Hi Bernie, you wrote:
>It sounds to me like you have your theology then shape the Scripture to
meet it- eisigesis<
Actually what I have done is what nobody else did, I studied the history of
the Ancient Near East and applied it to Genesis. Somebody years ago should
have thought of that. In my humble estimation history can drive theology,
but theology does not drive history. We can't change the historical facts
to fit whatever theology may be current at the time. You also said:
>The Bible says (all animal species with the aim to preserve them) .<
Gee, I haven't read Genesis lately. Does it really say that? All the
species, huh? All the marsupials living in Australia, all the lemurs in
Madagascar. Well, I guess if it says that, then it must be so. I didn't
see it in my copy of Genesis, I must have missed it. Funny that I could
read Genesis hundreds of times and miss that.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
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 Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:58 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Dick:
"It was to terminate evil doers. Do you think a king and his family could
just slip out of town unnoticed?"
You think all the evil doers were concentrated. That sounds too far-fetched
to me. I think they spread out all over the globe- aren't all people evil?
Even God said that. they were all evil. not just the locals.
It sounds to me like you have your theology then shape the Scripture to meet
it- eisigesis. It is a local flood. How long? The Bible says, but ignore
that part. How high? The Bible says, but diminish it (mountains = hills).
What was on the ark? The Bible says (all animal species with the aim to
preserve them), but ignore that part.
To me, it seems so straight-forward to recognize and accept what the Bible
says, then understand it as adapting myth for theological purposes. just as
Easter and Christmas were adapted from pagan things to give new Christian
meaning to them.
.Bernie
_____
From: Dick Fischer [mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:32 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Hi Bernie, you wrote:
>How high were the flood waters for Noah's local flood- thousands of feet?
If not, there was no need for a boat- simply walk to higher ground<
Ziusudra is the last name on the Sumerian king list before the flood. (Some
lists, others don't include him at all.)
Read Ziusudra here: http://www.piney.com/EriduGen.html
Remember the purpose of the flood? It was to terminate evil doers. Do you
think a king and his family could just slip out of town unnoticed? Building
a boat was a perfect solution. He and his family just climbed inside and
shut the door. This would have the effect of keeping the people in one
place. They would have had to hike many miles east to get to high enough
ground to survive. The Sumerians had an advantage already living further
east with low lying mountains in easy reach.
Had the flood been even a hundred feet high it would have wiped out the
Sumerians too. They survived and occupied the region up until the time of
Abraham when Ur was destroyed by the Gutians and Elamites around 2000 BC.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
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 Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:53 AM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Dick said:
"If you remember the flood of 1993 in the midwest the water stayed for
months before receding."
The midwest water stayed for months? Really? What do you mean by Midwest
water stayed- that it rose a few hundred feet and stayed that high for
months? Or was the Midwest months of flood just tens of feet? How high
were the flood waters for Noah's local flood- thousands of feet? If not,
there was no need for a boat- simply walk to higher ground.
.Bernie
_____
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:20 PM
To: 'D. F. Siemens, Jr.'
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Hi David:
The other night I saw part of the movie Hamlet. Although I found it
interesting, I must admit I couldn't understand over 20% of the dialogue. I
perked up at "Alas, poor Yorick," and "To be or not to be .", but by and
large I couldn't pick up the lingo at all. We don't talk that way anymore.
Genesis is typical ANE literature. If you aren't used to ANE literature
from reading a boatload of it, you are going to miss some things. Then
there is Jewish jargon to deal with, the odd scribal error, and the
translation from one language to another. It's a wonder to me any of it
makes sense.
What I find typical of ANE literature is that persons, places, and clashes
between cities seem to be reliable. The insertion of various gods in the
affairs of men is quite common and cannot be considered "true" history. So
when the flood comes in Atrahasis we read "Enki made ready to speak, and
said to Nintu the birth goddess: "You, birth goddess, creatress of
destinies, establish death for all peoples!"
(http://www.livius.org/as-at/atrahasis/atrahasis.html)
Okay, a fabricated conversation from one god or another in ANE literature is
typical. So how about this conversation: And God said, "Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Gen.
1:26). What makes this conversation genuine and the conversation in
Atrahasis bogus? Simple. We all know there is only one God and we don't
believe in many gods. Plus the Bible is inspired.
But the type of literature is the same. Insertions of conversations from
God or gods are the norm in all ANE literature, Genesis included. So you
accuse me of waffling? May I suggest that if you want to understand ANE
literature, you should read some of it.
Specifically to your questions, you wrote:
>The Bible says that there was no help for him while you posit tens of
thousands of people living in the valley, lots of women, with more elsewhere
on earth.<
There was no help mate "suitable." There were not "tens of thousands"
living in Eridu, more like a hundred or less at the beginning, and none of
the other cities had been established at that early date. There is roughly
600 years between the first city, Eridu, and the city Cain built, Enoch,
which was the second city. By 7,000 years ago the entire earth was sparsely
populated in the millions. Read Jacquetta Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man.
> How does the notion that Noah simply stayed aboard the ark for two seasons
work? I can imagine him stuck on a sand bar where there was at least an area
of the ark from which he could drop a bucket to draw water for the creatures
aboard. This would not help the food problem unless he could barter with the
locals. But Mesopotamia has a distinct lack of wood. Would a mass of wood as
big as the ark not be salvaged by the locals?<
I'm not sure the voyage lasted a year. The Bible writer seemed to think so,
and we are stuck trying to make sense of it. So I'm trying. The size of
the ark is another problem area if we try to envisage the ark as a massive
450 foot long ship. A seriies of smaller baskets lashed together to form
the overall dimensions might work, or maybe the writer mismeasured, or maybe
the original dimensions have been changed. There are options. Choose.
> Floods flow downstream, with increased speed as there is more water. If
the ark were in the current, it would head for the Persian Gulf. If it got
into an area where water overflowed the banks, the water would be ponding
and going nowhere. So how did the ark head upstream to the area of Ararat?
Or is this an inaccuracy that does not disturb the message?<
If you remember the flood of 1993 in the midwest the water stayed for months
before receding. The Gilgamesh legend mentions punting holes and punting is
still a means of locomotion on the canals of Iraq. Animals on the bank
pulling the boat also might work.
There could be inaccuracies. I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be
inaccurracies in the inspired text. When Genesis depicts the God who
created the entire univerrse taking a stroll through the Garden of Eden
enjoying the coolness of the air and sniffing petunias, I, even I, have to
put on my wading boots. Still, the flood appears to be a genuine event that
actually happened. There are possible answers to the typical questions
raised.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 6:59 PM
To: dickfischer@verizon.net
Cc: bernie.dehler@intel.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Dick.
It seems to me that you argue whichever view fits at the time. For example,
Genesis 1 uses the cosmology of ANE, with a solid firmament with sun, moon
and stars on the terrestrial side and water on the side away from the earth.
How does that make the apology for monotheism invalid? In Genesis 2, that
Adam named the animals implies that they had no names previously, though you
claim that the Mesopotamian civilization had risen earlier. The Bible says
that there was no help for him while you posit tens of thousands of people
living in the valley, lots of women, with more elsewhere on earth.
How does the notion that Noah simply stayed aboard the ark for two seasons
work? I can imagine him stuck on a sand bar where there was at least an area
of the ark from which he could drop a bucket to draw water for the creatures
aboard. This would not help the food problem unless he could barter with the
locals. But Mesopotamia has a distinct lack of wood. Would a mass of wood as
big as the ark not be salvaged by the locals?
Floods flow downstream, with increased speed as there is more water. If the
ark were in the current, it would head for the Persian Gulf. If it got into
an area where water overflowed the banks, the water would be ponding and
going nowhere. So how did the ark head upstream to the area of Ararat? Or is
this an inaccuracy that does not disturb the message?
Dave (ASA)
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:44:03 -0400 "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@verizon.net>
writes:
Hi Bernie:
You raise a valid point, one that I have asked myself for many years. The
broad question is whether or not there was a flood, and if there was, when
was it and what was the extent? I think that question can be answered
readily. The question you raise is the accuracy of the account. Did the
Bible writer get all his facts straight? If there are mistakes in the
narrative, are there enough to discount or disbelieve the entire narrative
in Genesis altogether?
Compared to the parallel flood accounts the one in Genesis is the odd one
out on the subject of duration. Parallel accounts describe a week long
voyage while Noah's trip in Genesis takes a year. But whatever the case,
mistake or not, scribal error or not, that is no reason to jump to some
other position that can't be defended by anything.
Rainy seasons are annual events in Iraq occurring in the spring when the
snow melts on the mountains in the north and surges down the rivers on to
the flat plain that is southern Mesopotamia. If there were two back to back
flood episodes, and Noah chose to remain in the boat to ride out two rainy
seasons, that could take a year and might explain the long voyage in Genesis
versus the short voyage in the parallel accounts. I'm only throwing that
out as one possible explanation.
So, say my guess is wrong. In court trials where witnesses give their
accounts of a crime they have seen rarely are all testimonies exactly the
same. Perspectives differ, perceptions aren't the same, memories vary. Yet
the judge or jury must decide guilt or innocence on the totality of evidence
presented. Conflicting testimonies are normal and to be expected.
I agree the primary focus should be on the theological lessons based upon
the historical narrative. If the historical account was a fabrication,
however, would that not also call into question the theological lessons
derived therefrom?
Dick Fischer, GPA president
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 Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:22 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Hi Dick- Scientifically, the problem with a local flood is that there's no
way the water could be contained for a year. You need a bowl shape to do
that, and there is no bowl shape. How were the rivers dammed-up? If you
believe in a flood, how long do you think Noah was floating on an ark- for
about a year as the bible indicates?
Ancient history is full of myths, so it would be no surprise to find
another. However, the Lamoureux position, which I represent, says the
history and science of the Bible is incidental- the theology is what the
Bible is good for. It uses the science and history of the day to give
theology.
Don't worry about pile-up's on me- I usually find them humorous if they
happen ;-)
.Bernie
_____
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:55 AM
To: 'Merv Bitikofer'
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
I don't mean to "pile on" anybody, especially a brother in Christ. It's
just that I feel a little frustration, like a rancher whose barn catches on
fire and as soon as he pulls the horses out they run back in again.
Admittedly the evidence for Adam that I've talked about on this list for
many years now, while tantalizing, is less than conclusive. But the total
evidence for a flood in southern Mesopotamia around 2900 BC is overwhelming
in my judgment.
As for a global flood, the Nephilim (giants) in Gen. 6:4 are ancestral to
the Anakim in Num. 13:33. If the Pentateuch itself tells us there are flood
survivors then the flood cannot be global nor did the writer(s) of Genesis
think it was. Add to that the Sumerian king list that enumerates pre-flood
kings and post-flood kings and the absence of any geological evidence, and
that should settle it. End of debate.
The flood was local to the immediate area and judgment on Noah's kin.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
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 Merv Bitikofer
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:49 PM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation
Well, since Dick may have started a "let's pile on Bernie" activity, I
don't want to feel left out; so I challenge you, Bernie on a different
point. Why does attempting to be faithful to both the Bible and science
weaken the testimony of both? If somebody's *understanding* of the Bible
becomes clearly seen to be false, (whether shown by other deeper
Biblical insights, science, or anything else) then that *understanding*
should be shed for the millstone it is, and the remaining faith, if it
ever was true, should get clearer focus with another false prop removed.
Pity the one, though, who was hoisted up using a false prop but hasn't
yet crawled off it onto a sturdier foundation. How many of us have been
vulnerable like that? --I swallow my own flippancy. The only sure
foundation I ever had is Christ.
--Merv
(from the top-of-the-head stuff is fun, Bernie, if you don't mind being
picked on and having it picked apart later.)
Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> Here's my take, from the top of my head:
>
> Global flood:
>
> Strength: The Bible appears to be reporting real history, and this
> interpretation treats it as such.
>
> Weakness: Almost completely ignores evidence from modern science.
>
> Local Flood:
>
> Strength: It tries to integrate the story of the Bible with scientific
> evidence.
>
> Weakness: Tries to be faithful to both the Bible and science and in so
> doing, weakens the testimony of both.
>
> No Flood:
>
> Strength: Most closely aligns to scientific evidence from geology and
> biology.
>
> Weakness: Destroys faith in the Bible as "inerrant" in matters of
> history and science.
>
> .Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of gordon brown
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:04 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
> interpretation
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> > I'm going to be debating Noah's Ark- global flood, local flood, or no
> flood. I'm taking the no flood position.
>
> >
>
> > Curious-
>
> >
>
> > What all do you think would be the best argument for each position?
>
> >
>
> > Please keep your answers short- no essays.
>
> >
>
> > Info on my event:
>
> > http://www.meetup.com/sciligion/calendar/9503416/
>
> >
>
> > ...Bernie
>
> >
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
____________________________________________________________
Research online bachelor degrees from leading universities today.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTL9zcKM5oequNo5FSc0lpph9Q
mg522eAYUELcXLdE9S6C1kdeyUCE/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 10 01:55:23 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 10 2009 - 01:55:23 EDT