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

I get frustrated that my replies are not appearing in a timely fashion and
when they do, they have all sorts of weird characters and are almost
illegible. Yesterday I put a reply to three people in one note. I sent it.
It doesn't appear. I tried again. It didn't appear. So I will break this
into 3 and it is not going to count against my 4 email per day limit cause
this is yesterday's limit.

Maybe one of these will appear.
 
Dick wrote:
>The city Cain built and named Enoch is dateable. Noah is dateable via the
Mesopotamian flood and he is only ten generations
>removed. Noah's grandsons are dateable as are subsequent generations to
Abraham, and Abraham is dateable. What more
>do you want?
 
As is my habit of trying to address objections, I will go for it, but this
one I find rather silly, and based upon a silly approach to archaeological
linguistics. This is the basis of your claim.
 
"Naming the city 'Enoch" may seem like an unnecessary addendum, a bit of
Bible trivia, but it is not without significance. According to the
Sumerians, kingship resumed at Kish after the flood. Twenty-three kings
ruled there until 'Kish was smitten with weapons; its kingship to E-Anna(k)
was carried.' In The Makers of Civilization, Waddell translated E-Anna(k)
directly as 'Enoch,' reckoning it as the Sumerian equivalent for Enoch, the
city built by Cain." Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, (Lima: Fairway
Press, 1996), p. 237
 
I call this the rhyming method of archaology; if it rhymes, it is a match.
This is probably why we look for the tower of Babel in Assyria. Babel, in
Hebrew means confusion; Babel in Assyrian means Gate of God. But hey, they
rhyme therefore the Tower of Babel must be in Assyria, right? The logic is
flawed.
 
In the next paragraph from the one I quoted, Dick acknowledges that the
original city was destroyed by the flood-- but then the name here is still
supposed to be significant somehow. I guess he has never heard of Aberdeen
Maryland, or Aberdeen South Dakota. Even if they have the same name and
somewhat rhyme with the original city name, they are not the original
Aberdeen, Scotland. [sarcastic mode]But hey, the rhyming theory of
archaeological linguistics would require that these cities be the same as
the original--their names rhyme afterall.[/sarcastic mode]
 
But then there is the problem of the name. Enoch, in Hebrew comes from the
root meaning, 'to train, to dedicate, to discipline" but according to Dick,
E-anna(k) means "House of Heaven". [sarcastic mode ]Yep, I can most
assuredly see the linguistic connection between the two words![/sarcastic
mode]
 
We can play this game ad nauseum. There is a Chinese city called Yi'an
(pronounced ee-an). But when one talks about it as a city it is Yi'an chun,
halleluyah, we have found the real Enoch--he was Chinese. Yi Nong, is a
somewhat common first name in Chinese. Is that the transliterated name of
Enoch? Or maybe Enoch transmuted into 'yi nong ke ren' which roughly could
mean an important farmer. Rhyming archaeology is FUN and so FrEeFoRm. We
don't have to play by any rules except RHYMING
 
Michael Roberts said:
 
>There is simply not enough details in early Genesis to make any conclusions
of real value, but a literal or strongly
>historical understanding points to something fairly recent.

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

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 Sun Oct 29 14:28:24 2006