Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

Of course there were traditional genealogies - you can find them in the 1st chapters of I Chronicles e.g. But the claim that there were actual records going back to an historical Adam that had the same kind of historical value as the records we can get today at the couty courthoue is fantasy. & of course one wonders why if Luke & presumably Matthew consulted the temple records their genealogies back to David are so different. Yeah, I know, one was Mary's & the other Joseph's (or maybe the other way around!) - in spite of the fact that both are explicitly said to be Joseph's. Or some other dodge. Spare me.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:04 PM
  Subject: RE: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

  Hi Paul, you wrote:

>>But George also claims that even though Paul thought of Adam as a historical

  figure, there is no reason for us to do so.<<

  What about Luke tracing the ancestry of Christ to Adam? Up until 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed, the genealogies of all the Jews was a matter of record in the temple. Luke didn't dream up Christ's ancestry, and it wasn't dictated to him from on high. All he had to do was trot down to the temple and look up the records. Adam was a man of record in the temple. The only hard part began with the twelve tribes of Israel.

  http://members.aol.com/Wisdomway/twelvetribes.htm

  Up until that point it was fairly easy.

  Dick Fischer

  Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

  www.genesisproclaimed.org

   
Received on Sun Jun 11 14:47:39 2006