RE: [asa] Oil and Tubalcain

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Sun Dec 31 2006 - 11:27:48 EST

Ah, the old hit and run play. (That's a baseball term, Michael.) Having
just (finally) finished my manuscript, Historical Genesis: from Adam to
Abraham, I can categorically state that both of these esteemed gentlemen
are prematurely wrong.

 

As Confucius said, "Those who say it can't be done should stay out of
way of those who are doing it."

 

Rather than refute point by point, which I have done here frequently,
let me just ask all to exercise patience and wait until the book comes
out - then let's see what you have to say. That way there will be less
to retract.

 

For any Septuagenarians out there or for those who have just checked
into a hospice, I will be happy to email you the entire manuscript as a
Word attachment in a lump (if you have the space on your server). Just
please keep it a little under your fur hat until it's published.

 

Dick Fischer

 

Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History

www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>

 

 

Glenn wrote:

  . > I will also point people to an article on Theologyweb.com which I

posted

> challenging the concept that Adam is neolithic. It challenges the
claim

> that

> iron working was going on in the Tubalcain incident.

> See
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1692777&postcount=40

>

> 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!

 

Michael

 

 

 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 31 11:28:51 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 11:28:51 EST