RE: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Sun Mar 30 2008 - 21:30:51 EDT

George, I didn't have to study the entire Old Testament, just ten
chapters of one book, and I had over twenty-five years to do it with the
aid of the library at Virginia Theological Seminary and the Library of
Congress in Washington, DC where even you do not have access. I
completed a master's degree in theology and I have read Speiser, Driver,
Poole, Genesius, Von Rad, Cassuto, Young, Kidner, Delitzsch, Westermann,
Waltke and every other Genesis commentary in the library at VTS. Enough
about me. The subject is Genesis 2:5.
 
Can we all agree that as it reads the verse stands at variance with
known facts about our earthly abode? Therefore, the problem lies either
with the inspired writer or the uninspired translators. You seem to
think it's the former. I prefer to take the latter. If the verb tense
is left just as it was written in present tense and the Hebrew erets is
translated as "land," which it often is throughout Scripture, then it
squares with the geological facts. God doesn't cause it to rain very
often in southern Mesopotamia the setting of Genesis. That's it. Now
what is your problem?
 
Of all the erstwhile authors that have tackled Genesis, who besides me
found the phrase "fountains of the deep" in Atrahasis and connected the
biblical phrase with irrigation? Who besides me was able to tie the
last three pre-flood patriarchs with the last three pre-flood kings on
the Sumerian King List? Who besides me correlated Genesis verses where
Eve was taken from Adam's rib and Eve was the mother of all living with
the Sumerian pun "the lady of the rib is the lady of life"? Who besides
me reported that the city Cain built named Enoch was called unug by the
Sumerians and rebuilt after the flood. I had to find all of these items
and much more on the sheer strength of my own scholarship unaided by any
of those fine gentlemen who you seem to think all know more than me.
 
On my web page under chapter synopsis is a suggested reading list. How
many of those books and articles did you read, George?
 
Dick Fischer. author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:22 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis
 
Dick -
 
I usually hesitate to challenge the qualifications of people on this
list but since you are deliberately setting your knowledge of the
grammar of biblical Hebrew above that of people with recognized
expertise in the language on various translation projects as well as of
OT scholars like Westermann, von Rad & Speiser in their Genesis
commentaries, it's natural to wonder just how your knowledge of Hebrew
compares with theirs.
 
Second, you completely misrepresent the position of Dave, myself &
others when you suggest that we regard the writer of Genesis 2 as
"stupid." You ignore the facts (a) that he was writing some 3000 years
ago in a cultural context in which even the most brilliant people had an
extremely limited knowledge of the physical world & its history & (b)
there is no reason at all to think that he was trying to write anything
like a modern historical or scientific account.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer
To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis
 
Dear George and Dave:
 
Your arguments are not just that all these translators used the past or
past perfect tense in agreement with each other, which I agree with as
well, but you leave unspoken the rest of the argument which is that they
stand united counter to the facts. We all know - at least most of us on
this list do - that the earth is some 4.6 billion years old and for any
one writer or translator to say that no rain had fallen since creation
until mankind was brought into existence is patently incorrect. So your
arguments are not that the translators were wrong, it seems to be that
the translators were right and they faithfully translated the stupid
writer of Genesis who had no clue. The writer must have thought the
Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon and Gihon flowed from some mysterious source
of abundant fog I suppose.
 
This verse was written in the present tense as is all Hebrew which in
this case if translated in the present tense makes sense. Southern
Mesopotamia, the setting of the Garden of Eden, is in a desert area
still today. It doesn't rain there very often. God still today does
not cause it to rain there. And that's what the Bible writer could have
told us if the translators knew anything about the climatology of the
region. So my translation may contrast with typical translations but it
is consistent with the Hebrew and with the facts. Your idea that
Genesis is one way and the facts are the other way falls on my deaf ears
- much as I respect you guys.
 
Dick Fischer. author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 30 21:32:22 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 30 2008 - 21:32:23 EDT