>Eridu was irrigated by canal from the Euphrates. Genesis states: ?But
there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the
ground.? The Hebrew word for ?earth? is the same word for ?land.? The
Septuagint uses the word ?fountain,? not ?mist,? and this refers to
irrigation in Accadian and Sumerian lingo. ?And a river went out of Eden
to water the garden.? Ezekial 1:1 mentions the ?river? Chebar in Babylon
which has to be an irrigation canal. So we know the Hebrew word for
?river? also can mean ?canal,? and that puts the entire Genesis narrative
into perspective.
>It was here and at this time, I believe, that God placed his man Adam,
created in his image, to bring the indigenous Ubaidans into accountability.
Adam fell into sin, which must have hindered but did not prohibit his
mission. If the Trinity exists in fact, and is not just a theological
construct, then Adam knew three ?Gods? and taught the Ubaidans accordingly.
Adamites, Cain for example, married and had children with the Ubaidans
resulting in the historical Accadians - a mixture of long-lived Adamites
and short-lived Ubaidans. The language was proto-semite, but there is no
evidence of handwriting until the Sumerians arrived.
Ray comments:
As you know, my take on the match between the stories of Adam and Eve
is a little different. I see the city of Eridu as coming after, not
before Adam.
But before going to my take, let me point out that a the goal of a
concordist match between the Genesis stories and Mesopotamian
archaeology is to correlate two (event : consequences of the event)
associations. The first is Biblical; ( the story of the Fall :
Romans 5.12-14 ). The second is natural; ( something about Ubaids :
a universal change in the human condition ).
In this framework, I think that Dick is correlating these events:
the story of the Fall with failure of Adam to teach the Ubaids. I
am not sure what 'consequences of the event' are being correlated.
Is Adam teaching the Trinity to the Ubaids a consequence?
Yipes! Send help.
Ray