From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Tue Jan 01 2002 - 21:04:10 EST

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Historical Adam"

    Paul Seely wrote:

    >Dick speculates about the relationship of Adam to the founders of Eridu
    >(founded c. 5200 BC) but does not give a clear statement that can be
    >answered. He seems to identify the earliest settlers at Eridu with the
    >Adamites. But, it is all just a guess. That is, of course, all it can be;
    >but, any other guess is just as good.

    At the very least it could be called an educated guess, but the evidence
    runs deep enough that I believe it would be tough to put Adam elsewhere in
    some other time frame. And why would the writer of Genesis spend valuable
    time and energy telling us that the garden of Eden was at the junction of
    rivers - all of which have been identified. But even if only two rivers
    were named - the Tigris (Hiddekel) and Euphrates - where else do we have
    rivers so named? Eridu is less than 100 miles from this junction.

    The Israelites spoke Hebrew. Is it reasonable to suppose that the
    ancestors of the Israelites spoke a Hebrew dialect? Accadian is a language
    precursor to Hebrew, and Genesis says Accad was founded by Asshur, a
    Semite. There was no Sumerian influence found at Eridu, one style of
    pottery discovered was Ubaidan, the other was unidentified, but who else
    lived in the region at that time besides Accadians? And prior to the flood
    "Accadians" would have been Adamites.

    >To make some tie-in with Eridu, Dick speculates that Adam is the same person
    >as Adapa, but the two men do not match all that well.

    The Sumerians and Accadians wrote about gods, goddesses, and kings. If you
    weren't in one of those categories, you got no press. By implication we
    can deduce that Adapa must have been important enough that he deserved to
    be written about, and that he was a king. Further, he was written about in
    Accadian - not Sumerian - implying that he was an Accadian king, not
    Sumerian. Not just that, he was a pre-flood, Accadian king. Eridu was a
    pre-flood city, dating to 4800 BC, and besides the gods Ea and Anu, the
    only other characters in the legend are pre-flood - one being Dumuzi, fifth
    king on the Sumerian pre-flood king list.

    Although I can't claim to have read every piece of Sumerian or Accadian
    literature, I only know of four human characters, all kings, written about
    at all with pre-flood connections . And three of them have similarities to
    patriarchs in the Bible, the fourth is simply mentioned in the Bible. The
    most obvious is Utnapishtim/Atrahasis/Ziusudra/Noah. How many men have
    been called upon by a deity to build a boat, load it with animals, and ride
    out a flood?

    Enmenduranki was king of Sippar, called by the gods, and taught divine
    mysteries. He may correspond to Enoch. Enmenduranna (name varient) also
    is in roughly the same position on the Sumerian king list as Enoch is on
    the list of patriarchs. The En- prefix in both names means "king."

    Dumuzi is known also by his Hebrew name, "Tammuz." When he disappeared,
    the beloved Dumuzi was mourned by women who wept and wailed at the gates of
    their cities. This strange custom became a cult following and endured for
    centuries. Even Exekiel made reference to it. The prophet Ezekiel had a
    vision where he was "brought to the door of the gate of the Lord's house,"
    and "there sat women weeping for Tammuz" (Eze. 8:14).

    This brings us to the only other pre-flood hero written about, Adapa, and
    the only other pre-flood patriarch where Genesis bothers to tell us
    something besides his name, years of life before the first son's birth, and
    how many years he lived after that - Adam. Frankly, I don't see how Adapa
    could have been other than Adam if either man was historical.

    Several fragments of the "Legend of Adapa" were taken from the Library of
    Ashurbanipal (668-626 BC) at Ninevah. One also was found in the Egyptian
    archives of Amenophis III and IV of the fourteenth century BC. The fact
    there were so many fragments is indicative that he was a king and was
    important enough that scribes would make copies throughout the centuries.

    Here is the beginning:

    In those days, in those years, the sage, the man of Eridu,
    Ea, made him like a (riddi) among men;
    A sage, whose command no one could oppose;
    The mighty one, the Atra-hasis of the Anunaki, is he;
    Blameless, clean of hands, anointer, observer of laws.
    With the bakers, he does the baking;

    No, I don't know what a "riddi" is. But to say he was exceeding wise
    (Atrahasis) among the angels (Anunnaki) tells me he was something
    special. Further, Adapa was"created" by the god, Ea. Here is a trivia
    question? How many historical kings or patriarchs lived in the pre-flood
    era, were created by God, or a god, and had a chance at immortality through
    eating the food or drinking the water of life?

    Of course, Genesis does not tell us about Adam "breaking the wing of the
    south wind," so the addition of mythology in the legend of Adapa does
    present a confusion factor as it does in all Accadian/Sumerian
    literature. Where do historical facts leave off and flights of fancy
    begin? But even here there is a clue. How many men would have been
    thought of as possessing such power? Even in the legends of Gilgamesh, the
    remarkable king does nothing out of the bounds of human capability.

    >Similarly the idea that the Akkadian Semites are the descendants of Adam does
    >not match the Bible in any sure way.

    Wait a minute. The world is full of people who think everybody descended
    from Adam, now you are suggesting Accadian Semites are not descendents of
    Adam? I admit there is plenty of ancient history that escaped biblical
    mention, Sargon of Agade, the first Semitic king of Mesopotamia, being a
    case in point.

    > It is true that the Semites had a god
    >named El; but they also had other gods. To my knowledge none of these gods
    >were Yahweh, but Yahweh is the god of Eve (Gen 4:1) and of Cain (Gen 4:3) and
    >hence presumably of the Adamites. Why isn't Yahweh mentioned by the Akkadian

    The root Accadian word for the father god in heaven is ilu used in early
    Accadian writings. This became corrupted to Anu under influence of the
    Sumerian An. Ilu is the root of the Hebrew "El" for God, and the Islamic
    "Allah." The Hebrew expression for "sons of God" is bene elohim. Why does
    it say in Matthew 1:23, "they shall call his name Emmanuel," and nobody
    ever did it?

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 21:00:11 EST