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

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Mon Apr 21 2008 - 12:20:41 EDT

Hi Merv:
Bloodlines are of no consequence since the time of Christ. Adam was the
first of the Old Covenant. Righteous living, obedience to God, and
animal sacrifice as atonement for sin constituted the "moral law." The
Old Covenant persisted among the Israelites, and I believe they had the
mandate to spread the word of God among the heathen, but I can see no
evidence they made any attempts to do that. Did they witness to the
Romans, the Egyptians, or anyone else? Jonah is the lone example in the
OT and look at his attitude. That was typical and I believe an integral
part of the message. Even after Jonah did what God told him and the
Assyrians repented Jonah retained his haughty attitude!
Christ had to change the equation, make salvation available for all, end
the Old Covenant and begin the New Covenant. I don't think George and I
disagree on that.
There is also no question that God spoke timeless truths to and through
the OT prophets that are equally valid today just as they were to the
children of Israel. When you quote Romans you are quoting Paul who was
virtually the Apostle to the Gentiles. Contrast Paul with Peter who is
still talking to the Jews.
The example of Jacob and Esau goes to the heart of the doctrine of the
elect. Jacob was elected from birth. That was God's choice.
I'm only trying to show by all that I have done that there is historical
integrity in the early chapters of Genesis. Conservative and liberal
Christians alike have ignored the historical underpinnings of these
chapters. The success of this method of apology based upon history
would further undercut the YEC position that purports to take Genesis
literally. They don't. They treat the Bible just as callously as they
treat science. On the other side, it should push liberal theologians to
reassess their criticisms of the OT and take it more seriously, even
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Merv
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:44 PM
To: Dick Fischer;
Subject: Re: [asa] Proposed Revision of Genesis 1-11 in the KJV
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
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?


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 Mon Apr 21 12:24:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 21 2008 - 12:24:12 EDT