Re: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

From: dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Sat Jun 06 2009 - 18:55:10 EDT

Dick,
It is obvious that there are parallels between the ancient literature of
Mesopotamia and the first chapters of Genesis. But there is a grave
question: did the Mesopotamian literature borrow from the basic material
of Genesis, or did Genesis borrow from the Mesopotamian legends? The
available evidence is that the legends antedated Genesis.

As I understand your position, Adam was the first ensouled or inspirited
human being, the many coexisting human-like beings and their descendents
becoming ensouled by hearing Adam's message. What evidence can you offer
that there was this kind of transformation spreading from Mesopotamia
about 4000 B.C.? There were at least two groups that were isolated much
earlier and did not contact any persons who had contact with Adamites
until much later, American aborigines and Australian aborigines. How did
they become fully human? Did they have to wait until the European
explorers reached them? A related question is whether a moral code is
possible without the individual possessing a soul. Can you show that the
pre-Adamic Mesopotamians lacked morality? What about the aborigines
mentioned above?

The latest archeological findings seem to indicate that there was more
polytheism in Israel and Judea than the scriptures note. It appears that
it is easier to go from monotheism to polytheism than the reverse. Even
when a single good god is posited, it's easy to specify a counter-deity.
This suggests that the cleaning up of Mesopotamiam legends to preach
monotheism is more likely that its counter.

It's obvious that there are parallels, but what evidence beyond your
steadfast belief is there that the Mesopotamians derived their legends
from the Adamites? that there was a transmission of souls/morals to those
who did not have them? There are certainly indications of worship that
are much earlier than to time of the creation of Adam.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:39:42 -0400 "Dick Fischer"
<dickfischer@verizon.net> writes:
> Hi George:
>
> His comment was that a historical Adam "rejects scientific
> concordism."
>
> Only if a specially-created, Neolithic man was offered up as the
> first
> biological human being on earth from whom all mankind descended
> would it
> reject scientific concordism. Genesis makes no such claim. If
> ignorant
> readers wish to impress upon the text what isn't there then call out
> the
> ignorant readers. Don't beat up on the author(s) and say that what
> they
> wrote wasn't truthful.
>
> The city Cain built is listed on the Sumerian King List in the
> post-flood
> era. Are we to suppose that someone other than Cain built it? Who?
> And
> Cain is only one generation removed from Adam. Perhaps Cain was the
> one
> created and he had no father. Maybe we should just rewrite Genesis
> altogether.
>
> Bottom line - it matters little how much research he has done. His
> conclusion was wrong. To be fair, both of our books were probably
> in press
> at the same time. That was then, however, this is now.
>
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:33 AM
> To: 'Douglas Hayworth'; Dick Fischer
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: RE: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux
>
> It's hardly accurate to say that Denis has not done "any relevant
> research."
> I realize that the research you consider relevant is study of ANE
> history &
> I don't deny the significance of that for understanding scripture.
> But I
> don't think you have given adequate attention to the extremely
> "relevant"
> question of whether early Genesis is the type of literature that
> should be
> read as history. Denis has done considerable research in that area.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> ---- Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Hi Douglas:
> >
> > It's precisely this comment that riles me: "EC by definition
> rejects a
> > historical Adam, because this view of origins rejects scientific
> > concordism."
> >
> > Adam is only one of the Genesis patriarchs listed in Abraham's
> line of
> > ancestry. Since Denis eliminates Adam as a human being who once
> breathed
> > air I would be curious as to how many other patriarchs EC would
> eliminate.
> > Assuming Abraham was a real person at what point would Denis
> propose that
> > mythological forebears gave birth to live human beings.
> >
> > Also, since I spent 27 years of my life searching for evidence
> that
> supports
> > the historicity of Genesis 2-11, naturally I am somewhat miffed by
> one who
> > rejects Genesis historicity out of hand without doing any relevant
> research.
> >
> > Biological evolution looks to be on solid ground because we have
> an
> > abundance of data and evidence to confirm it. The central theme
> of
> > Christianity has support with biblical and historical evidence
> which
> upholds
> > it. And the historicity of the Genesis patriarchs likewise has
> evidence
> in
> > support. On the flip side, there is an absence of evidence that
> biological
> > evolution is untrue or that Jesus Christ had no ministry or that
> Adam
> didn't
> > live. So what I would suggest is that we support the things, all
> things,
> > for which we have we have a database of supporting evidence and
> avoid
> > signing on to things for which there is no evidence in support -
> such as
> the
> > historicity of Adam, for example.
> >
> > Perhaps Douglas you'd be so kind to as to take a glance at what
> I've
> written
> > and conduct a similar interview?
> >
> > Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
> > Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
> > www.historicalgenesis.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Douglas Hayworth
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:06 PM
> > To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> > Subject: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > If you're interested in Denis Lamoureux's views and his book
> > Evolutionary Creation, you may be interested in reading an
> interview
> > that I did with him for my blog Becoming Creation
> > (http://becomingcreation.org). I invite you to leave comments and
> > questions (no long rants, please).
> >
> > I don't join the conversations very often here on the ASA list --
> I'm
> > always amazed at how much some of you are able to write! You're
> all
> > either very fast keyboarders or you've got a lot more time on your
> > hands than I do -- but I do lurk and follow most threads. I'm
> > especially interested in the discussions about education,
> especially
> > those relating to homeschooling. I mention this because I plan on
> > devoting most of my blogging efforts in the coming months to
> > developing content (short essays, etc.) for homeschooling students
> and
> > parents. If you are interested in that topic, please add Becoming
> > Creation to your RSS-feed and comment to provide corrections or
> > suggestions for improvement.
> >
> > Doug Hayworth
> > ASA member
> > Rockford, IL
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
____________________________________________________________
Paying too much for your lawyer? Click here to find lawyers and save money.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOhjVa3uJ20PLoB2ZpAQ4ZenyAqhJmhRE6PCIrBxY42MAy3v9IiMg/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 6 19:01:49 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 06 2009 - 19:01:49 EDT