Re: Genealogical Gaps?

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 2006 - 16:47:10 EST

I'm curious for Dick's, Glenn's, and others' perspectives here: In
following all this back-and-forth about the nature of Noah's flood, and
having read some of the materials on the ASA website and elsewhere related
to the debate, it seems that there's a significant amount of disagreement
about whether any of the archeological evidence concerning local
Mesopotamian floods can correlate to Noah's flood. Have there been recent
excavations that shed any light on this, or is the debate mostly about older
excavations (e.g. Wooley)? How extensive, current and reliable is the
archeological data? Is it reasonable to say that some time in the past
~100,000 years, or better in the past ~5,000 years, there could have been a
major localized flood for which we as yet have no good archeological
evidence, or is that just wishful speculation?

On 2/27/06, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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 add).
>
>
>
> 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
> mutations.
>
>
>
> 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 ASAand 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 happen.
>
>
>
> 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 Ziusudraas 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
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 27 16:50:01 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 27 2006 - 16:50:01 EST