Re: How to interpret Adam

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Sat Feb 28 2004 - 10:57:37 EST

Jack wrote:

>So, you are saying, I think, that the evidence points to a recent Adam,
>and that he was a true historical figure.

If we evaluate all of Genesis 2-11 fairly, there is sufficient historical
and archeological evidence to support the entire scenario. The
Mesopotamian flood is easier because layers of "water-laid clay" were found
at the central cities in the region dated independently at roughly 2900
BC. There is no unambiguous archeological evidence that I know of that can
pinpoint Adam with certainty. There are only clues.

For example: Cain builds a city named "Enoch." The Sumerian king list
says, "after the flood swept thereover" kingship was restored at
Kish. Twenty-three kings reign there until Kish is "smitten with weapons,"
and kingship is carried to "E-Anna(k). Is that air tight? Does this give
us conclusive proof that the Sumerians rebuilt the same city in the post
flood period that Cain built in the pre flood period? No.

The Sumerian king list says, "When kingship came down from on high it was
in Eridu." All the principle cities in the region have been excavated and
Eridu is the oldest dated at 4800 BC, roughly the time of Adam. The legend
of Adapa places him at Eridu. He is also called the "Erechian." Erech
appears to be a corruption of "Enoch." The legend of Adapa has small
clues. Adam is told in the sweat of his face he would eat bread, and Adapa
is a baker by trade. Adam is created, Adapa is created. Adam is cut off
from the tree of life while Adapa refuses the food and water that would
have given him eternal life.

And those are just some obvious clues. Others are more subtle. But when
you read a ton of Sumerian and Accadian literature, elements of it do stand
out in a sensible pattern that give general support to the Genesis narrative.

> Putting scientific evidence aside for a moment, can you show me the
> biblical support for your view that Adam is not the first "genuine
> human"? I am trying to accept what you say, but I am having theological
> difficulty with the implications of "genune humans" being around long
> before, during, and after Adam's time.

I posted this earlier, but here it is again.

In a world populated by only three people Cain's lament would be
strange. Cain's first concern was that somebody would kill him. And God
took action by giving him a "mark" of safe passage. And Cain builds a
"city." Who collected the trash? Then we have "Nephilim" (giants) in the
pre flood period (Gen. 6:4), and in the post flood period (Num.13:33). And
in Deuteronomy, we find Emims, Anakims and Zamsummims who don't appear in
the table of nations.

Again, this is not conclusive proof. But it is entirely consistent with
the scientific evidence which supports a long line of hominids dating far
beyond southern Mesopotamia.

So all I can say having spent nearly twenty years on it, is that this is
the one solution that makes sense, is consistent with scientific and
historical evidence, and takes the biblical narrative at full face
value. I don't know any other proposed solution that connects up as many
data points as this one does.

Was Adam created on the spot with no natural parents? I lean that way due
to the Bible's testimony and its description of the creation of Eve, and a
few historical clues But an evolved Adam, if such was the case, does no
injury. I can't close the loop on that one based upon what I know. Maybe
someone can.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Sat Feb 28 11:01:23 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 28 2004 - 11:01:25 EST