RE: [asa] Oil and Tubalcain

Hi Michael, you wrote:

>>Hence I stand by my statement and do not consider it a matter of
utmost priority.<<

I think getting it right is important. Think how many scribes down
through many centuries went to great pains to copy the sacred scrolls
just for us to have them today. I think we do them disservice if we
don't at least try to understand what the original writers intended to
tell us. At least I've made the effort. And perhaps you'll read what
I've done and will have second thoughts. And perhaps not. But if it's
just more data you want I can give you that.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:36 PM
To: Dick Fischer
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.

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 <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer

To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

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

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> 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 <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>

To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

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 <http://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 Thu Jan 4 00:37:55 2007