George Murphy wrote:
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>> My philosophical position is that Genesis 1-11 was written to tell the Jews
>> of their origination, including the region, the approximate time frame,
>> etc., and therefore has an entirely legitimate "literal/physical aspect" to
>> the Jews that us outsiders are free to observe inasmuch as it has been
>> incorporated in our Christian Bible.
> I think this limitation to the Jews is quite wrong. Gen.1-3 speak about
the
> creation of the universe & humanity & a problem of sin which pervades the
> human race.
Well, that's what makes horse races. I don't think the Jews knew much
about humanity outside their immediate surroundings and cared less. The
only mention of any outside the Adamic line were the Nephilim (giants) in
Genesis 6:4. Unless you count Cain's wife.
> There is no picking out of any "chosen people" until Abraham.
Abraham was the first to venture out of Southern Mesopotamia. But
certainly Noah was chosen. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in
historical Noah.
> Trying to get a match between the early chapters of Genesis &
> historical & archaeological results by limiting those chapters to
> the people of Israel is an example of throwing out theological
> meaning for the sake of a supposedly literal interpretation.
On the other hand, discounting the historical underpinnings of
the Genesis narrative, which certainly is of some importance to the
Jewish people as well as to Christians, is to throw out a perfectly
good literal interpretation for the sake of theological pandering.
If Genesis is presented as history, yet isn't history, how do I know
it has any valid theological significance? What's the theological
significance of the Odyssey?
> Of course Genesis uses mid-eastern rivers & not the Mississippi
> or Yangtze - the writers were from the mid-east.
More specifically, they were Mesopotamian rivers. Where's the Jordan?
How about the Nile? Also the cities are all Mesopotamian or Assyrian in
Genesis 1-11. Also some of the biblical phraseology is similar and some
is identical to writings from that region and that period of time.
> The waters above the heavens are a part of biblical cosmology &
> according to Ps.148:4 were still there in the psalmist's time. Maybe
> Seth wrote Ps.148.
You mean a historical Seth, Adam's third son, wrote one of the Psalms?
George, you're pulling my leg here. Right?
>> Others have maintained that this is when God
>> created rain. But the Septuagint version of Genesis doesn't use the word
>> "mist." It uses the word "fountain." There is a whopping difference
>> between a fountain and mist. What this verse refers to is irrigation.
> NRSV has "stream." But your final sentence is bare assertion.
No, the word "fountain" used in both Accadian and Sumerian writings
refers to irrigation. In the Genesis flood narrative the phrase, "fountains
of the deep" comes right out of Atrahasis.
>> Adam, the one "created in the image of God," was the first
>> of the Jewish race, not the first of the human race, as we have
>> commonly misunderstood.
> This makes hash of the Christ-Adam imagery of Paul.
Quite the contrary. Just as Christ was not the last human being,
Adam was not the first. And just as Adam was the first of the old
covenant, Christ ended the old covenant.
And Glenn Morton wrote:
>I am disturbed by the trend I see in theology for making Adam not the
>father of the entire human race and making him the father of only one part.
If there is a trend, all I can say is hallelujah, my message is not falling on
deaf ears. Glenn and George notwithstanding.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution, http://www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_32694677==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
George Murphy wrote:
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>> My philosophical position is that Genesis 1-11 was written to
tell the Jews
>> of their origination, including the region, the approximate time
frame,
>> etc., and therefore has an entirely legitimate
"literal/physical aspect" to
>> the Jews that us outsiders are free to observe inasmuch as it
has been
>> incorporated in our Christian Bible.
> I think this limitation to the Jews is quite wrong. Gen.1-3
speak about the
> creation of the universe & humanity & a problem of sin which
pervades the
> human race.
Well, that's what makes horse races. I don't think the Jews knew
much
about humanity outside their immediate surroundings and cared less.
The
only mention of any outside the Adamic line were the Nephilim (giants) in
Genesis 6:4. Unless you count Cain's wife.
> There is no picking out of any "chosen people" until
Abraham.
Abraham was the first to venture out of Southern Mesopotamia.
But
certainly Noah was chosen. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in
historical Noah.
> Trying to get a match between the early chapters of Genesis &
> historical & archaeological results by limiting those chapters
to
> the people of Israel is an example of throwing out theological
> meaning for the sake of a supposedly literal interpretation.
On the other hand, discounting the historical underpinnings of
the Genesis narrative, which certainly is of some importance to the
Jewish people as well as to Christians, is to throw out a perfectly
good literal interpretation for the sake of theological pandering.
If Genesis is presented as history, yet isn't history, how do I know
it has any valid theological significance? What's the
theological
significance of the Odyssey?
> Of course Genesis uses mid-eastern rivers & not the Mississippi
> or Yangtze - the writers were from the mid-east.
More specifically, they were Mesopotamian rivers. Where's the
Jordan?
How about the Nile? Also the cities are all Mesopotamian or
Assyrian in
Genesis 1-11. Also some of the biblical phraseology is similar and
some
is identical to writings from that region and that period of time.
> The waters above the heavens are a part of biblical cosmology &
> according to Ps.148:4 were still there in the psalmist's time.
Maybe
> Seth wrote Ps.148.
You mean a historical Seth, Adam's third son, wrote one of the
Psalms?
George, you're pulling my leg here. Right?
>> Others have maintained that this is when God
>> created rain. But the Septuagint version of Genesis
doesn't use the word
>> "mist." It uses the word
"fountain." There is a whopping difference
>> between a fountain and mist. What this verse refers to is
irrigation.
> NRSV has "stream." But your final sentence is bare
assertion.
No, the word "fountain" used in both Accadian and Sumerian
writings
refers to irrigation. In the Genesis flood narrative the phrase,
"fountains
of the deep" comes right out of Atrahasis.
>> Adam, the one "created in the image of God," was the
first
>> of the Jewish race, not the first of the human race, as we
have
>> commonly misunderstood.
> This makes hash of the Christ-Adam imagery of Paul.
Quite the contrary. Just as Christ was not the last human
being,
Adam was not the first. And just as Adam was the first of the
old
covenant, Christ ended the old covenant.
And Glenn Morton wrote:
>I am disturbed by the trend I see in theology for making Adam not
the
>father of the entire human race and making him the father of only one
part.
If there is a trend, all I can say is hallelujah, my message is not
falling on
deaf ears. Glenn and George notwithstanding.
--=====================_32694677==_.ALT--