Re: Archaeological problems with the Origins Solution

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Mon Feb 16 2004 - 08:00:43 EST

As I know nothing about archaeology I keep my trap shut

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <>
To: "Dick Fischer" <>; "ASA" <>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Archaeological problems with the Origins Solution

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: []On
> > Behalf Of Dick Fischer
> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:36 AM
> > Glenn wrote:
> >
> >
> > While we are all after my friend, Dick, I might as well make mention of
> > 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,
> >
> > "Et tu, Brute!"
> >
> Hey, the original Brutus made Caesar a very popular fellow. Even today,
> you go to Caesar's grave in Rome, you can find young maidens leaving
> on his grave. One might say that Brutus did him a favor! Thus I am here
> do you a favor.
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > the Accadians who would be Adamites in my scheme of things as they spoke
> > pre-Semitic language. In fact, that may be the earliest written record
> > animal sacrifice and in a non-Semitic tongue.
> Yeah, but that is probably the earliest written cattle receipts also.
> we put religious significance on them as well? Writing started around the
> time you are referring to so the mere fact that they write of animal
> sacrifice doesn't mean it is the first animal sacrifice.
> >
> > 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.
> > traditional interpretation, and probably the correct one, is that
> > this verse
> > refers specifically to Adam and Eve, although Adam is not named until
> > next chapter.
> >
> > Instead of venturing as to what we think "likeness" and image implies,
> > think just reading the biblical text is helpful.
> >
> > "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God
> > man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he
> > 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.
> So did Ishmael not carry the image of God? You don't mention the larger
> Semite family.
> >
> >
> > 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
> > 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
> > creative.
> >
> > But biblical animal sacrifice has certain elements not proven or even
> > suggested by your examples. First of all, domesticated animals were
> > for sacrifice.
> Isn't that a bit of stretch? What is the spiritual significance of
> domesticated animals?
> The Siberian bear cults raise a bear cub with them in their homes. Indeed,
> when missionaries went to the Ainu, there are stories about the missionary
> preaching to a room full of Ainu women who were passing the bear cub
> each nursing it in turn as they listened to the sermon. If that isn't
> domesticated, I don't know what is. Or do you attach significance to the
> willingness of the animal to stay in a fence?
> 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
> > 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
> > to a god (or God) unseen.
> Dick, DICK!! LOOK AT BRUNIQUEL!!!! Not ony did they burn meat, the
> the dead bear!!! The Neandertals got a bear to go underground (or killed
> him at the surface and dragged him there). But they burned the meat and
> all!
> What you are doing is saying that unless the sacrifice meets exactly your
> view of what the ancient Sumerian sacrifice was like, then it doesn't
> Isn't that a wee bit ad hoc?
> >
> > That said, I don't think it would make any difference if pre-Adamites
> > engage in animal sacrifice, though I don't think they did. Moses laws
> > harken back to the law code of Hammurabi.
> Dick, this is crazy. Unless the sacrifice meets exactly your view of what
> the ancient Sumerian sacrifice was, and it is in the same culture and
> after the Hammurabi code, then it doesn't count? Can't see that Dick.
> 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
> > sin.
> But the sacrifice you mention wasn't the first animal sacrifice as you
> require, at least in your book. If you add domestication to the list,
> what about the bear cubs raised in the homes of the bear cult people. We
> know the bear cult goes back many thousands of years.
> >
> > As for any racial implications, Adam had no parents, no black parents,
> > 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.
> It still sets up two populations. BTW, my wife really does like the idea
> being superior to me as she has suspected all these years.
> >> I reject Dicks 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.
> I noted in another note that you claimed Neanderthal ancestry. From one
> descendant to another, here is to animal sacrifice and its ancient
> >
Received on Mon Feb 16 08:35:48 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 16 2004 - 08:35:48 EST