Re: Genesis in cuneiform on tablets

From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 13:30:48 EDT

  • Next message: Dr. Blake Nelson: "Re: Traditional Xtianity teaches"

    Hi Peter, you wrote:
    Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
    Precedence: bulk

    >As for the patriarchs writing clay tablets, Wiseman underscored the fact
    >that the biblical text presents them as quite mighty princes in their
    >times (cf. Abraham). And if the genealogies of Gen.5 and 11 can be set
    >parallel to the king lists found on cuneiform tablets, the same would
    >apply to these patriarchs. I think the usual representation of the
    >patriarchs as "primitive nomads" is not supported by the evidence.
    >
    >> >As for the size of the Genesis tablet library, I don't think it would
    >> >have been so much trouble for the patriarchs to have their important
    >> >family documentation in their luggage.
    >>
    >> Clay doesn't travel well.
    >
    >Wiseman said it's very hard when dry, even those tablets that weren't
    >baked in a kiln. And why should a broken tablet not have been copied to
    >a new one?

    Okay, forget Wiseman. I've got a better idea for a discussion. Read
    David Rohl's book, "Legend; The Genesis of Civilisation." You can
    get it through Amazon (UK). He places the garden of Eden at Tabriz,
    Syria, at the origination points for the Tigris and Euphrates, and
    cites good evidence including the river Gihon.

    Rohl states: " During the Islamic invasion of the Caucasus in the
    eighth century AD stretches of the third great river were still
    called the Gaihun. There was, indeed, an intermediate stage, before
    the Gaihun became known simply as the Aras, when the Persians of the
    last century referred to this major watercourse as the Jichon-Aras.
    Interestingly enough, you will find the name Gihon-Aras in early
    biblical dictionaries and commentaries dating from Victorian times."

    He also places the biblical history of the flood in southern
    Mesopotamia, and dates it "somewhere between 4000 BC at the earliest
    and 3000 BC at the latest.". Landing site for the ark is Judi Dagh,
    (also written as Chudi Dagh) near the Mosel river, identified by
    Carol Hill in her recent PSCF article as (Cudi Dag) or Jebel Judi.
    Davis Young also cites Jebel Judi (and so do I.)

    If you like discussing data and evidence instead of idle speculation,
    Rohl's book is good mind food. And I recommend the book to all my
    ASA friends, even though Rohl avoids the theological ramifications a
    historical Genesis requires.

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
    ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 08 2002 - 23:51:41 EDT