Hi Paul, you wrote:
>Gen 10:32 seems to imply that Shinar where Sumeria was located (10:10) was
>a nation which came from one of the sons of Noah (10:32). This verse does
>not seem to harmonize very well with the idea that the Sumerians were not
>descendants of Noah. In any case I do not see anything in Scripture which
>positively implies the Sumerians were not descendants of Noah.
The Accadians were concentrated in the northwest part of Mesopotamia which
included the plain of Shinar - a geographical area, not a nation. The
Sumerians
area of concentration was in the southeast. You can see this on any map of
the
region. No one that I know of who has written about Sumer and Accad in this
time frame has suggested that the Accadians were related to the Sumerians.
They spoke entirely independent languages as contrasted with the Canaanites,
Assyrians and Hittites who wrote in a Semitic dialect. In other words, those
nations we know are related from what the Bible says all spoke a Semitic
tongue.
The Sumerians, not referenced in Genesis, had a language of their own. So
it
would be hard to argue any relatedness from a common recent ancestor, like
Noah, although intermarrying was certainly likely as eventually the Sumerians
were absorbed into the Babylonian empire. Noah's wife could even have been
Sumerian, who knows?
>PS Emim is the name which the Moabites gave to the Rephaim (Deut 2:10,11).
>Zamzummim is the name which the Ammonites gave to the Rephaim (Deut 2:20).
>The Anakim are also Rephaim (Deut 2:10,11). And all are giants. The Bible
>does not tell us where the Rephaim came from; but, since we know the Anakim
>were Canaanites (Joshua 15:14--note the sons' names, then see Judges 1:10);
>and the Canaanites were the descendants of Noah (Gen 9:22), it is probable
>that the other Rephaim were also the descendants of Noah.
"Probable" if one believes all mankind came from Noah. Let's start with the
first
mention of "giants" in Gen. 6:4. "There were giants in the earth in those
days
..."
The Hebrew word is "nephilim." Why did the Bible translators decide they
were
"giants"? Why not "midgets"? There is nothing here to suggest size at all.
The translators snuck a peek at Num. 13:33: "And there we saw the giants, the
sons of Anak, which come of the giants (nephlim): and we were in our own
sight
as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Knowing the sons of Anak
were
giants, and that they came from the Gen. 6 Nephilim provided the clue to the
translators that the pre-flood nephilim were giants too, and thus the
translation
This is from The Expositor's Bible Commentary: "On the face of it, the
remark
presents a problem to the view that only Noah and his sons survived the
Flood,
since it suggests that the "sons of Anak" were descendants of the "Nephilim"
(min hannepilim, lit. "from the Nephilim") who lived before the Flood."
So unless Noah had some children before the flood besides the three we know
about, the Nephilim or their descendents survived the flood and spawned the
Anakim. The reason they are called "Canaanites" is not because they
descended
from Canaan, Noah's grandson, but because they lived in the Canaan valley.
>PS I believe the translators saw Isa 2:9 as saying that both the rich and
the
>poor, that is the "great" and the"small" were both bowing down to idols.
The translators did not recognize the significance of 'ish and 'adam, and that
its
usage could suggest separate lines of descent.
>This is probably based on Psalm 49:2 (literally) "Both sons of 'adam and
sons
>of 'ish, rich and poor together."
I think you have to ask why, when one word means both mountains and hills,
and one word means either land or earth, and one word means birds or flying
insects, and only one word denotes either heaven or sky; did they have two
words for "man"?
>PS It would be nice if it were really this simple, but I see no biblical
>reason to think that even the rebellious populations were not descended from
>Adam; and I see along with the translators that "'adam" is used elsewhere to
>refer to people who rebelled against God (as you admitted with the
idolatrous
>nations mentioned in 2Kgs 19:17,18) and "'ish" is used elsewhere to refer to
>those faithful to God.
>Examples of people both descended from Adam and faithful to God but called
>"'ish" are: Noah (Gen 6:9) "...Noah was a righteous 'ish..."
No significance here. Which would I say to my brother? "Allan, you are a
good
Fischer," or "Allan you are a good American," or "Allan, you are a good
man"?
It depends on what I want to say. Bible writers did the same thing.
>Isaac (Gen 24:65) "...who is this 'ish..."
Let's look at Gen. 24:64-65: "And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she
saw
Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What
man
('ish) is this that walketh in the field to meet us?" A perfectly valid
question.
She didn't know Isaac from, well, Adam.
>Jacob (Gen 30:43) "and the 'ish increased exceedingly and had many flocks,
The context of the story in Genesis was that Laban told Jacob to name his
wages and Jacob replied, "Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do
this
thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock: I will pass through all
thy
flock
to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the
brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats:
and of such shall be my hire. So shall my righteousness answer for me in
time
to come ..."
Then what does Jacob do? Skipping some of the details we come to: "And it
came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid
the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might
conceive
among the rods. But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the
feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's."
Whether or not you agree with the outcome, the ploy was to take advantage of
Laban. It is immediately on the heels of Jacob's trickery that it says, "And
the
man (‘ish) increased exceedingly ..." The point possibly being that Jacob
acted
as a "man"
would act and reaped the increase.
>..." and (Gen 42:11) "We are all sons of one 'ish..."
Here is Gen. 42:11-13: "We are all one man's (‘ish) sons; we are true men,
thy
servants are no spies. And he (Joseph) said unto them, Nay, but to see the
nakedness of the land ye are come. And they said, Thy servants are twelve
brethren, the sons of one man (‘ish) in the land of Canaan ..."
The conversation emanates from Joseph's treacherous brothers who may or may
not know the implications of their ancestry. Also "man" is used in this
sentence
in the generic sense, not to imply anything special about him. Or possibly
that
they had no mother, and that Jacob was a widowed or single "man."
>Joseph (Gen 39:2) "And Jehovah was with Joseph and he was a prosperous
>'ish..."
Or you could say that he was prosperous among men. I don't see it as
appropriate to say he was a prosperous "Adamite," even though he had
adamic ancestry.
>The brothers of Joseph (Gen 47:2) "And from his brethren he took five
>'anoshim (the plural of "'ish")..."
No covenant standing for Joseph's brothers.
>The king of Israel (even Messiah) (Ps 80:17) "Let thy hand be upon the 'ish
>of thy right hand, upon the son of 'adam..."
Look at all of Psa. 80:17: "Let thy hand be upon the man ('ish) of thy right
hand, upon the son of man ('adam) whom thou madest strong for thyself."
Even though God's hand is upon all of common man, it is the sons of Adam
whom He has made strong for himself. This is as good a point as I can
make that a clear distinction exists in these cases.
>I do not see as many clear instances of "'enowsh" being used of people
>faithful to God; but, neither is it used clearly to distinguish people in
>rebellion against him. Rather, it is a generic word for man-as-such and is
>used in parallel with "'adam", as in Job 25:6 "How much less 'enowsh that is
>a worm, and the son of 'adam that is a worm"
Why was the parallel necessary? Obviously the writer of Job knew of two
categories of men. We can argue a bit about what the boundaries of those
categories are, and I certainly respect the opinion of an honest, humble
exegete
(or even one not so humble), but I believe that the man "Adam" forms the
basis
of 'adam when it is used after his death. Also, what later became the
Israelites
were a mixed bag early on, blending with probably Ubaidans near the
beginning,
then later Sumerians, possibly Egyptians, and who knows who else?
>Psalm 8:4 "What is 'enowsh that thou art mindful of him, or the son of 'adam
>that thou visitest him?"
Ah, no better example than this. Even though God is caring and "mindful" of
common man, He actually "visits" those who are his own, in this case, the
sons of Adam.
>Isa 56:2 "Blessed is the 'enowsh that doeth this, and the son of 'adam that
>holdeth it fast..." and others. These verses are using the words "'enowsh"
>and "'adam" as synonyms. There is nothing in these verses which suggests
>that "'enowsh" is referring to one kind of people and "'adam" to a different
>kind, rather they suggest that the people designated as 'enowsh are
identical
>with sons of 'adam.
Perception, Paul, is in the eye of the perceiver.
>PS You could say that "'adam" only refers to people who are descendants of
>Adam and who are in the image of God, but that would not logically
>necessitate that people not so designated are not descendants of Adam or not
>have the image of God.
There are hints and clues, data and evidence, but no iron-clad proof. Alas,
'tis
true. I only present the case that a ring of consistency exists between the
Bible,
science, and history if you follow a particular line of reasoning. You can
tear
away at the fabric if you like, but still the rationale I have presented in
this forum
in bits and pieces provides the most logical, plausible method of
reconciliation
to date, in my humble opinion.
>So far as the Bible is concerned, all people are "Adamites."
This just is not true. You only say that because you have been taught that
out
of a common misconception. Let us be reasonable and logical and reserve the
dogmatic approach for the YEC's who have molded it into an art form.
>Scripture's use of the words, "'adam," "'ish" and "'enowsh" does not supply
>any biblical basis for believing in Pre-Adamites.
It does when coupled with historical evidence which I have presented on
numerous occasions, and scientific evidence that has been ably submitted from
many sources here on this list. You cannot examine biblical evidence in a
vacuum which is exactly the problem, and why so many Christians who are
scientists have opted out of believing that Genesis can be trusted on
anything
except for presenting some theological fluff.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 11:02:23 EST