From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@genesisproclaimed.org)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 11:50:12 EST
Hi Glenn, you wrote:
>Now, if Rohl's view is correct, then what are the implications? Is Dick
>Fischer then correct to treat the Sumerian religious documents as if they
>are divinely inspired?
There are some extremely curious parallels that have never been explored
adequately. Let me clarify and say that I do not regard the Sumerian myths
as "divinely expired." I believe the Accadians initially were Adamites
mixed possibly with Ubaidans, and then were Semites after the flood.
In the earliest Accadian writings, they spoke of a father-god they called
"ilu." Ilu is the root of "El," the Hebrew word for God, and the Islamic
"Allah."
The Sumerian's father-god was An. Eventually, the Accadian ilu became
corrupted to "Anu" under pressure of the Sumerian An.
Among the Accadians, Ea was the operative god. He was the creator of
mankind, the god of wisdom. The Sumerians adopted this Accadian god, and
called him Enki from en meaning 'lord" and ki meaning "earth."
In the Sumerian hierarchy of gods, Enki was installed initially as the
fourth behind An, Enlil, and Ninharshag. Over time it appears that Enki
worked his way up to third place.
Enlil, meaning lord of the "air," "breath," or "spirit," seems to parallel
our Holy Spirit. So if I read it right, the Accadians believed in a
hierachy of three gods from the beginning, Ilu, Ea, and Enlil. They do
seem to have similar roles as our Trinity and are ranked in the same order.
The implications of all that bear directly on what I have advocated from
the beginning - that Adam was inserted into a populated world and had
knowledge of the triune Godhead relationship from the beginning which was
carried throughout his race.
> Is Yahweh, Ea? What of the polytheism in the Sumerian
>and Akkadian religious discussions of Ea/Enki?
Was God the creator, or were all things created through Christ?
The Accadians became corrupted through contact with the Sumerians, and over
time adopted some of the pantheon of Sumerian gods. After the flood,
monotheism seems to be the norm among the Semites.
I think Rohl's book adds fuel to the debate. He places the garden of Eden
at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates, at the site of the modern city
of Tabriz, rather than at the confluence of the rivers near Eridu where I
have favored. His timing is roughly my timing, however, so either location
poses no threat to what I believe.
After Adam was kicked out of the garden, he could have easily relocated at
Eridu, so I don't see any difficulty reconciling my theory with Rohl's on
that point. In essence, we agree about some things and differ about other
things.
Just like on this list.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 17 2002 - 22:56:36 EST