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

Yeah, but Dick, what happened to your recent Adam? Are you not going to
defend it, given that there is nothing in Scripture which requires him to be
a Sumerian now?
 
 

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: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:19 AM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

Hi 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 <mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net> Morton
To: 'Dick Fischer' <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> ; 'ASA'
<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
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 19:45:46 2006