RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites- the local/global flood question)

Hi Dick-

 Do you think Noah built an ark and put animals on it for your local
flood interpretation? If so, what was the point, when he could have been
told to simply head for higher ground? Neither an actual local or
global flood make sense to me. I'd like to know your understanding.
Short replies appreciated.

...Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:10 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites)

Hi Bernie:

The beginning of Genesis 11 in the KJV is a poor translation. What you
quoted from the NIV is a really bad translation based upon what the
translators thought was going on, not based upon the original Hebrew.
This is a quote from my book:

"Had they (the KJV translators) known the corresponding history of the
ancient Near East, they could have selected words more accommodating to
the facts as we know them today. The true confusion of tongues is the
translation of Hebrew into English. Yet again, 'erets is translated
"earth," although in the next verse the same word is rendered as the
"land" of Shinar. If the Hebrew 'erets is "land" and saphah is
translated literally as "lip" rather than the broader word "language,"
we would read the text as follows: "And the whole land was of one lip
and one speech."

Since we know the Sumerians and Akkadians spoke unrelated languages, and
the Akkadian language is the root of Semitic languages including Hebrew,
and if we assume the writer of Genesis was at least as knowledgeable as
we are, then we may conclude that at least two languages were spoken in
the region at the time that tower building was all the rage in
Mesopotamian cities. So it is unlikely the writer of Genesis, probably
Moses, sought to convey that everyone spoke a common language.

After the flood, platforms constructed in the Mesopotamian cities began
to grow and take on religious connotations. Mud brick mounds that had
originally been constructed to survive floods became ziggurats adorned
with temples of worship, the dwelling places of the gods, and temples
were constructed dedicated to whatever god was protecting each
individual city.

Hebrew chroniclers point to Nimrod, king of Babylon (Gen. 10:9-10), as
the instigator in building the tower honoring Marduk, with additional
sanctuaries for Enlil and Ea. City counselors with their eyes on
neighboring cities proposed the plan of erecting a tower, and Nimrod,
the reigning monarch, agreed to it. Motivations among the tower builders
themselves may have been mixed; a desire to reach the gods, an uprising
against God, devotion of the gods, a desire to wage war against the
gods, or a means of surviving future floods. It's hard to know what was
foremost in the minds of these men caught up in this monumental
enterprise.

Whatever the initial motivations, the builders at Babylon became caught
up in a ziggurat building competition with their neighbors. In a unified
and prideful effort, they tried to outdo the other cities. God caused
confusion in their speech, however, and the builders terminated
construction and scattered, but their basic language was unaltered. We
know this because inscriptions recovered written in Canaanite, Amorite,
Aramaic, and Assyrian were all in Semitic dialects.

The confusion of tongues at Babel was not about scrambling one common
language into various different languages. Instead, it related to the
predominant topic of conversation of the day, which was about building
mud-brick platforms and adorning them with temples of worship.

These were huge, demanding work projects involving the entire community.
Thus everyone in the land, Shinar (or Sumer), at that time was talking
about it. They were of "one lip."

Dick Fischer, author, lecturer

Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham

www.historicalgenesis.com <http://www.historicalgenesis.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:12 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites)

I think it is human nature, even "adamite" nature, to spread out. Sure,
people also congregate. Gen. 11 doesn't imply they stayed together; it
only says that many grouped together. Just because many group together
doesn't mean that many also don't leave, explore, and get their own land
elsewhere.

Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men
moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

Verse 1 sounds like myth, like the global flood. I think Dick would
agree, because if a local flood, there would be many humans with
different languages that didn't get wiped-out. Verse 2, I think, can be
interpreted as "some" settled in the plain. Why would men "travel
eastword" en masse then stop in a plain en masse? It doesn't sound
reasonable. It is against historical human nature (in human nature,
some group, and some set-out to explore).

...Bernie

________________________________

From: Kirk Bertsche [mailto:Bertsche@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:34 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] The Fall of man (Adamites)

Remember that according to Gen 11 the "Adamites" DID tend to stay
together after the Flood, and didn't scatter until God forced them to do
so. It's not unreasonable to infer that they also tended to stay
together before the Flood.

Kirk

On Jun 19, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

        It is a good thing the "Adamites" all stayed together, because
if they spread out over the globe like other humans, a global worldwide
flood would have been necessary to reach them all, instead of a local
flood as I think you propose, Dick.

        ...Bernie

=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 20 18:23:51 2008