Re: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

MessageHi Glenn:

What I see is that you have a problem in that Scripture doesn't cotton to your solution, science is ambivalent, and history is forboding. By contrast, I have a solution that is smiled on by all three. Why should we argue? The new book will answer everything I think. You may even warm up to it when you see everything laid out.

Your friend,

~Dick
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Glenn Morton
  To: 'Dick Fischer' ; 'ASA'
  Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:09 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

  Hi Dick, Looking forward to hearing what you think of my interpretation of Genesis 4:22. At least it is something new to argue about. :-)

  I would also like to clarify, None of those things are Akkadian inventions either, nor are they Hittite, nor are they Catal Huyukian, neither are they the invention of Urites. Indeed, many of these things of which I have spoken are not even the invention of anatomically modern humans. If, as you said,

  "Genesis 4:22. One of Cain's descendants, Tubal-Cain, was 'an instructor of every worker in brass and iron.'
      "This is the proverbial smoking gun! Adam belongs after the old Stone Ages, at the end of the Neolithic, at the threshold of a period called the Chalcolithic when traditional stone tools were augmented by crude copper implements. Adam's descendants saw the dawning of the Bronze Age." ~ Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 1996), p. 239

  I think I may have taken the smoke away from the gun. I think the verse more understandably reads:

  Tubal-cain was the instructor of every plotter of evil corruption

  see my upcoming Pathway paper for full details about 60 pages of reasons why, Adam has to be old. I don't know how many references yet, but it will be over 100. I will finish it this week.

  glenn
  They're Here: The Pathway Papers
  Foundation, Fall, and Flood
  Adam, Apes and Anthropology

  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dick Fischer
    Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:12 AM
    To: ASA
    Subject: Re: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

    Hi Glenn, you wrote:

    NONE of these things is a Sumerian invention. There is no way any of them can be viewed as such. Thus, if the Bible is to be interpreted as if these things are sumerian inventions, then the Bible is flat out false and there is little sense in claiming that it teaches true theology in the face of such absurd falsity.

    The Sumerians are truly intriguing. My key flocus has been on the Akkadians who in all likelihood did eminate from Adam himself. In fact, the Sumerians referred to a list of slaves as adambi, probably a slang referrence to their Adamic roots. That's in my book.

    ~Dick Fischer
    Genesis Proclaimed Association
    www.genesisproclaimed.org

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 24 10:19:08 2006