Re: Archaeological problems with the Origins Solution

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Mon Feb 16 2004 - 01:36:04 EST

Glenn wrote:

>While we are all after my friend, Dick, I might as well make mention of a
>post I put on TheologyWeb in response to an enquiry about Dick's
>views. Part of that note is reproduced here. (I think this is a dull
>saw, Dick)
"Et tu, Brute!"

>Dick writes in his book:

>"Presumably, any outsiders living at the time of Adam would have been
>outside the old covenant, and unable to enjoy this unique status, which
>included the hope of being claimed by God through (1) the Adamic
>bloodline, (2) the discipline of self righteousness, and (3) the ritual of
>animal sacrifice.""The beginning sof God-awareness or seeking after God
>can be substantiated in history by the evidence of religious relics and
>altars dating as far back as 24,000 years ago, but there is no evidence
>that hte Creator manifested Himself to any of these forerunners as He did
>to Adam.
>"Catal Huyuk in south-central Turkey was excavated in the 1960s. This city
>was settled as far back as possibly 8300 B. C., but by about 5600 BC it
>was abandoned. From analysis of the skeletal remains found there, a a
>French expert concluded that two distinct racial types were represented,
>on Eruopean, the other Asian. Although many shrines were unearthed at
>Catal Huyuk, there were no signes of animal sacrifice."
>'...animal sacrifice apparently was not practiced inside the shrines, as
>there is no evidence of a slaughering block or a catchment for the runoff
>of blood.'
>"If animal sacrifice was a covering for sin began with Adam and his
>descendants after the Fall, then apparently Catal Huyuk was not populated
>by Adamic or Semitic populations. Also, 5600 BC is far too soon for any
>Semites and a little too soon for Adamites."~ Dick Fischer, The Origins
>Solution, (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 1996), p. 194
>Dick seems to place lots of weight on the animal sacrifice issue. He seems
>to (erroneously) think that animal sacrifice didn't occur until Adam,
>living sometime around 4500 BC. (Origins Solution, p. 196)

Gosh, are those typos in my book? Just kidding. When I spent my two years
in the Library of Congress digging all this stuff up, I would call up
volumes of books I got off the LOC computer which were dutifully delivered
to my little desk. One book was untranslated Sumerian in phonetic
English. Might have had something good in it, but it was sure lost on me.

This I think is interesting, and I haven't told you this before as I
remember. Some thieves made an unauthorized excavation and stole clay
tablets which they were able to sell. I read through the book which was a
translation of those tablets. What was funny was that the thieves had
raided the ancient cattle market at Drehem. Almost the entirety of the
tablets was nothing more than cattle receipts.

I did see a receipt for "burnt bricks" I thought was interesting and
another one that was for "unblemished cattle for sacrifice." That one
struck a chord. Apparently the Sumerians had picked up the sacrificial
system from the Accadians who would be Adamites in my scheme of things as
they spoke a pre-Semitic language. In fact, that may be the earliest
written record of animal sacrifice and in a non-Semitic tongue.

>The problem I see is that this creates two classes of people--the Semites
>(Jews and Arabs) who are descended from Adam with the image of God and
>others who don't have it. This creates weird situations like my family in
>which my wife and children would be descendents of Adam and have the image
>of God, and I wouldn't. (My wife occasonally thinks this may be true when
>she see some of the stuff I do) But at root, such a view in my mind could
>encourage racism. In fairness to Dick, whom I like, he would deny this.
>But given what humans do with racial differences, I think it is a valid worry.

Again, theology places demands history can't fulfill. In Genesis Chapter
1, a man and woman were created in the "image of God," in His
"likeness." Some Bible scholars have extended this verse to encompass all
of mankind. The traditional interpretation, and probably the correct one,
is that this verse refers specifically to Adam and Eve, although Adam is
not named until the next chapter.

Instead of venturing as to what we think "likeness" and "image" implies, I
think just reading the biblical text is helpful.

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created
man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them;
and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were
created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in
his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth (Gen.5:1-3)."

Who was created "in the likeness of God"? The man, Adam, who "lived an
hundred and thirty years and begat a son," "and called his name Seth." Who
were not created "in the likeness of God"? Those who did not live "an
hundred and thirty years," and did not "begat a son" called "Seth" - the
indigenous populations.

Dominick M'Causland said:

         Adam then Appears in the majesty of God's likeness,
         ushered into the world in the fullness of time, to draw
         his fellow-creatures to the development of the hidden
         treasures of wisdom and knowledge in their widest and
         deepest sense. With other races of human beings surrounding
         him, he is a more perfect type of the second Adam, than if
         he had been a solitary individual occupying the wide domain
         of the habitable earth, without a fellow-creature to behold him
         a being made in the likeness of the Creator.

The "image" only implies to Adam's status as an ambassador for God. The
"image" was carried by the Israelites as God's chosen and the Jews. Christ
was appointed by God as His representative. The second Adam, Christ, was
in the "image of God" (II Cor. 4:4) just as the first Adam, and the mantle
was passed to the followers of Christ.

In I Corinthians 11:7, Paul's instructions were not to unregenerate men,
but to the redeemed of the church at Corinth. According to Paul, they were
in "the image and glory of God." They received this authority as believers
in Christ, "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature" (Col. 1:15). IMHO, fallen man has no claim to God's image unless
he receives it through redemption.

>Now to the archaeological issues. Animal sacrifice has gone way back much
>farther back than Dick acknowledges, and that, in my mind falsifies his
>"Presumably, any outsiders living at the time of Adam would have been
>outside the old covenant, and unable to enjoy this unique status, which
>included the hope of being claimed by God through (1) the Adamic
>bloodline, (2) the discipline of self righteousness, and (3) the ritual of
>animal sacrifice." ~ Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, (Lima, Ohio:
>Fairway Press, 1996), p. 194
>Recent discoveries have revived the debate about how old animal sacrifice
>is. It certainly appears to be much older than 4,500 BC. Fischer in 1996
>relies on a very outdated Science News articles to support his thesis
>(Simon, 1981, p. 357;Fischer, 1996, p. 194). Surely one should be expected
>to at least look at more recent data. Data that has come to light since
>and before 1996(and some that existed before) then shows that his claim is

Ancient men hunted and scavenged animals, and sometimes hauled their
carcasses into caves where they were eaten by the family and the rest of
their tribe. Bones make tools, fish hooks and sewing needles, and skulls
look nice mounted on the bedstead and artfully arranged like a stone age
statue of David. So what? I never said pre-Adamites weren't clever or

But biblical animal sacrifice has certain elements not proven or even
suggested by your examples. First of all, domesticated animals were used
for sacrifice. When were animals domesticated? 31,000 years ago? Not
hardly. Next, only certain animals were chosen solely on the basis that
they were the best. No cripples or lame animals were deemed worthy for an
offering. Did you cite a single example that suggests that only certain
animals that could pass muster were used? No. Then, the meat was burned
as an offering to the deity. Nothing in any of the examples you provided
even suggest that the meat was burned on an altar to provide a pleasing
incense to a god (or God) unseen.

That said, I don't think it would make any difference if pre-Adamites did
engage in animal sacrifice, though I don't think they did. Moses laws
harken back to the law code of Hammurabi. Jesus wasn't the first or last
to die on a cross. So if animal sacrifice as described in the Bible
commenced with Adam, fine. Even if it didn't, I don't see any impact on my
case. But I don't see God picking up on a pagan rite and using it as a
covering for sin.

As for any racial implications, Adam had no parents, no black parents, no
white parents, no hispanic parents. He didn't belong to any race. But the
Adamite populations did mix with the Sumerians who were

Aryan as far as we know. So the resultant Jews do have some Aryan features.

>I reject Dick's views as not being consistent with the observational data.
>Of course, my friend will have a different viewpoint.

Ah, but we will still be friends.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Mon Feb 16 01:40:25 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 16 2004 - 01:40:33 EST