----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Roberts
To: Dick Fischer
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Oil and Tubalcain
I have read Young , Hill and Rohl (though I find my countryman's book worthless), but am not convinced. I concur that 2900BC in Mesopotamia is a possible and even probable location but do not consider it proven. I also wonder whether the flood could be tied in with the massive sea-level rise at the end of the Ice Age. Suggestions that it was 5 million years ago are too risible to consider. That is like playing Beethoven's 9th symphony on Neanderthal instruments!
The research required also includes considerable field geology in the ANE and without that any suggestion must be tentative.
Hence I stand by my statement and do not consider it a matter of utmost priority.
We also need to note the whole literary style of early Genesis and not push some kind of literalism and shoehorn what little scientific evidence there is to conform to the text and vice versa. We also need to consider the whole nature of historical writing in the Old Testament and not treat it as 21st century history. It has primarily a polemical and theological purpose and is a bit free and easy on the details by our picky 21st ideas (informed by Enlightenment history)
Michael
PS look at this
IN PRINT THIS MONTH -- Lost Worlds
Web Feature Story: For years, people have wondered whether Homer's Odyssey is at all true. Now, geologists are helping to locate real-world sites in the epic poem, including Odysseus' homeland of Ithaca. Read more about the discoveries in "Finding Ithaca," this month on Geotimes online. http://www.geotimes.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:02 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Oil and Tubalcain
Hi Michael:
I wanted to return to this issue because I think the issue of history is important. I think the Genesis flood is the first verifiable historical event. We have the Genesis record, the Akkadian account, the Sumerian account, mention is made of the flood by Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, Berossus, the writer of Jubilees, and Josephus, and archeologists Langdon, Watelin, Woolley, and Mallowan uncovered flood layers along the Euphrates River at various city sites.
Recent authors have analyzed all this information and concluded there was a physical flood. ASAers Davis A. Young wrote The Genesis Flood, and Carol Hill wrote numerous articles about the flood in PSCF, Britisher, David Rohl, wrote Legend: the Genesis of Civilization, and Robert Best wrote Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic. I have read all the books and articles. I have had personal or email contact with all these authors. Every one did extensive research. Every one agrees on the historicity of the flood. Every one places the flood in southern Mesopotamia. Every one dates the flood to 2900 BC. I concur with them on all points. Plus, I know of no author who has given a shred of historical evidence to suggest that these evaluations are incorrect.
Now, no one is saying you have to read all these books, but to not read any of them and then state "it is not possible to identify either the places or times" is doing the same thing you accuse YECs of doing. They read not one geology book and then claim the earth is young. How can we be outraged that they choose to remain in total ignorance of all the scientific evidence and yet outwardly proclaim their belief in a young earth, and then we do the exact same thing?
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Oil and Tubalcain
I am happy to accept that most of Gen 1-11 is based on historical events but the "information" there is so sparse that it is not possible to identify either the places or times . It has been tried before with no conclusive result.
Even on Gen 12-50 it is difficult to place the patriarchs beyond saying that they fit into 2nd Millennium ANE, hence I regard those characters as real people. (and Noah and his watery journey)
I think you and Glenn are wasting your time and need to be more relaxed about the history of Genesis and concentrate on its meaning. The bible is historical but doesn't give the historical information you need. There is more in the later OT and on the whole the NT gives a fair amount - but still is incomplete in places as I found out in Turkey
The Bible was originally written for a very different culture and does not attempt "Modernist" history as we have had it in the last 2 centuries
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Oil and Tubalcain
Ah, the old hit and run play. (That's a baseball term, Michael.) Having just (finally) finished my manuscript, Historical Genesis: from Adam to Abraham, I can categorically state that both of these esteemed gentlemen are prematurely wrong.
As Confucius said, "Those who say it can't be done should stay out of way of those who are doing it."
Rather than refute point by point, which I have done here frequently, let me just ask all to exercise patience and wait until the book comes out - then let's see what you have to say. That way there will be less to retract.
For any Septuagenarians out there or for those who have just checked into a hospice, I will be happy to email you the entire manuscript as a Word attachment in a lump (if you have the space on your server). Just please keep it a little under your fur hat until it's published.
Dick Fischer
Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Glenn wrote:
. > I will also point people to an article on Theologyweb.com which I
posted
> challenging the concept that Adam is neolithic. It challenges the claim
> that
> iron working was going on in the Tubalcain incident.
> See http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1692777&postcount=40
>
> I will not stick around to debate the issue.
This is not much to debate on the issue as we are only dealing with half a
dozen words in Gen 4.22. These give no historical markers for anything.
Further we should see Genesis for what it is. It does not give a historical
record of early society as it just gives some snippets. What evidence is
there that the author of Genesis believed he was giving a historical account
in the sense we would define history today? A very good article on
historiography in the Old Testament is to be found in the IVP Dictionary of
the Old Testament - historical books. The writer makes it clear that OT
historical writers were not writing straight history but were using history
for theological purposes. They are general and imprecise and we go wrong to
impose Modern ideas of history on to them and that is a cause of so much
scepticism of the bible over the last 200 years. Another article in DOT -
hist books is on large numbers and there the author states that the authors
were "employing numerical hyperbole in the narrative accounts" for uses both
polemical and theological. Now apply that to the big numbers in Numbers and
the superannuated Patriarchs! Now this sounds liberal doesn't it? But the
author is D Fouts OT prof of Bryan College Dayton. Perhaps if we applied the
same principles to early Genesis we would have no problem with billions of
years and wont get bogged down whether Tubal cain was Neolithic or a cousin
of Neanderthals!
Michael
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 3 16:19:15 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 16:19:15 EST