bogged down whether Tubal cain was Neolithic or a cousin
of Neanderthals!


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 31 09:02:15 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 09:02:15 EST