Re: Being a human

The one thing I'd plead for (and appreciate from Dick, George, Ken, Ted and
others here) is civility and respect. In saying this, if I point a finger
at anyone, I have three pointing back at myself. "Being Human" is a good
title for this thread because we're all human here and none of us, I'd
wager, has this exactly right. Any view you take has some problems, and
that's just life and the human condition. This is true about just about
anything we could discuss in regards to understanding the Bible and
theology, as well as to most other interesting areas of knowledge. People
who hold other views aren't automatically stupid or blind. And those of us
who are members of the body of Christ, whatever our views on various
disputed questions, are bound to live together in the bond of unity and
peace. That right now is the cry of my heart.

On 3/21/06, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Randy, you wrote:
>
>
>
> 1) Our interpretation of the Bible must be based on something more than
> "this is a possible interpretation that fits the scientific data."
>
>
>
> There are very few of you, maybe none of you, who live near Washington, DCas I do so you could jump on Metro rail and within thirty minutes stroll
> past the metal detectors into the Library of Congress. And if anyone else
> did, would they have been dedicated enough to make that trip on almost a
> daily basis for two years to research this stuff? The LOC is the world's
> greatest library and they have almost every book that was published by the
> archaeologists and historians during the decades that Mesopotamia was
> under excavation.
>
>
>
> Okay, I was stupid. I could just have waited until now when much of it is
> on the Internet. And it is (if you bother to look).
>
>
>
> The reality is that the history of Genesis 2-11 is so connected with the
> history of Sumer and Accad from 7,000 to 4,000 years ago that
> Sumerologists have claimed that the Hebrews absolutely purloined Genesis
> from the Sumerians. And if we hadn't been brainwashed by Christian
> theologians who neglected this historical material for all these years we
> might side with the Sumerologists now.
>
>
>
> Genesis is absolutely loaded with commonalities between it and Accadianand Sumerian literature.
> Then when we find layers of water-laid clay in the principle cities
> correlated at 2900 BC it truly astounds me that anybody could think the
> flood was anywhere else at any other time! Recently, I found other
> authors who have traced the etymology from the city Cain built, Enoch to
> Erech to Uruk to Iraq.
>
>
>
> But I can't grab your noses and stick them into the material. You have to
> do that for yourselves. (I can give you the URLs, however, if you're
> interested.)
>
>
>
> 2) We need to be as diligent in providing a critique of local flood
> hypotheses as we have been of global flood accounts.
>
>
>
> I honest-to-goodness wish that Glenn had hit on this method of apology and
> discovered the historical links to Genesis before he locked into his ape/man
> retread idea and figured the Atlantic Ocean filling the Mediterranean basin
> was a biblical match. Had my method been his method he would have won the
> world over completely by now while I have been spinning my wheels for ten
> years. Even though with all the historical evidence I have placed before
> this forum that these very questions can still be asked is bewildering to
> me.
>
>
>
> Let me reiterate just one of dozens of commonalities between Genesis and
> the Mesopotamian accounts. The term "fountains of the deep" appears in
> both Genesis and Atrahasis. Does anybody ask where and when was the flood
> of Atrahasis? When you read Sumerian literature you see "fountains" all
> the time pertaining to their irrigation systems. And the "deep" is any
> body of water. Even a canal is the "deep." You see both those words
> frequently. So when it appears in Genesis ignorant Bible expositors
> conjure up giant, oceanic, water-spewing volcanoes. I sometimes wonder
> why it isn't called, "The Incredible King James Version."
>
>
>
> It seems that many people, like me, in a journey from YEC to OEC have
> focused on the scientific and bibilical case against a global flood but have
> spent little time investigating the scientific case for a local flood.
>
>
>
> Read ASAer Davis A. Young's book, The Biblical Flood<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802807194/002-1370600-8716004?v=glance&n=283155>
> .
>
>
>
> We've generally assumed that archeological evidence of local small-scale
> flooding of the Mesopotamian rivers was sufficient to justify
> thinking that a "whopper of a flood" occurred at some point that could
> correlate with the Genesis account. If, as Glenn points out, there is not
> only "...no evidence of a local flood [extensive enough to correlate with
> Genesis]" but "...evidence of no local flood..." then we must make some
> significant modification of the vast majority of the OEC books on the flood.
>
>
>
>
> Nobody is going to bother. Do Hugh Ross or Bob Newman modify their
> methodology to accommodate the genetic evidence that points overwhelmingly
> to mutual-shared common ancestry between man and chimpanzee? No.
>
>
>
> Remember, YECs need a global flood to sequence the fossil record. So they
> are locked in cement. Old-earth guys believe we all descended from Adam
> and Noah - somehow. A local flood at 2900 BC won't work for them because
> the Chinese were scarfing down Won Ton soup while Noah was pumping out the
> bilge. Oh, do you remember the "Ice Man" that washed out of the Tyrolean
> Alps some years back? He was carrying copper tools and he was dated to
> 5,300 years ago, that's earlier than Noah too.
>
>
>
> At the very least, we must be as scrupulous about our analysis of
> scientific and bibilical accounts for a local flood interpretation as we
> insist there should be for a global flood perspective. Again, much careful
> work needs to be done.
>
>
>
> Knock yourselves out.
>
>
>
> 3) Glenn also rightly chides us for being too silent on the issue of what
> it means to be human and our understanding of the Bible on that topic.
>
>
>
> We have enough trouble figuring out what it means to be Christian.
>
>
>
> I think this issue is epitomized by the chapter that Dean Arnold,
> Professor of Anthropology at Wheaton College, wrote in "Not Just Science",
> the recently published book edited by Dot Chappell and Dave Clark. His
> chapter was titled "How Do Scientific Views on Human Origins Relate to the
> Bible?"
>
>
>
> Not at all as it turns out. Genesis is concerned about the history of the
> Jews. It is their history. If we aren't Jewish (or Arab) the history
> doesn't pertain to us. It's as simple as that. Theologically it pertains
> to all of us since we become "sons of Abraham" through our commitment to
> Christ. This gives us latitude to read Hebrew history, but that doesn't
> mean their history becomes our history. My dumb old ancestors were still
> chasing reindeer herds when Adam's kin were making wine and brewing beer.
> I'm amazed we ever caught up. Come to think of it the Germans more than
> caught up.
>
>
>
> ASA's commitment to integrity in science means that we must work to ensure
> that all scientific information in these fields is carefully considered,
> and is not selectively ignored or dismissed without study or thorough
> research. Let this note be an encouragement to any of you who can, to
> (continue to) carry out research in these areas and publish the work in our
> journal.
>
>
>
> While we are on that subject, Carol Hill was kind enough to send me an
> unpublished article on the Mesopotamian flood which she has permitted me to
> share with any of you. This is not the same article which is due to
> appear in June. If anybody wants it, send me a private email and I'll
> send it to you.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer
>
> ~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 21 09:16:35 2006