RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

Hi Phil, I wrote:
From all the evidence I would conclude that Dumuzi was a real person who
led a fabled life - a real Arnold Schwarzenegger type of guy who had a
brief encounter with Adapa who could be Adam. Gilgamesh gets no
biblical mention, but also had an interesting life touching on one of
our biblical characters, Noah. No one looks for ways to drive Dumuzi
and Gilgamesh into antiquity because no one cares. We don't have any
preconceptions about them. They aren't wrapped up in Bible doctrine.
But because Adam has been reputed to be the ultimate ancestor, Hugh Ross
and others conjure up ways to get him back to within a believable time
frame.
You wrote:
 
But you know that in the process of transforming real people into myths,
the myths get reworked so many times that it is difficult-to-impossible
to discern what the original truth was. I wouldn't doubt that Dumuzi
was a real person, but the idea that he met Adapa comes from a second
myth that has Adapa entering heaven. In order to fill out the Adapa
story, all the right characters in heaven had to appear in the story,
and so the mythological version of Dumuzi would necessarily be
incorporated into that tale. This appearance provides absolutely no
basis to think that the real Adapa ever met the real Dumuzi.
 
I agree. The same is true of Gilgamesh. I think it is likely that
inventive scribes were responsible. But this is also true of the
pseudepigrapha that abounded in ancient literature. The book of Enoch
is one example. These early writers would take factual elements and
bind them into a tale. Demythologizing the literature is extremely
difficult. At the very least you can rely on the places and people
mentioned to be likely true to the facts. They didn't invent any cities
or rivers or cultural elements. By extrapolation we can infer that none
of the people mentioned were inventions, although the gods did things
too and we don't believe in them. In some instances you can be guided
by logic. But given how illogical we can be that won't work on
everybody.
 
If someone four thousand years from now would look at our literature of
today, would they know who were real and who weren't? What about Paul
Bunyan, Spiderman, John Henry, Ichabod Crane, Ebenezer Scrooge, St.
Nicholas, Quasimodo? I'll bet some of us aren't sure about all of these
guys now.
 
There are definite clues about Adapa that persuade me that he in all
likelihood is Adam, not the least of which describes him as "created" by
the god, Ea.
In Egypt, the pyramids of kings Mer-ne-Re and Nefer-ka-Re were inscribed
with a dedication dating to about 2400 BC, centuries before Abraham, and
many centuries before Moses. The text speaks of a first creation and a
deified "Atum" who was on a primeval hill arising "out of the waters of
chaos." Among those "whom Atum begot," according to the inscription, is
one named "Seth."
Dick, this is very interesting! I'd like to know more about it.
That's about all I know. I picked it up from Pritchard's book, Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. You can look at the
gods of early Egypt and see some basis for their hierarchical structure
here.
I don't see that it distinguishes between your versus my view of Adam. I
agree with you that Abraham wasn't the first person to believe in the
biblical creation account. I'm sure there were people from the time of
Seth or Enosh on down who called on the name of Yahweh (Gen.4:26) and
that somewhere along the way the account of the garden of Eden became
the early "canon" for these peoples. That it could find its way to
Egypt wouldn't surprise me.
It could have. I agree.
That doesn't mean that I am convinced it really did find its way to
Egypt, however. First I have a question. I don't understand how we can
tell the pronunciation of names from an Egyptian inscription dated to
2400 BC, since phonetic alphabets weren't invented for another 1000
years. As you know, they used heiroglyphs at that time. How can we
tell that a particular heiroglyph means "Seth"??? I can understand that
key figures like this Atum may show up again in later inscriptions and
allow us to compare the name to a phonetic form. Is that how we know
the heiroglyph means "Seth"? Was it translated for us into phonetic
form by later Egytians (more than 1000 years later), or does it come to
us by some other route?
You need to consult an Egytologist for that. This comes from the
following web site: http://www.touregypt.net/gods1.htm
"While the new capitol was in the process of building the dispute
between the king and the priests of Amen-Ra became more severe, and
matters were much aggravated by Amenhetep IV. At length the king left
Thebes an took up his abode in his new capitol, which he called
"Khut-Aten," i.e., "Hotizon of Aten," and as a sign of the entire
severance of his connection with traditions of his house in respect of
Amen-Ra he discarded his name "Amen-hetep" and called himself Khut-Aten
i.e., "Glory of Aten," or, "Spirit of Aten." At the time he changed his
Horus name of "Exalted One of the double plumes" to "Mighty Bull,
beloved of Aten" {or, lover of Aten}, and he adopted as lord of the
shrines of Nekhebet and Uatchet the title of "Mighty one of sovereignity
in Khut-Aten," and as the Horus of gold he styled himself, "Exalter of
the name Aten."
Does "Amen" and "Aten" and "Atum" ring with Adam?
Atum - "A primordial god that was represented in the form of a human and
a serpent. He was the supreme god in the Heliopolitan Ennead (group of
nine gods) and formed with Re to create Re-Atum."
Seth - "The son of Geb and Nut in the Heliopolitan Ennead was in the
form of an animal that has no zoological equivalent. This powerful god
was regarded as god of the desert, making him a god of foreign lands."
If any of these commonalities are connections then it points more toward
a Neolithic Adam than it does to an Adam living many tens of thousands
or years ago.
But in any case, the main point is that this Egyptian story doesn't
distinguish between your or my view of Adam. We both agree that early
descendants of Seth knew about the Garden of Eden account.
I agree we agree.
Plus, what can you do with this verse to avoid a strictly father-son
relationship between Adam and Seth? Genesis 4:25: "And Adam knew his
wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said
she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."
I would read it as normal literary technique for that day in a very
compressed creation account. It tells us the good news that the
descendants of Adam were not limited to the failing line of Cain. There
eventually came out from Adam (from mankind, descended from Adam) a
person named Seth. The momentousness of this occaision called for its
emphasis in the text using standard literary techniques of that day.
 
And here we disagree. The only reason to make this assessment is to try
and provide a rationale to drive Adam back in time. There is no other
reason to make this conclusion. You have one eye on Scripture and one
eye on traditional theology and no eyes on history.
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
Received on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:52:41 -0400