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

From: Merv <>
Date: Sun Apr 20 2008 - 22:43:49 EDT

How then, do you read the O.T. -- I'm curious about your response to
this as a Christian, not as a researcher. Do you actually think it an
important distinction whether one is of the Hebrew/Adamic bloodline?
<<That is NOT a rhetorical question; I really want to know your position
on that! George may dismiss your research, but I'm not in a position
to do that; if you find so many historical things staring you squarely
in the face that line up so well with O.T. history literally, then more
power to you, and I continue to be interested. But meanwhile, I quite
agree with George that (and I think he has said something like this)
just because ancient authors may have had limited knowledge or
culturally bound intentions and meanings doesn't mean that God's Word
through them couldn't have broader meanings beyond their time-bound
understandings. And especially so if we see ample evidence that N.T.
authors (Hebrews galore!) treated it just that way. How can you *as a
Christian* disagree with that? I'm sure George has thrown these
Scriptures at you before, but according Romans 11 (branches being
grafted in...) or Galatians 3 (there is neither Jew nor Greek ... we
are all heirs according to the promise...) it is now belief that
determines your family. And Rom.11 reminds us inversely that lack of
belief can get both the original or the new branches lopped off.

Yes, I can accept your mountains of research (the bits of it I've seen
are impressive though I'm in no position to critique it) that show the
O.T. is a Jewish book and was taken by the Jews of that time as being
for them. Though I'm a bit fuzzy on how you think they extended that to
all the Adamic lines (which is synonymous with Semitic, I guess, and
includes Arab peoples as well? If we're going to nitpick over
bloodlines, then what happened to 'Jacob I loved but Esau I hated...'?
I thought the covenant nation was Israel alone, and if anything your
argument doesn't go far enough. I doubt the writers were inclined to
see even the Edomites, let alone the other Caananites as being joint
heirs sharing in the law and promises.

I had already accepted the O.T. as being by the Jews, & for the Jews
(exclusively they thought at the time). But how does any of that have
bearing on our (your) Christian views that should now be illuminated by
the N.T.?

Dick Fischer wrote:
> Hi Merv:
> We (Gentiles) read all nations and every nation to include all the
> members of the United Nations. Put yourself in the Hebrew mindset.
> Every nation came to Joseph to buy corn. Some neighboring nations
> came, most didn't. He made from one every nation ... - all Semitic
> nations. In Genesis 10: "by these (the sons of Noah) were the
> nations divided in the earth." Those are all Semitic nations. Heck,
> skip all the way to Revelation. There will be a new earth and a new
> Jerusalem and this massive city with streets of gold will have twelve
> doors, each one named for a tribe of /Israel/. Which tribe do you
> belong to Merv?
> The OT is primarily their book, Merv, it's their history, we are only
> priviledged to read it and apply lessons as appropriate. Look on the
> bright side, we can eat pigs and rabbits. They can't.
> Dick Fischer, president
> Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History
> <>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Merv <>
> *To:* Dick Fischer <> ;
> <>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 20, 2008 5:24 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Proposed Revision of Genesis 1-11 in the KJV
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>> As to your comment: "it's equally obvious that from the start
>> they envision all of humanity as being included in God's creative
>> & (toward the end, prophetically) salvific purposes." Well, no
>> George, that is not at all obvious as it wasn't even obvious to
>> Jesus' disciples. Beyond their own proselytes I see no evidence
>> in the OT that the Jews themselves believed any outside the
>> twelve tribes were worthy or eligible for God's kingdom. Only by
>> contorting the text in Genesis 1 can you get gentiles under the
>> umbrella. In fact, the NRSV did exactly that.
> Granted --the disciples even of Jesus' day (& even in early church
> after) found this one a hard one to swallow. But 'no evidence in
> the OT'!!?? When I'm reading the O.T., I often run across verses
> that stick out because of their seeming exceptionality. E.g.
> --giving your enemy food & water if he's thirsty---then do the
> double take when you realize you're reading Proverbs. So Jesus
> didn't just invent the concept! So it is with salvation for the
> nations, Dick. Just a quick search for the phrase 'all nations'
> in my Bible software got 18 hits, 17 of them in the O.T. And
> some of those were announcing judgment, of course, but many of
> them were announcing the ultimate blessing to 'all nations'. Ps.
> 86:9 and Isa. 2:2 are two particularly representative examples
> (pasted in below), but I could find others by doing a more proper
> search. Do you write these passages off as the exceptions that
> prove the rule? Or do you dispute the translations? And
> speaking of the proposed 'rule', what would you cite as the major
> passages indicating that other nations are forever excluded from
> the Kingdom of God?
> --Merv
> Psalms 86:9 All nations you have made will come and worship before
> you, Lord. They shall glorify your name.
> Isaiah 2:2 It shall happen in the latter days, that the mountain
> of Yahweh's house shall be established on the top of the
> mountains, And shall be raised above the hills; And all nations
> shall flow to it.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 20 22:47:10 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 20 2008 - 22:47:10 EDT