Re: RE: [asa] No Adam?

From: <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Mon May 04 2009 - 12:55:02 EDT

Hi Bernie, you wrote:

 

>The Bible does meet standards of ancient history, but not the standards of modern history.  Same for science… ancient science, not modern science in the Bible.<

 

Just as we believe in scientific theories because of corroborating data and evidence the same methods should work for corroborating history, even biblical history.  Granted we are trying to look at an early timeframe when writing was first invented, but if the question is simply Adam or no Adam, then to be fair, the weight of evidence does fall on his existence rather than his non-existence.

 

Start with the Bible itself and note the numbers of times Adam pops up.  I think we can assume the NT writers believed in him and Noah.  Parallel texts such as Jubilees and Josephus start with Adam.  In addition, the name Adamu is found among the names of Akkadians many generations removed.  The Sumerians referred to a list of slaves as the “Adambi.”   The word “edin” pops up in Sumerian and Akkadian literature meaning plain, prairie of steppe.  Adam’s first son Cain appears in the annuls of Josephus with a commentary not found in Genesis.  The city Cain built is found also in the Sumerian king list.

 

And that is just some of the evidence from the pre-flood era.  Now you might consider the amount of evidence as to the existence of Adam to be paltry or insufficient, but there is no evidence to the contrary.  There is nothing on the side of a non-existent Adam except a reluctance to believe.  So for whatever reason we place our confidence in the theory of evolution as opposed to instantaneous creation, or the Big Bang, or whatever scientific theory due to accumulated evidence, I would submit history deserves the same consideration.  We have no good reasons to disbelieve.

 

~Dick Fischer, author, lecturer

Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham

www.historicalgenesis.com

 

May 4, 2009 09:30:42 AM, bernie.dehler@intel.com wrote:

Dick said:
Moving down the list in Genesis 5 and 11, which patriarch do you think was an actual, real live, flesh and blood human being?  Where do you think in the line of patriarchs that a real person had a mythical father?

It is hard to say when you are asking a question of history to a book that is not meant to be a history textbook, according to modern history standards of accuracy.  The Bible does meet standards of ancient history, but not the standards of modern history.  Same for science… ancient science, not modern science in the Bible.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Mon May 4 12:55:50 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 04 2009 - 12:55:50 EDT