Dick wrote,
<< After the flood, kingship was restored at Kish, a number of kings reigned
there until "Kish was smitten with weapons," and kingship was transferred
to Enoch, spelled by the translator "E-Anna(k)." Enoch in time became
Erech either because the small town was absorbed by the rising city or for
some other reason - maybe just the evolution of place names. If Genesis
correctly reported that the city of Enoch was founded by Cain, that is only
one man removed from Adam himself. >>
According to your theory Adam, Cain, etc spoke Akkadian. In addition, the
Bible says they worshipped Yahweh (Gen 4:3). Now here you have Cain founding
a city named E-Anna(k), which is Sumerian, not Akkadian and means "House
(temple) of Innana, the goddess later called Ishtar. This is so completely
out of sync with both the Bible and your theory that it makes no sense at all
for you to espouse it. You should be glad to know that Enoch is (1) not
derived from a Sumerian word (2) does not even begin with an E, but with a
hard H. You cannot use wild speculation like this to show that the Bible was
accurate.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 03 2002 - 02:35:43 EST