Walt Hicks wrote:
>I wonder how you feel about your viewpoint now that many ASA members have
>responded. Have you changed your mind about the validity of your viewpoint?
As an apologetic, the method I have advocated stands out far and above any
other method of putting Genesis together with the facts of science and
history. I believe in the historicity of Genesis 2-11 simply because what
I have learned confirms that, and I take it all together. The flood at
2900 BC in southern Mesopotamia you can cast in cement. Adam can be
substantiated to some degree in isolation, but taken as a continuum, there
is no other time or place which makes any sense. The problem as I see it,
is that I haven't been able to put everything into these data bursts. I
further believe there is more that can be learned from the clay tablets
presently buried in Iraq. That can be the task of future generations if
they know what to look for.
>I have lived for many years and I have noticed a trait over these years:
> Let's say that one puts forth a notion and support it with many arguments or
>"proofs". Those who are generally open minded will seize upon one or two
>arguments that they like and be persuaded towards a favorable reaction --
>least consider it. Those who are already severely opposed to that
>search out the most vulnerable argument and tear it to shreds -- thereby
>the thesis is wrong.
>Notice any of that in the replies to your article?
Plus, the objections have come from those with published positions (Glenn,
George, and Paul) who have reputations to protect. I feel like I have
taken the best shots, and have yet to see an argument which requires any
major deviation from what I have published, especially in my book. And if
I saw a mistake or an error in reasoning, I would revise it in a
heartbeat. I have no pride of authorship. All I search is the truth.
Also, I get tired of seeing the same arguments. However, I can say the
opposition is pushing me to dig deeper, which I have done and have found
more evidence and supporting logic not seen when I was researching the book.
For example, Robert Best wrote Noah's Ark.
http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ Incidentally, ASAer Davis Young wrote an
endorsement for the back cover. Best states, "Noah's flood was a local
river flood about 2900 BC," and "Noah was a king of the Sumerian city of
Shuruppak." He and I agree on that although we have other areas of
This I think is interesting. The Sumerian king list has three kings who
ruled at Shuruppak before the flood. Best writes: "The flood hero was a
respected leader who spoke to 'the city people and the elders' of Shuruppak
according to Gilgamesh XI,35 and Atrahasis III,i39-41. In the WB-62 king
list, Ziusudra (Noah) succeeded his father SU-KUR-LAM as king of
Shuruppak. SU-KUR-LAM was probably Lamech, Noah's father."
Further, in the Accadian Gilgamesh, the flood hero is Utnapishtim (He who
found long life), and is called "son of Ubartutu." We can surmise that
Ubartutu was his grandfather from another source. In another book
SU-KUR-LAM is translated Suruppak - similar to the name of the city. He
writes a lengthy charge to his son Ziusudra, and he also refers to him as
"son of Ubartutu." As is typical of Accadian/Hebrew geneaology "son of"
means "descendent of." (Jesus was "son of David") So a conclusion is:
Ubartutu = Methusaleh
SU-KUR-LAM = Lamech
Ziusudra = Noah
Taken in isolation this might not seem significant. Taken as a continuum
of supporting data and evidence, it is another piece of the jig saw puzzle
which may not have every piece, but certainly has enough that this method
of apology could vault into prominence if it could ever gain a toe hold.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 13 2002 - 22:05:59 EST