RE: [asa] Proposed Revision of Genesis 1-11 in the KJV

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Sat Apr 19 2008 - 00:04:26 EDT

Hi George, you wrote:
>>You won't be surprised if I tell you that the whole project is
No it is not surprising. Do you know some guides willing to help us
here, George?
>>For starters, the notion that translators of RSV, NRSV, NEB, NIV have
made use of nothing that has been learned since 1611 is simply untrue.
The reason they haven't put into their versions some of the things you
have in yours is simply that they've tried to translate what the
original Hebrew meant, not read into it what modern science has learned
about the natural world.<<
There are real questions as to what the writer(s) knew, and what they
intended to say with the inherent limitations of their rudimentary
language, antiquated terms of speech, and so on. Some substitutions are
easy, land for earth, hills for mountains, etc. And some are more
difficult. If we let X equal the absolute truth of the matter, what
actually happened, and let Y equal something other than X, we can make
certain assumptions that may work in some instances but perhaps not in
every case. I try to assume that the writers wrote X all the time in
Genesis and that where there is a difference between the translation Y
and the truth which is X then the translation has to be in error. Of
course it is possible that the writers wrote Y at times that was
translated Y (correctly) and it ends up at variance with the truth
because the writers themselves were mistaken.
We should be able to discern from many different sources that the flood
was local to the area and not worldwide. Thus the word "land" is
consistent with the actual context of the flood and the land in their
proximity is all they knew. Yet translators slavishly persist with
"earth," unable to break with tradition. At least up until Abraham the
covenant race had to know they were in the company of those outside
their own line of descent. The Sumerians at Ur and other Mesopotamian
cities were a constant reminder that there were people unlike themselves
in the vicinity. We are making the assumption in this "misguided"
translation that this knowledge was never lost to them even though
latter day translators may have had no inkling of it and thus all latter
day translators have been consistently out of the loop on this issue.
>>Your rendering of 1:27, "So God created Adam12 in his own image, in
the image of God created he him; male and female created he them", is
especially bad.<<
Are you saying that this word "man" in the original refers to someone
other than Adam? Who? Or are you saying the word should be "mankind"
which includes men and women? Read just up to the semicolon. God
created Adam (or somebody) and he was created in the image of God. Then
it follows with God created both male and female. If the intent was to
say that God created "mankind" in his image, then it should have
followed with: "in the image of God created he [them] ." The writer
used the word "him" referring back to the man created in God's image who
would have been Adam. Unless you are of the opinion this "man" is some
generic man who climbed down out of the trees in Africa.
>>As is clear from the concluding clause, the reference is to humankind,
"male and female." So to translate 'adham as "Adam," which people will
of course read as the proper name of a single male human, is just
It may be wrong but I think your argument is with the writer, not me.
Dick Fischer, president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History <>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 19 00:06:39 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 19 2008 - 00:06:39 EDT