RE: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

Hi Glenn:

There is nothing in Scripture or ANE history that even suggests Adam could
have been Sumerian. (Ubaidan or Halafian is possible.) An Akkadian, yes,
because the language is consistent among the Semites, but it is extremely
unlikely Adam was Sumerian. The first two names on the pre-flood Sumerian
king list are Semitic (Adamic) names. The legend of Adapa was never copied
in Sumerian. Adamu as a personal name only appears among Semitic nations.
The Sumerians were non-Semitic and therefore non-Adamic.

~Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Glenn Morton
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:45 PM
To: 'Dick Fischer'; 'ASA'
Subject: RE: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

Yeah, but Dick, what happened to your recent Adam? Are you not going to
defend it, given that there is nothing in Scripture which requires him to be
a Sumerian now?

glenn
They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

 <http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 25 23:29:39 2006