RE: [asa] promise trumps biology

From: Dick Fischer <>
Date: Thu Dec 11 2008 - 10:57:04 EST

Hi George:
Hebrew derives directly from Akkadian. You know this as you have a PHD
in theology. For example, the Hebrew El for God and the Islamic Allah
both come from Ilu who was the Akkadian father-god. Yah in Hebrew
derives from Ea. The en- prefix in Enoch and Enosh signifies they were
kings in both Sumerian and Akkadian. Hebrew Eden is Akkadian edin.
Akkadian Adamu is Hebrew Adam. Sumerian Dumuzi is Hebrew Tammuz. How
many "sounds like" would you like?
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:43 AM
To: Dick Fischer;
Subject: Re: [asa] promise trumps biology
Back in the 50s there was a book of cartoons (I think originally from
The New Yorker) with appropriate captions titled Fractured French. The
point of the jokes was the vague resemblance between common French
phrases and things they "sound like" in English - e.g., fin de siecle =
"I'll give you five bucks for the bicycle." I think it will be seen
from the examples Dick gives that his arguments rely pretty heavily on
such "sounds like" etymologies.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick <> Fischer
Cc: ASA <>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:31 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
Hi John:
I wouldn't be so quick to throw in the towel. The past 28 years I have
spent researching Genesis have strengthened my faith in the integrity of
Genesis enormously. I have seen numerous connections both small and
large that have convinced me Genesis 2-11 was intended as a true
historical account of the Israelite nation. You do have to make
allowances for scribal mistakes, errors in translation, Hebrew
expressions and manners of speech, and their egocentricity though.
The region of the Near East has been excavated and analyzed quite
thoroughly over the years. We believe animal sacrifice began with Adam
and spread to his people. Even the Sumerians picked it up. I read a
book in the Library of Congress that was nothing more than a list of
cattle receipts from the market at Drehem. One entry caught my
attention. It was a receipt for "unblemished cattle for sacrifice."
No cities that existed earlier than Eridu show signs of animal
sacrifice. Eridu is the first city to bear the signs of animal
sacrifice. Eridu was dated at 4800 BC and according to Babylonian
tradition was near the Garden of Eden. Even edin means "plain;"
"prairie," or "desert" in Akkadian and Sumerian.
The name "Adamu" perpetuated for centuries among the Akkadians. Even
two Egyptian pyramids were inscribed with the name of the first
"created" being as "Atum," and one of his sons was named "Seth." Who
else could it be?
Eve was taken from Adam's rib and she was the "mother of all living."
Because the word for rib and life was the same in Sumerian, a play on
words was "the lady of the rib is the lady of life."
Cain named his city Enoch and the Sumerians called that city unug in the
Sumerian king list. Following the entry for Ziusudra, the Sumerian
version of Noah, it says: "Then the flood swept thereover."
The "fountains of the deep" broke up in the flood according to Genesis
and the exact same expression in Atrahasis shows clearly it pertained to
their irrigation apparatus.
The Akkadians worshipped a trinity or at least a triad of gods. The
Sumerians readily adopted them and they are always depicted in Akkadian
The Tower of Babel was one of over 30 ziggurats that were built in the
region initially as a means to survive frequent floods. It was
destroyed by Sennacherib, rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar, and visited by the
first historian, Herodotus.
Nimrod ruled in Babylon and a statue of him was unearthed at the city of
Birs Nimrud.
I could go on and relate dozens of connections that in totality are
entirely convincing to me that Genesis 2-11 is valid history, but you
know how to access the information, John. Go to any library and request
the book on interlibrary loan. It costs you nothing.
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History" <>
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:52 PM
To:; Dehler, Bernie
Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> I think honesty requires us to read it
> as intended, and then deal with it according to the
> truth/light that we have. It is unreasonable to think that
> the text is trying to describe a local flood, or that a
> local flood could fulfill the passage.
I agree with this analysis. It is unpleasant to us and puts the lie to
the Bibliolatrous Inerrancy doctrine but as Bernie says, intellectual
honesty and integrity demands it.
Sorry but we have to grow up and face this. Its the dirty little secret
of the church that the Bible isn't really what we were all raised to
think it was. That doesn't mean it still isn't inspired and contains
truth about all the important doctrines of Christianity, but just that
it is not a silver bullet to answer all of life's questions and with
magic powers.
I wished someone would have explained it to me this way when I was a
young Christian.
--- On Wed, 12/10/08, Dehler, Bernie <> wrote:
> From: Dehler, Bernie <>
> Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> To: "" <>
> Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 11:44 AM
> If the writer wanted to make the reader clear that it really
> was the whole world, he might put in extra words to be very
> clear about that. And that's what he did by saying how
> long the flood was (1 year, which is impossible from
> experience for a local flood) and how it covered the highest
> mountain and then some.
> A local flood requires a bowl shape to keep in water. If
> the water goes over the roof of the bowl, it can't be
> contained. Scripture clearly says the water went over the
> mountains. It follows that it went over, it wasn't just
> spilling, but also filling up, so the whole Earth was
> covered in water-- it spilled over until the water was the
> same level everywhere until it couldn't spill over any
> more and the water level simply covered the tallest mountain
> and then some, as scripture says.
> Why not just believe it, literaly? Because of science. The
> writers of the Bible didn't have this scientific
> knowledge. We do. I think honesty requires us to read it
> as intended, and then deal with it according to the
> truth/light that we have. It is unreasonable to think that
> the text is trying to describe a local flood, or that a
> local flood could fulfill the passage.
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of George
> Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> Bernie,
> 2 Peter 3 does not say "whole world", regardless
> of which Bible version
> selected. This phrase, however, is used a number of times
> in the NT. But
> even these do not necessarily refer to the entire globe,
> but rather the
> whole known world, apparently.
> Consider...
> Rm 1:8 "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for
> you all, that your
> faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."
> That makes sense if it is in the context of those in the
> known world, and
> not every human on the planet.
> The use of "world" in the 16th century was often
> used to refer to the cosmos
> or universe. Copernicus used it many times in his de
> Revolutionibus.
> Coope
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On
> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:52 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> Gordon Brown said:
> " There are problems with proof texting when one uses
> an English
> translation. The English may be more clear-cut than the
> original. In the
> Biblical languages the same word is used for land and
> earth."
> RE:
> 2 Peter 3:
> 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged
> and destroyed.
> Here it says the whole "world."
> Strong's says this:
> None of those options (in the definition by Strongs)
> involve a partial
> covering of the Earth.
> Literally, I think it is clear Peter meant the whole world.
> I think he was
> wrong, because he didn't have the luxury of science as
> we do now, to know
> that the whole Earth was never flooded.
> I don't see the relevance of your mentioning Deut.
> 2;25- you'll need to
> explain more fully. I think they meant the world as they
> knew it, in that
> passage.
> My point wasn't to argue the flood. My point was that
> Dick said that George
> didn't believe Moses, so it appeared to me the same
> charge could be leveled
> at Dick himself. I'm sure Moses thought the flood was
> worldwide, and wrote
> as such. If Moses (and Peter) thought the flood was local,
> he sure was a
> super lousy communicator!
> ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 11 10:59:32 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 11 2008 - 10:59:32 EST