RE: Genealogical Gaps?

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Mon Feb 27 2006 - 12:04:36 EST

Hi Glenn:
I wrote:
We have always agreed (I believe) that Adam and Noah were real people.
We have only differed on when they lived. Did Noah live 5,000 years
ago, or did he live 5 million years ago? This should be easy to answer
as the difference is enormously large. At 5 mya Noah would have been a
Homo erectus, not our species. Right? That alone should make one
hesitant I would think.<<<<
GRM:Yeah, it should make one hesitate. But there are two reasons to do
it. First, the only event in earth history that remotely could possibly
look like the global flood is the infilling of the Mediterranean basin.
If one decides that matching the Biblical description of the event with
a real event in geology is of no importance, then of course one should
reject it, make up whatever event one can find (including tiny floods in
the Mesopotamian basin) and go with it.
Wouldn't "matching the biblical description" necessitate that we give
weight to the setting of the Garden of Eden which includes the Euphrates
River, the Hiddekel (Tigris) and the lands included. Where would
"Assyria" have been 5 mya? Assyria is named for Asshur, Noah's
grandson. It has to be local to the Mesopotamian region. How big an
event was hurricane Katrina to you in Bejing at the time? It would
certainly have made a bigger impression had you been holding on to a
light pole on Bourbon Street (as I have done, but not recently I might
GRM:Secondly, one should strive to match the facts of the genome. It
has been known since the late 90s that the nuclear genome had more
diversity than could fit into an out of Africa replacement. Like it or
not, Adam and Eve have been interpreted for centuries as the first man
and woman on earth and that all peoples are descended from them (the
table of nations).
That, of course, is the mountain I have to climb. But the flood has
also been interpreted as a universal deluge wiping out all mankind and
all animal life except for the ark passengers, and we both know that
ain't right. So if one is going to appeal to traditional interpretation
as any measure of reliability, then why wouldn't such a person also
cling to a global flood?
Once again, if we believe that listening to the Biblical account is of
any importance whatsoever, ,then one has to figure out how to explain
the length of time it would take a genetic system to accumulate those
There are no difficulties with genes with a Neolithic Adam if we
understand Genesis as the literal history of the Jewish race and don't
take it as the literal history of the human race.
Of course, if listening to the Biblical account isn't important, then by
all means one should reject it and make up whatever story one wants to
avoid having to put Adam back so far.
My arguments are almost entirely Bible-based with the addition of the
relevant literature and archaeological data from that region.
BTW, I keep going back to the MHC complex which has huge quantities of
genetic variation and would be hard to fit into the human race of only
100,000 years old.
The origins of the human race and its migration patterns I find
interesting, but neither the OOA nor the MRH impacts this method of
apology. It remains somewhat bullet proof. So let Wolpoff war with
Johanson and Leakey and let the best argument win.
GRM: Dick, I would say that if someone wants an account of early Genesis
which has a flood which doesn't match the description in the Bible,
doesn't fit the archaeological record of southern Mesopotamia and
ignores the millennia long belief that Adam and Eve were the first
parents, then yours is the best thing going.
I'll consider that an endorsement.
Don't get me wrong. I really like you and was proud to meet you at the
ASA and would go eat scorpion with you any day of the week. :-)
Hey, didn't you say in an earlier post you were in Boston? I've been in
Boston. They serve real food in Boston. Maybe they don't use stainless
steel utensils like we do in Virginia, or tuck their napkin under their
chin like in Texas, but certainly the chow is decent. Just take it easy
on the baked beans.
I think your theory will be more widely accepted than mine so I want to
say I knew you when.
Ha! At the present rate of acceptance it will be roughly 300 years
before I'll have any impact on Christian apologetics.
GRM:Yeah, I know, my health has been a bit on the bad side lately. I
tell myself constantly that I need to INHALE/EXHALE. But it just won't
Try breathing less fire.
GRM: Seriously, I would rather fit the facts as I understand them than
convince anyone and I think I have been spectactularly successful.
H'mmm . Is the problem your understanding, or our depressingly low
degree of comprehension?
GRM: I didn't realize you were such a literalist. One learns something
every day. I also guess you didn't read my post on my own genealogy
which has people siring people they couldn't have.
I read it. I read all your posts. I even asked for silk worm pupae at
Outback Steakhouse the other day. They said if they get more calls for
it they'll consider making it a menu item :>).
It is apparently a fact of ancient genealogies. Maybe you should read
that and address that point. Also, know that there are demonstrable
gaps in the genealogies which are filled in at other places. the Hebrew
word 'ben' means son of. Jesus was Yeshua ben David, Son of David, but
the two never met on earth.
The Hebrew ben does mean "son of" or "descendant of." It is even
consistent with Sumerian literature. Ziusudra is the Sumerian name for
the hero and the survivor of the great flood. In a book of instructions
from his father, Suruppak (same name as the city), he refers to Ziusudra
as the "son of Ubartutu." (1) Ubartutu stands on the Sumerian king
list just prior to Suruppak or Su-kur LAM (possibly Lamech). If
Ubartutu is the grandfather of Ziusudra, and Ziusudra is Noah, then
Ubartutu is Methuselah.
1. Bendt Alster, The Instructions of Suruppak (Copenhagen: Akademisk
Forlag, 1974), 43-49.
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Mon Feb 27 12:06:12 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 27 2006 - 12:06:13 EST