RE: Reading Genesis literally

Hi Phil, you wrote:
 
I have sometimes wondered if Yah is a variant spelling of Ea.
 
When I was reading Mesopotamian literature, I noticed that there was a
concept sometimes expressed as the "Enlil power", which the various gods
could obtain. When they had it, then it made them supreme. Some
stories were concocted to promote a certain city's own god as being the
one who had the Enlil power. It has been a long time since I read these
stories, so I don't remember the rationale I had at the time, but
somehow it led me to wonder if there was a basis of monotheism behind
this polytheism, if Ea was Yah and Enlil was also a representation of
Yah (we do know that Melchizedek referred to El = Enlil and Abraham was
OK with that).
 
I have long suspected that the Accadians (Adamites/Semites) had
knowledge of the triune god (God) that we know today. How they
understood three gods as individuals would probably not be the same as
we understand the Trinity today, but I'm not sure we fully understand it
either, though we act like we do.
 
Remember, the En- prefix denotes "lord" or "king." Adam's grandsons,
Enosh and Enoch were likely kings in their respective cities. Accadian
ilu becomes El, Hebrew for God. Ea could be an earlier form of Emanuel.
Notice that the angel says you will call him Emanuel and they never do!
 
Of the three gods in the stories of Atrahasis, Ziusudra and the eleventh
tablet of Gilgamesh, who is the one who steps forward to save our hero?
Who saves us today? In essence the role each of the three gods played
has a ring to it eerily similar to the roles of each one of the Trinity
today. And have we overlooked that it says, "Let us make man ('adam) in
our image" (Gen. 1:26)?
 
I think a case could be made that we rediscovered the Trinity through
New Testament teaching. So a possible scenario would be that Adam and
his following generations had knowledge of three gods, or a triad of
Gods, or (although unlikely), God in three persons. Due to rub off with
the Sumerians, they picked up a plethora of gods. Somewhere around the
time of Noah, monotheism was established, maybe to keep it less
confusing and head off the tendency to expand the hierarchy of gods.
Then the concept of Trinity was reintroduced at a time when there was no
polytheistic culture in close proximity.
 
I know that sounds novel, but there is a smidgen of archaeological
evidence to support it, although the archaeologists themselves didn't
think of it.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Philtill@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:03 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Reading Genesis literally
 
In a message dated 5/3/2006 11:18:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dickfischer@verizon.net writes:
Ea, second god in importance, has a number also - 40. Can you see any
significance in that number?
 
Dick,
 
I have sometimes wondered if Yah is a variant spelling of Ea.
 
When I was reading Mesopotamian literature, I noticed that there was a
concept sometimes expressed as the "Enlil power", which the various gods
could obtain. When they had it, then it made them supreme. Some
stories were concocted to promote a certain city's own god as being the
one who had the Enlil power. It has been a long time since I read these
stories, so I don't remember the rationale I had at the time, but
somehow it led me to wonder if there was a basis of monotheism behind
this polytheism, if Ea was Yah and Enlil was also a representation of
Yah (we do know that Melchizedek referred to El = Enlil and Abraham was
OK with that).
 
thanks, Dick.
 
Phil
 
 
Received on Thu May 4 10:10:17 2006