RE: [asa] promise trumps biology

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Fri Dec 12 2008 - 00:33:40 EST

Hi John, you wrote:
 
>>The problem is the Bible clearly teaches a global flood. It is
dishonest to spin it otherwise. And the Bible writers likely believed
that as well and intended the Bible to say that. So the only conclusion
is that the Bible is wrong on at least that point. That doesn't
undermine my faith nor should it anyone's but we have to accept this.<<
 
For starters none of the Old Testament writers could have had any
concept of "global." And the "giants" survived as they fathered
post-flood children (Gen 6:4 and Num. 13:33). And this is within the
Pentateuch. Was the writer unaware of the significance of that? I
doubt it, he wrote it.
 
Remember Ezekial was captive in Babylon. In Eze. 22:24, he wrote: "Son
of man, say unto her (Jerusalem), Thou art the land that is not
cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation (judgment of the
flood)."
 
I believe this is indicative that Ezekiel was aware as we should be that
the flood was restricted to Mesopotamia.
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:19 PM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
 
Dick,
 
Please don't misunderstand me. My comments below were not directed
toward any of your premises directly. In fact I tend to agree with you
that in totality all of your historical coincidences do add up to a
compelling argument for an historical Adam. I haven't gotten around to
reading your book yet but maybe now is a good time to look into it.
 
My comments of exasperation below were directed toward those that teach
the literal historicity of Genesis i.e. the flood in the face of science
like Bernie points out. For instance RTB teaches a local flood but they
still hold that the Bible is inerrant.
 
The problem is the Bible clearly teaches a global flood. It is dishonest
to spin it otherwise. And the Bible writers likely believed that as well
and intended the Bible to say that. So the only conclusion is that the
Bible is wrong on at least that point. That doesn't undermine my faith
nor should it anyone's but we have to accept this.
 
Thanks
 
john
 
 
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
 
> From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 1:31 AM
> Hi John:
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to throw in the towel. The
> past 28 years I have
> spent researching Genesis have strengthened my faith in the
> integrity of
> Genesis enormously. I have seen numerous connections both
> small and
> large that have convinced me Genesis 2-11 was intended as a
> true
> historical account of the Israelite nation. You do have to
> make
> allowances for scribal mistakes, errors in translation,
> Hebrew
> expressions and manners of speech, and their egocentricity
> though.
>
> The region of the Near East has been excavated and analyzed
> quite
> thoroughly over the years. We believe animal sacrifice
> began with Adam
> and spread to his people. Even the Sumerians picked it up.
> I read a
> book in the Library of Congress that was nothing more than
> a list of
> cattle receipts from the market at Drehem. One entry
> caught my
> attention. It was a receipt for "unblemished cattle
> for sacrifice."
>
> No cities that existed earlier than Eridu show signs of
> animal
> sacrifice. Eridu is the first city to bear the signs of
> animal
> sacrifice. Eridu was dated at 4800 BC and according to
> Babylonian
> tradition was near the Garden of Eden. Even edin means
> "plain;"
> "prairie," or "desert" in Akkadian and
> Sumerian.
>
> The name "Adamu" perpetuated for centuries among
> the Akkadians. Even
> two Egyptian pyramids were inscribed with the name of the
> first
> "created" being as "Atum," and one of
> his sons was named "Seth." Who
> else could it be?
>
> Eve was taken from Adam's rib and she was the
> "mother of all living."
> Because the word for rib and life was the same in Sumerian,
> a play on
> words was "the lady of the rib is the lady of
> life."
>
> Cain named his city Enoch and the Sumerians called that
> city unug in the
> Sumerian king list. Following the entry for Ziusudra, the
> Sumerian
> version of Noah, it says: "Then the flood swept
> thereover."
>
> The "fountains of the deep" broke up in the flood
> according to Genesis
> and the exact same expression in Atrahasis shows clearly it
> pertained to
> their irrigation apparatus.
>
> The Akkadians worshipped a trinity or at least a triad of
> gods. The
> Sumerians readily adopted them and they are always depicted
> in Akkadian
> dress.
>
> The Tower of Babel was one of over 30 ziggurats that were
> built in the
> region initially as a means to survive frequent floods. It
> was
> destroyed by Sennacherib, rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar, and
> visited by the
> first historian, Herodotus.
>
> Nimrod ruled in Babylon and a statue of him was unearthed
> at the city of
> Birs Nimrud.
>
> I could go on and relate dozens of connections that in
> totality are
> entirely convincing to me that Genesis 2-11 is valid
> history, but you
> know how to access the information, John. Go to any
> library and request
> the book on interlibrary loan. It costs you nothing.
>
> Dick Fischer, GPA president
> Genesis Proclaimed Association
> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
> <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:52 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
>
> > I think honesty requires us to read it
> > as intended, and then deal with it according to the
> > truth/light that we have. It is unreasonable to think
> that
> > the text is trying to describe a local flood, or that
> a
> > local flood could fulfill the passage.
>
>
> I agree with this analysis. It is unpleasant to us and puts
> the lie to
> the Bibliolatrous Inerrancy doctrine but as Bernie says,
> intellectual
> honesty and integrity demands it.
>
> Sorry but we have to grow up and face this. Its the dirty
> little secret
> of the church that the Bible isn't really what we were
> all raised to
> think it was. That doesn't mean it still isn't
> inspired and contains
> truth about all the important doctrines of Christianity,
> but just that
> it is not a silver bullet to answer all of life's
> questions and with
> magic powers.
>
> I wished someone would have explained it to me this way
> when I was a
> young Christian.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> --- On Wed, 12/10/08, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> > To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 11:44 AM
> > If the writer wanted to make the reader clear that it
> really
> > was the whole world, he might put in extra words to be
> very
> > clear about that. And that's what he did by
> saying how
> > long the flood was (1 year, which is impossible from
> > experience for a local flood) and how it covered the
> highest
> > mountain and then some.
> >
> > A local flood requires a bowl shape to keep in water.
> If
> > the water goes over the roof of the bowl, it can't
> be
> > contained. Scripture clearly says the water went over
> the
> > mountains. It follows that it went over, it
> wasn't just
> > spilling, but also filling up, so the whole Earth was
> > covered in water-- it spilled over until the water was
> the
> > same level everywhere until it couldn't spill over
> any
> > more and the water level simply covered the tallest
> mountain
> > and then some, as scripture says.
> >
> > Why not just believe it, literaly? Because of science.
> The
> > writers of the Bible didn't have this scientific
> > knowledge. We do. I think honesty requires us to
> read it
> > as intended, and then deal with it according to the
> > truth/light that we have. It is unreasonable to think
> that
> > the text is trying to describe a local flood, or that
> a
> > local flood could fulfill the passage.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> George
> > Cooper
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:50 AM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> >
> > Bernie,
> >
> > 2 Peter 3 does not say "whole world",
> regardless
> > of which Bible version
> > selected. This phrase, however, is used a number of
> times
> > in the NT. But
> > even these do not necessarily refer to the entire
> globe,
> > but rather the
> > whole known world, apparently.
> >
> > Consider...
> >
> > Rm 1:8 "First, I thank my God through Jesus
> Christ for
> > you all, that your
> > faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."
> >
> > That makes sense if it is in the context of those in
> the
> > known world, and
> > not every human on the planet.
> >
> >
> > The use of "world" in the 16th century was
> often
> > used to refer to the cosmos
> > or universe. Copernicus used it many times in his de
> > Revolutionibus.
> >
> > Coope
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:52 PM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> >
> > Gordon Brown said:
> > " There are problems with proof texting when one
> uses
> > an English
> > translation. The English may be more clear-cut than
> the
> > original. In the
> > Biblical languages the same word is used for land and
> > earth."
> >
> > RE:
> > 2 Peter 3:
> > 6By these waters also the world of that time was
> deluged
> > and destroyed.
> >
> > Here it says the whole "world."
> >
> > Strong's says this:
> >
>
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=
> KJV
> >
> > None of those options (in the definition by Strongs)
> > involve a partial
> > covering of the Earth.
> >
> > Literally, I think it is clear Peter meant the whole
> world.
> > I think he was
> > wrong, because he didn't have the luxury of
> science as
> > we do now, to know
> > that the whole Earth was never flooded.
> >
> > I don't see the relevance of your mentioning Deut.
> > 2;25- you'll need to
> > explain more fully. I think they meant the world as
> they
> > knew it, in that
> > passage.
> >
> > My point wasn't to argue the flood. My point was
> that
> > Dick said that George
> > didn't believe Moses, so it appeared to me the
> same
> > charge could be leveled
> > at Dick himself. I'm sure Moses thought the flood
> was
> > worldwide, and wrote
> > as such. If Moses (and Peter) thought the flood was
> local,
> > he sure was a
> > super lousy communicator!
> >
> > ...Bernie
 
 
      
 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 12 00:34:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 12 2008 - 00:34:13 EST