RE: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

Hi Dave, you wrote:

I know, you want to split Genesis 1 from the rest, with Mesopotamian
myth (Mm) giving G1, but G2+ reporting Mesopotamian history that gave
rise to Mm. I understand that both Adapu/Adamu and Adam were created.
But who were the offspring of Adapu?

The legend of Adapa doesn't go beyond his being sent back to earth.

All the Mesopotamian genealogies that I have encountered have generation
from others. There is no explanation of how his rejection/loss of
eternal life affected others who were not related to him.

And I don't know how Adam's sin impacts those of us with no Adamic
bloodlines. Then again, I don't know how it impacts those who descended
from him either. Is there a coding for sin in their DNA? I'm like the
blind man who was asked who it was who made him see. He could only
testify to what he knew. Same for me. All I know is that through
Christ we are saved - not through Adam.

 So it still strikes me that Mm --> G1+'s apologetical structure. This
fully accounts for the similarity of names, doubled in G3+. The fact
that the Hebrews could not imagine truly primitive life gives G its
chalcolithic background. Human life w/o morals and religion seems to me
impossible, and Glenn produced evidences for religion long before you
allow Adam to introduce God-consciousness. And the transfer to Australia
and the Americas seems no more than some wild handwaving.

I'm not looking for the point where men began to reach for God. I'm
looking for the point where God reached out to man.

I doubt that anything I might argue will convince you, for you have too
much invested. But I definitely cannot swallow hard enough to even
entertain your notion, let alone digest and incorporate it.

You haven't read enough. Invest twenty years of your life, wade through
800 or so books and it might change your mind. Or read my book when it
comes out.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:41:31 -0400 "Dick Fischer"
<dickfischer@verizon.net> writes:

Hi Dave:

The main thesis of de la Peyrere's book, of course, is that a correct
reading of Romans 5:12-14 demanded that there had to be men before Adam
and thus the name of his book. I think his exegesis has merit, but I
can throw a lot more into the pot to substantiate that idea than he
could. His point is one more log on the fire for me, whereas for him
that's about all he had. Though I believe he interpreted from his heart
not trying to force Scripture to say what he already thought Certainly
his book brought him no acclaim, only consequences.

You also wrote:

Now farmer=baker, with fisherman recreational. Called to paradise (or
wherever) to answer for his damage to the Southwind rather than placed
in the Garden before falling is so clearly parallel. Now would you like
to show that he is the ancestor of the kings who match the patriarchs?

Well, both Adam and Adapa were "created." Does that count for anything?
Archibald Sayce said "Adapa" should have been translated "Adamu," and
Adamu was a popular name among Akkadians. When Akkadian language
becomes Hebrew, the "u" is dropped whereby Adamu becomes simply "Adam."
Thus from simply a linguistic point of view, Adapa may be Adam.

Breaking the wing of the south wind shows me he had power. Being called
to heaven before the father god to account for bad behavior means he had
importance - yet he was not a god or king. He is the only man I can
find in Akkadian lore who was neither god nor king. Yet he was so
significant legends about him were recorded in four languages and
tablets found as far south as Egypt. He is called Atrahasis - exceeding
wise. He is described as "blameless, "clean of hands," anointer,"
"observer of laws." Adam was cut off from the tree of life thus losing
out on eternal life and Adapa refuses food and water that would have
given him eternal life. There is even an element of the results of the
fall:

what ill he has brought upon mankind,

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

Personally, I think they are the same guy. But a legend likely contains
a bit of puffery not found in Genesis.

Genesis 5 tells me Adam is ancestral to all the patriarchs. But Genesis
is about a specific bloodline whether they were kings or not, whereas
the Sumerian king list is a line of successive kings regardless of who
begot who. The only sure match is Ziusudra equals Noah. Even Josephus
in quoting Berossus changes Xisuthros (Greek for Ziusudra) to "Noah."
Now Lamech was father to Noah and Sukurlam was father to Ziusudra.
Sukurlam describes Ziusudra as "son of Ubartutu" which as you know can
also mean "grandson." Likely Ubartutu is Methuselah as all three
pre-flood kings ruled in the same city - Shuruppak.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 1 20:45:25 2007