RE: [asa] Adam and the Fall

Hi Don:
 
If you watched an ant colony for an hour you might be able to jot down a
few observations. How many more observations and even insights might
you glean from a years worth of observations? Similarities found in the
biblical account with ANE literature is only one aspect of it. I can
give you just a few examples of things I learned from having devoted
over a quarter century to digging up relevant evidence:
 
The first mention of Adam (or Atum) comes from carvings in pyramids
located in Egypt dated to 2400 BC which predates the Pentateuch. He was
"created" out of the waters of chaos and one of his sons was named
"Seth." Coincidental? In the mindset of ancient Egypt and over the
centuries it is only a short step from being created to being a creator.
Hymns to Atum honored him as such and one who accompanied the people,
their pharaoh, and their land from birth to death to rebirth. In a
similar vein to the Adapa legend, Atum would sail his boat across the
sky and priests would sing hymns. Even a hearkening to Genesis 1 can be
seen in the following hymn to Atum:
 
                        There were no heavens and no earth,
                        There was no dry land and there were no reptiles
in the land .
 
The first two names on the Sumerian King List are Semitic (Adamic)
names, not Sumerian. Thus Eridu, the first city in southern
Mesopotamia, was settled by Akkadians (or Adamites) and Ubaidans, though
who got there first is debatable. The pottery found at Eridu
corroborates the SKL.
 
The city Cain built was called Enoch in the Semitic tongue and "Unug" by
the Sumerians. It was located north of the Euphrates and up the same
canal that watered Eridu the home of Adapa, or Adamu (Adam in Hebrew).
 
When Eridu was "smitten with weapons" after the second king, Alalgar,
kingship was transferred to a Sumerian city, Badtabira. This was the
first war in recorded history and was between Akkadians (Adamites) and
Sumerians. There is evidence the Adamic line then moved to Erech
(Sumerian Uruk) located virtually across the street from the city of
Enoch. This closeness in proximity explains the similarities in the
names of Cain's sons with Seth's sons. Also the pottery found at Eridu
and at Uruk at the same level shows no Sumerian occupation, although
after the flood these cities were resettled by Sumerians who survived
the flood having lived further east outside the primary flood zone.
Thus the pottery, the SKL, the flood legends, even the layers of
"water-laid" clay found in the cities all agree.
 
Even the names of Adam's grandsons, Enoch and Enosh, corroborates the
Genesis ties with ANE history. The En- prefix indicates kingship or
lordship in Akkadian and Sumerian. That's why the Akkadian Ea (Yah in
Hebrew) is the Sumerian Enki, meaning "lord of the earth."
 
The Akkadian name Adamu perpetuated down through generations. Excavated
graveyards carried his name. An Assyrian king was named Adamu, as was a
Canaanite governor. The Sumerians called a list of captured slaves the
"Adambi." The legend of Adapa (or Adamu) was found in various Semitic
languages all over the region although the Sumerians, who were
unrelated, ignored Semitic patriarchs unless they were kings. And the
last four kings on the SKL parallel the Genesis patriarchs.
 
The "trinity" of Gods the Akkadians worshipped parallels the Trinity we
worship today. Even the Sumerians adopted the Akkadian gods. When
Sumerians depicted Enki, or Enlil on cylinder seals they are dressed in
Akkadian attire. The Akkadian ilu, their father-god, we see as El in
Hebrew. Enlil, the third in Akkadian god hierarchy, translates lord of
the air, breath or spirit.
 
The flood is recorded in the SKL and various Akkadian legends. The only
Sumerian version of the flood is simply a translation from the Akkadian
version. The Sumerian hero-king, Gilgamesh is depicted in twelve
tablets. The eleven written in Sumerian say nothing of any biblical
patriarchs or biblical events. The only tablet that includes the flood
story was an Akkadian (Semitic) invention. Thus it was the Semites who
perpetuated the flood story because it was their story. It was the
destruction of their people.
 
The ziggurats were built originally as a means to survive floods. The
shape of the base of each ziggurat will tell whether they were Akkadian
or Sumerian and each one corresponds to the location of each race.
Sennacherib boosts about destroying Babylon and scattering all the
bricks (which included the infamous tower) in the canal. The tower was
rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar and his father and described centuries later
by Herodotus.
 
These are just a few examples of what you can see if you bother to look.
In essence, you could almost completely piece together the entire
Genesis 2-11 narrative with the mass of extra-biblical evidence from the
Near East, including the line of patriarchs: Adam, Enoch, Methusaleh,
Lamech, and Noah, and Josephus covers them from Shem to Abraham. Even
Berossus refers to Abraham: "In the tenth generation after the flood
there was a man among the Chaldeans who was just, great and
knowledgeable about heavenly phenomena."
 
Now when someone doesn't bother to look and simply pronounces this part
of biblical history unhistorical, it galls me, quite frankly. Better
they just profess ignorance if they have no curiosity or willingness to
check out the facts. It's like the Iranian president declaring the
holocaust didn't happen. I can remember seeing newsreel footage of the
camp at Buchenwald when the Yanks arrived. All Ahmadinejad has to do is
look at the movie!
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Nield [mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:49 PM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall
 
I would like to ask Dick a simple question: exactly what would Denis
have gained if he had read your book? I accept that you establish in
detail a strong literary link between Genesis and ANE literature. I also

accept that a good deal of ANE literature deals with historical matters.

But why is that a valid argument for the historicity of the Adam of
Genesis? Should one not distinguish between the different genres
constituting literature?
Don
 
Dick Fischer wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
>
>> But I am convinced that Denis has something substantive to say to us
as
>>
> we struggle to faithfully respond to God's revelations of himself
> through the book of God's word and the book of God's works.<
>
> Denis may have something substantive to say but this isn't it. Having
> myself established a basis to legitimize the historicity of this man
we
> call Adam today that the Akkadians called "Adamu" and who had
namesakes
> for centuries after he lived, I can say with confidence that there is
a
> high degree of likelihood there was just such a man, and I can say
> without hesitation that Denis is totally out to lunch on this issue.
> And having nothing to contribute he should simply vocalize the same.
On
> the subject of history, my organization, Genesis Proclaimed
Association
> had a booth at a recent Faculty Commons Leadership conference in
> Arlington, VA. Denis was there and came up to my booth and introduced
> himself. My book, Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham was
available
> at a discount price. He didn't buy it. So how can he deliberately
> avoid exposure to the evidence and then make public pronouncements
that
> such evidence doesn't exist? Heck, I would have given him the book.
>
> Dick Fischer, GPA president
> Genesis Proclaimed Association
> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://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 Wed Nov 12 22:07:32 2008