Re: [asa] promise trumps biology

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 10 2008 - 15:27:10 EST

Whoops, guess the comment wasn't so private after all. :)

Oh well, it's nothing too controversial I'd think!

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:

> Heya. Private comment here.
>
> I agree with you that there are a number of curiosities in Genesis that
> actually make more sense if we include pre-Adamites and an older world. Just
> between you and me, one thing that always surprises me is that so many
> people (Christian and non) place tremendous emphasis on the past beliefs in
> humanity beginning with Adam and such entirely on 'plain reading'. To me,
> what seems more likely to have went on is a combination between a reading
> that fills in blanks, and context - particularly a lack of any alternative
> view, or even information towards such a view, at the time.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> Hi George:
>>
>>
>>
>> Josephus was an authority. He was not an inerrant authority (and we
>> aren't either), and he did not write what we regard as Scripture that's
>> the "God-breathed" variety Paul described. There are numerous clues the
>> Adamites were not alone in the world: who did Cain marry, who were the
>> Nephilim or "Giants" (Gen. 6:4), where did the Emims (Deut. 2:10, 11) and
>> Zamzummims (Deut. 2:20, 21) come from, etc., but these caution flags were
>> ignored.
>>
>>
>>
>> It should not be that difficult to reason out that Moses passed down to
>> the Israelites the history of where they came from. That he knew, I
>> don't think he had any credentials as an anthropologist. Genesis history
>> was to Israel, for Israel, and about Israel. If early Christians read
>> themselves into Jewish history they can be forgiven due to their ignorance.
>> That's no excuse for ours.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I would suggest is that you recommend to your local library that they
>> order my book, *Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham*, and after they
>> get it, read it. Then let's talk. Privately, if you would prefer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>>
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>
>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>>
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* George Murphy
>> [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:22 PM
>> *To:* Dick Fischer
>> *Cc:*
>> ASA
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] promise trumps biology
>>
>>
>>
>> "Was Josephus an historian? Did he not write about the history of the
>> Jews?" you began. How dare I challenge the authority of Josephus! So I
>> pointed out that Josephus flatly contradicts a basic premise of your whole
>> scenario, that there were other human beings around when Adam & Eve were
>> created. That's not a minor matter like the identification of a river.
>> Your response to this? Some shuckin' and jivin' about the Gishon and
>> Cushites.
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact I'm paying more attention to Josephus than you are. He is one
>> more example of the long tradition of Jews and Christians reading the early
>> chapters of Genesis as if Adam & Eve were the ancestors of the entire human
>> race and that the flood destroyed all humanity except Noah & his family.
>> (Book I, Chapter 3, paragraph 2.) He - & that tradition in general - show
>> no inkling of the existence of all the other people that you populate the
>> margins of the biblical story with. Of course Josephus - & the tradition -
>> were wrong about the actual history but they knew how to read.
>>
>>
>>
>> You should know from all to many discussions on this list & what I've
>> written in Perspectives what my views are about the historicity of Gen.1-3
>> and the flood story.
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as allowing what we've learned about the ANE to "to influence our
>> archaic theology," I would suggest first that the notion that early Genesis
>> must be accurate historical narrative in order to be true and authoritative
>> is a pretty good example of "archaic theology." In fact, something like
>> Enns' *Inspiration and Incarnation* shows why familiarity with the
>> literature of the ANE should help us to get beyond that notion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
>>
>> *To:* 'George Murphy' <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
>>
>> *Cc:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:24 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi George:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we tend to make it more complicated than it needs to be. First
>> of all, did Adam and Noah exist? That's simply yes or no, no middle
>> ground. They either were living human beings or mythological or
>> theological constructs. If you side with the biblical authors and
>> historical references then they were actual air-breathing *Homo sapiens*.
>> If you choose that route then the next question becomes when and where did
>> they live?
>>
>>
>>
>> Next, either they lived far enough back in time that they could feasibly
>> have started the human race or their entry was too late for that. Once
>> again, it is either one of the other. If the biblical account in Genesis
>> 2-11 and the history of the ancient Near East has any credibility at all
>> they were Neolithic characters who resided in Mesopotamia no earlier than
>> 7,000 years ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can cloud the issue all you want with loaded terms like
>> "pre-adamites," but that doesn't change the basic picture and the decision
>> making tree I just outlined.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for me personally, I didn't choose a path and then look for
>> corroborating evidence. I weighed the evidence and then chose the path.
>> Frankly, the evidence I have accumulated over the last 28 years is
>> overwhelming. Of course, if one chooses to remain oblivious to the
>> evidence then he or she could reach counter conclusions such as Adam lived
>> in Africa 60,000 to 100,000 years ago, or that Adam was an invention of some
>> imaginative Akkadian or Semite scribe. Although I will allow those are
>> possibilities I consider them remote and totally absent any evidentiary
>> support.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for Josephus and his limited scope of reference, he made a few mistakes
>> in my humble estimation. The river Gihon named in Genesis 2 in the
>> region of the Garden of Eden he equated with the Nile influencing the King
>> James translators to equate "Cush" with Ethiopia and setting the stage for a
>> common misunderstanding that the black race (cush means "black" in Hebrew)
>> emanated from Ham. Makes absolutely no sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> But why did Josephus make that connection? Today we know that the
>> original home of the Kassites, or Cushites, was in the southwest corner of
>> Iran along the Kashkan/Karkheh river basin, an area called Khuzistan today.
>> The name "Gihon" appears to have evolved into the Guyedes over time at
>> that location. This makes good sense as all four rivers would have
>> emptied directly into the Persian Gulf at that time, whereas the Nile is on
>> a different continent.
>>
>>
>>
>> This initial home turned out to be a perilous location, however, as the *
>> Kassi* as the Assyrians called them were sandwiched between the warlike
>> nations of Assyria, Babylonia, Urartu and Elam. Whether they migrated *en
>> masse* or whether only a portion of them migrated, I don't know. But
>> when a new, safer location was found along the river Nile they named the
>> river "Gihon" after the original river in their original homeland. Josephus
>> would not have known this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Remember, we have accumulated significant archaeological evidence in the
>> Near East over the last 200 years. It is just that we haven't allowed
>> this evidence to influence our archaic theology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>>
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
>> Behalf Of *George Murphy
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:48 PM
>> *To:* Dick Fischer
>> *Cc:* ASA
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] promise trumps biology
>>
>>
>>
>> It's all very well to appeal to Josephus but then you ought to recognize
>> that he doesn't know of your idea about pre-Adamites or indeed of your whole
>> concordist scheme. Just to note one thing, in Book I, Chapter 1, Paragraph
>> 3 he says (I'm using Whiston's old translation), "But when he saw that Adam
>> had no female companion, no society (for there was no such created) ... "
>> I.e. Adam was the 1st human being *simpliciter*, & before Eve was made
>> from his side there weren't any others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your way of harmonizing early Genesis with history has been worked our
>> very thoroughly & is certainly better than some other concordist
>> approaches. But that doesn't mean that it's true & in fact I don't buy it
>> for a minute. For all its ingenuity it rests on the assumption that if
>> early Genesis is true, it must be accurate history. & it requires far too
>> much special pleading to make that work.
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as Mizraim is concerned, note that RSV & NRSV just translate
>> "Egypt" in Gen.10:6 & 13. Of course Josephus - & Genesis - don't explicitly
>> say that his descendants were the sole inhabitants of Egypt, but that's the
>> natural way to read it. Why do you think that Jews & Christians read early
>> Genesis for millenia assuming that what was being talked about was the whole
>> world, that the 3 sons of Noah & their wives literally populated the whole
>> earth, etc? It's because there's no hint in the text that that's not the
>> case. The YEC reading of Gen.1-11 is of course wrong in the sense that it
>> doesn't recognize the types of texts that they're dealing with and
>> consequently produces flagrant conflict with real history & science. But
>> when they read those chapters as straight history they read them correctly
>> as straight history.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
>>
>> *To:* 'George Murphy' <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
>>
>> *Cc:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:50 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi George:
>>
>>
>>
>> Was Josephus an historian? Did he not write about the history of the
>> Jews? Did he not write about Noah and his descendants? How do you know
>> Jewish history better than Josephus? You even question the Bible
>> writers? Moses didn't know anything either?
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course Egypt was populated for thousands of years before the flood. That
>> was my point. Egypt was also populated after the 2900 BC flood by
>> Mizraim and his sons. In Josephus' words: "Now all the sons of Mizraim,
>> being eight in number, occupied the country from Gaza to Egypt ..." Note
>> that Josephus did not say they were the sole occupants. My grandparents
>> left Europe and occupied Nebraska. Is everybody in Nebraska related to
>> me?
>>
>>
>>
>> Historically Mizraim was recorded as Msrm in Ugaritic, Misri in the Amarna
>> tablets, Musur in Assyrian inscriptions, and Musri to the Babylonians. An
>> Arabian presence is also possible, even in Northern Syria; Tiglath-Pileser I
>> appointed a governor not far distant in Musri in north Arabia. Further,
>> Sargon called Pir'u Sar Musri a king who was succeeded by Samsieh, queen of
>> Arabia. Mizraim's sons are listed (Gen. 10:13-14) beginning with Ludim,
>> the old tribe Lewatah, referred to as Lubiim by Josephus. The A-na-mi is
>> found in a geographical text from the time of Sargon II which may be linked
>> with Anamim, Mizraim's second son Lehabim and Naphtuhim are recalled in 1
>> Chron. 1:11, grouped with their brothers, presumably in Egypt The people of
>> Pathros[i] <#11e2294554c02dfa_11e221294cb380db__edn1> in Upper Egypt are
>> credited to Pathrusim, and Casluhim is known primarily for fathering the
>> Philistines. With the exception of the Philistines, the rest of Mizraim's
>> sons leave only sparse traces in various parts of Egypt.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've said this all along, the flood was local, recent, and limited in
>> those who died in it. And nearly every one of Noah's descendants can be
>> traced to parts of the Near East, northern Africa, along the Mediterranean
>> Sea and so forth, whereas none can be traced to China, southern Africa,
>> Australia, Americas, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> What's to not understand?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>>
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>
>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>>
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:59 AM
>> *To:* Dick Fischer
>> *Cc:* ASA
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] promise trumps biology
>>
>>
>>
>> IMO this just shows the limits of your particular version of concordism.
>> Of course not all the people of Egypt were descendants of an historical
>> "Ham" - in fact the known history of Egypt predates by millennia any
>> possible "historical Noah." But as far as the biblical writers are
>> concerned Egypt was populated after the flood by the descendants of one of
>> Noah's grandsons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
>>
>> *To:* 'George Murphy' <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
>>
>> *Cc:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:48 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi George, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>& later in Genesis Joseph is married to an Egyptian, of the "cursed line
>> of Ham."<<
>>
>>
>>
>> Well maybe, and maybe not. Although the Hebrew word for Egyptian is
>> "Mizraim" (Noah's grandson) it would not be possible for the entire Egyptian
>> population to have stemmed from him. Narmer was in power in Egypt before
>> Mizraim was born. Pyramids depicted four distinct races living in Egypt
>> and the great races were established long before Noah.
>>
>>
>>
>> Excavations in Egypt have uncovered the remains of a variant race of
>> peoples who began moving in at the beginning of the dynastic period (ca.
>> 2900 BC).
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting *The Cambridge Ancient History*, "Physically these peoples
>> differed unmistakably from the predynastic Egyptians: whereas the latter
>> were unusually small in stature and possessed long and narrow skulls (about
>> 132 mm. in breadth), the newcomers were more massively built and their
>> skulls (about 139 mm. in width) were appreciably broader than those of their
>> predecessors."
>>
>>
>>
>> So whether that Egyptian woman was of Semitic (or Hamitic) origin will
>> forever be unknown.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>>
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>
>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>>
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> [i] <#11e2294554c02dfa_11e221294cb380db__ednref1>. *The Interpreter's
>> Dictionary of the Bible*, 3, 676.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 10 15:27:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 10 2008 - 15:27:51 EST