Re: Critiques of Dick Fisher's articles advocating an historical Adam and Eve

I feel compelled to jump in here:

> WALT: Have you read the articles by Fisher [that advocate an historical
> Adam and Eve]?
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html#Part%201
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html#Part%202
> Would you suggest that Fisher is ignorant of facts?

> ED: I exchanged two in-depth emails with Dick Fisher (sent to anyone on
> request). His advocacy of a literal historical interpretation of Adam and
> Eve is based in part on the similarity of the name, "Adam" to an ancient
> Egyptian god, "Atum" (he does not appear to take note of difficulties in
> spelling and pronouncing ancient names, and the wide diversity of names of
> Egyptian gods as well as the diversity of Egyptian mythological stories,
> concentrating instead on finding coincidences with the Bible among such
> bounteous data).

I was referring to a couple of egyptian pyramids that were carved around
2400 BC, which would be roughly 1,000 years before Moses. The text speaks
of a first creation and a deified "Atum" who was on a primeval hill arising
"out of the waters of chaos." Among those "whom Atum begot," according to
the inscription, is one named "Seth."

I would consider that two narratives about created individuals named "Atum"
and "Adam" respectively, both of whom had a son named "Seth," to be a most
remarkable coincidence if they came from unrelated accounts. I don't think
I am on a very long limb to suggest that the two appear to be related.

There is a logical explanation for the similarities. Semites (or even
Canaanites) migrated to Egypt during periods of draught. Abraham was a
prime example. Semites were reknowned stonecutters. When the pyramids were
constructed, Semitic stoneworkers likely did some of the work. The
knowledge of their linear descent from Adam was known among them. The
stonecutters took the opportunity to leave a Semitic imprint on the Egytian
pyramids by recording some of their own history.

> Fisher's views are also based in part on a few names in
> the Sumerian king list that coincidentally resemble a few names in the
> geneologies of Genesis. Certainly the Sumerian list coincidences can be
> explained as evidence of shared literature or shared stories, since the
> Hebrews existed nearby and traded with Sumeria/ Babylon.

The names on the Sumerian king lists are represented as kings residing in
their respective Mesopotamian cities. Kingship moved around a bit when each
city in turn is "smitten with weapons." At the beginning, when kingship is
"lowered from heaven" it is in "Eridu." This is significant because Eridu
is located close to the junction of the four rivers in Genesis. Eridu is
the oldest city in Mesopotamia dating to 4800 BC. Eridu is the home of
Adapa who I believe is Adam. The word for ground in Hebrew is "adamah,"
from which Adam was taken, and I can see a close similarity between "adamah"
and Adapa.

Eridu was at the southern end of the Eridu/Erech canal linking the two
cities. Erech is adjacent to, or maybe even the name is a corruption of
Enoch, the city Cain built. Eridu/Eden and Enoch in close proximity should
not be surprising considering the parallels between the names of Seth's
children and Cain's children. By the way, the en- prefix is the Sumerian
designation for king, or lord, or priest. As in: En-och and En-osh, Adam's
grandsons.

The legend of Adapa has been seen by others as being a possible link to
Adam. I'm not the first to notice that. I'm just the only one that talks
about it much.

In all the Sumerian/Accadian literature I have read, the subjects invariably
are kings, or gods, or goddesses. Adapa was important enough that the
legend was found in various locations in different languages - and yet he
was not a king or god. Oh, did I tell you? He too was created. This makes
three individuals in recorded history who were created, Adapa, Atum, and
Adam. Anybody see a similarity there?

In the legend, Adapa is described as blameless, clean of hands, anointer,
observor of laws, and "atrahasis of the annunaki" (exceeding wise among the
angels). Both Adam and Adapa are described as sons of God/god. Adapa was a
"baker," and Adam was told in the "sweat of his face he would eat bread."

When Adapa arrives at the gate of heaven at the bequest of the father god,
Anu, he encounters the fifth king on the Sumerian king list, Dumuzi, and
reflects how Dumuzi was missed here on earth. His strange departure, in
fact, spawned a cult following where women would weep and wail for Dumuzi at
the city gates. This persisted for centuries! Talk about Elvis. He had
nothing on Dumuzi.

Even Ezekial made mention of it. The Sumerian Dumuzi is known by his Hebrew
name, "Tammuz." And Ezekiel had a vision where he was "brought to the door
of the gate of the Lord's house," and "there sat women weeping for Tammuz"
(Eze. 8:14).

Adapa in his anger "broke the wing of the south wind," and was called before
the father god in heaven to account. What meer man would have that power,
or be that important to be summoned to heaven and report to the father god?
Adapa is offered and refuses the food and water of eternal life, and Adam is
cut off from the tree of life.

And this is one Adapa fragment:

        [...] what ill he has brought upon mankind,

            [And] the disease that he brought upon the bodies of men ...

Does this strike a chord?

So the biblical and histoical elements do mesh somewhat. There are in my
opinion far too many tantalizing parallels to be ignored. But if the
historical Adam is seen in conjunction with the historical flood and the
historical tower of Babel, then I think the totality of evidence is
overwhelming. Genesis 2-11 does appear to have a historical basis.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Wed Nov 10 22:09:23 2004