So, this is paradise - a bountiful garden, a lovely wife, no screaming kids. Could a man ask for more? In some respects, Adam had it all. Yet he may have had an awesome responsibility he never fulfilled. As the first type of Christ, Adam may have been given a similar mission: to bring the word of God's kingdom to the polytheistic heathen living all around him. We can only guess. We can never know with certainty what it was Adam was supposed to have done, or could have done had he not yielded to Satan's odious deception so early on.
Genesis 3:1-6. The wily serpent taunted and tempted Eve, who succumbed to his crafty deceit, and ate of the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." She, in turn, invited Adam who yielded to temptation and committed the sin of disobedience.
Those critical of a literal interpretation of Genesis pose what at first seem to be insurmountable questions, "Do you really believe a snake can talk?" and, "Aren't these passages intended to have purely symbolic meaning?"
In response, spirit beings sometimes do appear in human and animal form. For example, the Holy Spirit "descended in a bodily shape like a dove" at the baptism of Christ (Luke 3:22). In Genesis 2:26, the covenant pair was given dominion over the animals and "every creeping thing," including serpents. Eve had the power and authority to rebuke the serpent, but instead, she surrendered her God-given authority and submitted herself to Satan's influence through the guile of the serpent's words.
Had Satan appeared as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14), presenting himself in splendor, a certain intimidation factor would have been introduced, his words would have seemed more credible. Eve might have been excused for believing those cunning words if Satan had appeared as a god-like being. Coming from a serpent, Eve was truly without excuse. It was simply the power of a clever argument that was her undoing.
In Luke 4:6, Satan tempted Jesus three times. Satan boasted that the power and the glory "is delivered" unto him, and that he could give it to "whomsoever" he pleased. No place in Scripture can we find where God gave him this office of power, yet he had it, and it was delegated to him. It was precisely this authority given to the covenant pair that solely through devious persuasion was delivered up on a silver platter to a lowly serpent, and it was only man's to give.
Truth or Consequences
Genesis 3:7: "And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked;..."
Satan told them that if they ate of the tree their eyes would be opened. And opened they were, to see they were naked before the Lord, and short on alibis.
Genesis 3:11. God puts the question, "Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" Suddenly Adam needed help. He might have fallen on his face and begged forgiveness. Even after the transgression, a contrite heart might have been rewarded. Or Adam could have shouldered the blame. "Spare my wife, and I, even I, will accept responsibility for it," could have been his plea. God might have appreciated and accepted that. Even a plaintive, "The devil made us do it," would have been preferable. But there was none of that. Not repentance, or sorrow, or brokenness, but instead, panic ensued as Adam sought a scapegoat. In desperation, he turned on the only parties immediately available, his wife and his God.
Genesis 3:12: "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat," Adam bleated.
The very wife Adam had been given to love and protect, he offered up to shield his guilt. And worse, Adam implicated the Giver of the gift. Squandering the opportunity to atone for his misdeed, Adam shifted the interrogation to Eve, who proved to be a quick study and countered with, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat" (Gen. 3:13).
And the crafty art of finger pointing entered the world.
Genesis 3:15. Speaking directly to the serpent, God announces the first prophecy of the Old Testament to the coming Messiah. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed ..."
Her "seed" was not Abel, whom Satan plotted against successfully in his bid to foil God's judgment, but Christ who through His dying would gain the victory. "It [He] shall bruise thy head," directs a death blow that would befall the evil serpent through the resurrection and final judgment after "thou shalt bruise his heel" at the cross.
... this clause is considered universally as referring to a Redeemer, who, in human nature, and a son of woman born, should, after partial suffering from a wicked malignant power, obtain a complete victory, and deprive it of all further means or opportunity of doing evil. The seed of the woman who was to bruise the serpent's head is connected with a singular verb and pronoun, and, denoting therefore an individual, points to Christ personally in a peculiar and emphatic sense. [i]
The pertinent point is this: biblical prophecy comes wrapped in biblical history. This is a hand in glove relationship, a muscle on bone union. Efforts to discount the historical narrative by well-intended expositors can only hurt the integrity of the Bible and cause some to question whether any parts of the Bible can be trusted.
Genesis 3:16-17. What were the physical results of the sin of disobedience, if any? God told Eve that He would, "multiply thy sorrow and thy conception: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children ...," and for Adam, "cursed is the ground for thy sake ..."
The Hebrew word, `itstsabown, translated "sorrow," also includes pain, labor, and hardship. The operative part of the prophecy could be questioned, though, is it "sorrow," or "thou shalt bring forth children"?
Can we derive that Eve would have enjoyed painless delivery before Original Sin, or would she have had no children at all? Was the character of the ground changed due to God's curse, or were "thorns" and "thistles" outside the garden all along, which Adam had not encountered while enjoying peaceful confines?
It is entirely possible that nothing physical, biological, or horticultural happened as an immediate result of Adam's sin. It may be that the repercussions of judgment are to be understood in the spiritual sense. We cannot rule out that Adam and Eve might have suffered a biological or genetic alteration as a consequence of their sin, but neither can we assume it from the words of Scripture.
Adam must have been created biologically compatible with his neighbors outside the garden. It seems unlikely he was some kind of superman who had his genes altered after the Fall. The spiritual bond between God and man was broken. We could say then that spiritual death is surely indicated, and that physical death may or may not have been included.
If Adam had continued access to the tree of life, even after the Fall, he could have lived forever (Gen. 3:22). To prevent this, a "flaming sword" barred his entrance to the garden (Gen. 3:24). Was physical death any novelty prior to Original Sin? No, physical death has been part of the scheme of life for over 3 billion years, beginning with the most primitive of God's creations. Physical death was no stranger to early man either whose remains predate the introduction of Adam and Eve.
As a consequence of the Fall, spiritual death, a separation from God, is mandated by the text. It is evident from the immediate results that a close communal relationship between Adam and God had been severed. Possibly, physical death too may have resulted for Adam and his generations with coincident implications for mankind in general.
Death Through Sin
In Paul's letter to the Romans, he explained that due to Adam's sin, "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12). Does this verse say anything about ancestry? Does our DNA contain a coding for sin? If so, could Adam be the source?
During World War II, the Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, was responsible for the senseless and tragic eradication of 6 million innocent Jewish civilians. Were the Jews sinners? Of course, "there is none righteous, no not one" (Rom 3:10). Was the Nazi dictator, by his insane decree, directly responsible for the death of those Jews? Yes, he was. Is it accurate to say that death passed upon all of them due to the sin of one man? Yes, it is. Were those 6 million who died descendants of the Nazi dictator? Obviously not.
In 1656, Isaac de la Peyrére argued eloquently in Men Before Adam that a literal interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 indicated the world was populated before Adam. The key was verse 13: "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Peyrére reasoned that the law was given to Adam shortly after his creation, and if there was "sin in the world" at that time, there must have been people to do it:
... it must be held that sin was in the world before Adam and until Adam: but that sin was not imputed before Adam; Therefore other men were to be allowed before Adam who had indeed sinn'd, but without imputation; because before the law sins wer [sic] not imputed. [ii]
Although men and sin were in the world before Adam, the manner of sin was in the form of offenses against nature, violations of "natural law," and all died a natural death. It was not until God imposed moral law, with Adam the first to be subject to it, that men were capable of "legal sin," trespasses against God's law. [iii] Beginning with Adam's Fall, human beings die both a natural death and a "legal" or spiritual death.
Ten years before Peyrére wrote Men Before Adam, the Westminster Divines penned their Confession of Faith. They sought to avoid any implications that all of humanity did not commence with Adam by putting the law on Moses. But if Mosaic law, and not Adamic law, was intended by Romans 5:13, it could mean that sin was not charged before Moses! No, the interpreters were not stepping into that trap. The Divines clearly recognized that the moral law, the "covenant of works," was given to Adam and said so:
The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him ... was the moral law. [iv]
If moral law was given to Adam, and already "sin was in the world," then wouldn't this involve people? The Westminster Divines were unwilling to entertain that possibility. They believed humanity started with Adam, and sin was passed to his posterity by "natural generation." The harmonizing device employed (although not mentioned specifically in the Westminster Confession) was to maintain that imputation of sin was through the law of Moses, but that it somehow applied retroactively to Adam and his descendants. This made no sense, of course, but they were torn between the illogical and the unthinkable. So, according to the Divines, the moral law was not "comprehended" until the Ten Commandments were delivered by God to Moses. [v]
Peyrére railed against the position taken by the Divines and their insistence that "the law" was the law of Moses:
The Interpreters being between two such inconveniences, were at a stand, nor did know which way to turn themselves; But because it seemed less prejudicial to affirm, that sins were not imputed before Moses, and until Moses, than to affirm that there were any men before Adam! Therefore they preferred the first inconvenience before the second. [vi]
In Peyrére's mind, since the law transgressed was the law given to Adam of Genesis, the sin was perpetrated by those who co-existed and pre-existed Adam. Sin was not imputed to those forerunners, however, until Adam disobeyed God's law.
Before the Law of God, or till that Law of God was violated by Adam, sin and death were in the world, yet had gained no power over it : they had got no lawful possession, they had got no absolute power. The reason is, because before that time there was no Law given by God. [vii]
Clearly, sin was imputed from Adam to Moses. What brought the flood? Was the flood not judgment for sin? Or for that matter, what about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? And if the subject of Romans 5:13 was Adamic law, the sin that "was in the world" was committed by men other than Adam.
We will never know Adam's mission on earth with certainty. It probably was intended that he was to bring news of God's kingdom to the polytheistic heathen. Adam had life to offer, perhaps tied to the tree of life some way. But regardless of what Adam was supposed to have done, however he would have done it, being human, he failed. The "second Adam" was God incarnate, and succeeded.
Adam's sin caused spiritual death upon all men, not because he was father to us all, but because he failed to be an example to us all. Adam was not the biological head of our species, but the Federal head of the human race.
The parallel Paul strikes between Adam and Christ is significant. Bloodlines are of no regard in obtaining salvation by way of the second Adam, just as bloodlines do not put us under the penalty of sin from the first Adam. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. Indeed, he may have alluded to the gentiles being outside of Adam's line. "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" (Rom. 5:14).
It is clear from Romans 5:12-18 that all men come under the sin of Adam through his transgression, and therefore, all need a savior. What is not mandated by the text is that gentiles have Adamic ancestry, and maybe, just the opposite. It was neither by imitation nor propagation that Original Sin passed to all mankind, but by representation. Adam was the chosen intermediary; thus, we have the assurance there was no condemnation without representation.
Genesis 3:19,23: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread ...," and, "... the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
Could we believe the first man on earth already knew how to use fire, construct an oven, plant and harvest grain, mill it, and prepare the flour for baking? If not, then we may conclude that Adam was not the first man in the biological sense.
Prehistoric men hunted wild game and gathered fruits and berries. Farming and raising livestock were later developments. Paleontologists have uncovered evidence that ancient peoples harvested wild wheat as far back as 9000 BC. It took a genetic crossing of goat grass and "emmer" to produce wheat bread. The earliest evidence of wheat cultivation was found in the ancient oasis of Jericho and is dated at 8000 BC. [viii]
Wheat, and therefore bread, predates Adam by about 3,000 years, and nearly 4,000 years were we to use the Archbishop Ussher scale. That gives us two choices if we subscribe to a recent Adam. We can either deny the anthropological data, or allow that these agricultural developments predate Adam. If we choose the second option, Adam was surrounded at the inception, or became surrounded by people already familiar with growing grain.
Knowledge of Fire
Those who place Adam as the first human will say that Adam must have been educated by God, that he was given speech, knowledge, and mechanical skills. Certainly, God could have taught him things. However, paleontologists have uncovered evidence where early hominids manufactured and used stone tools where the use of fire was not evident.
If Adam possessed the knowledge of fire, and it was passed down through Adam's generations, how would we account for the existence of hominids smart enough to make tools, but who did not know about fire? Simply, they were forerunners, not descendants. Later, fire was discovered.
In caves near Peking, layer upon layer of ashes, baked sediments, and charred animal bones were found. These caves had been occupied by Homo erectus, archaeologists say, and date their findings at around 500,000 years ago. [ix] If scientists are correct, then a gap of nearly half a million years would have to be conceded in the Genesis record for these cave dwellers to be Adam's descendants. If they are predecessors, however, the Genesis chronology is intact, but the knowledge of fire preceded Adam, not the other way around.
The Legend of Adapa
Cuneiform inscribed clay tablets discovered in Mesopotamian excavations have given archaeologists a picture of a region almost totally unknown only a century ago. These inscriptions have provided valuable insights into the history, religion, and racial characteristics of the people who lived there. And some of these writings contain references that seem to pertain to Adam.
The first people largely recognized as Semites, or Adamites, were the Semitic Accadians in the post flood period, though traces of these people date to possibly as early as 4000 BC. Judging from their inscriptions, the early Accadians had a triune God. From the beginning, the Accadian "trinity" consisted of El (or Ilu), the father god; Ea, god of the earth and creator of man; and Enlil, the god of the air. Also dating to 4000 BC, the polytheistic Sumerians were distinct from the Semitic Accadians and spoke an unrelated language.
As contact developed between these two cultures, things began to rub off. The Accadian father-god El was corrupted to "Anu" under pressure of the Sumerian "An." Enlil moved into second place, and Ea, known by the Sumerians as "Enki," dropped to third. [x]
Several fragments of the "Legend of Adapa" were taken from the Library of Ashurbanipal (668-626 BC) at Ninevah. One also was found in the Egyptian archives of Amenophis III and IV of the fourteenth century BC. [xi]
According to Accadian legend, Ea created Adapa an exemplary man, endowed with "superhuman wisdom," but not eternal life. A fishing accident angered Adapa, who broke the wing of the south wind, and was summoned to heaven to appear before god Anu. Ea warned Adapa not to eat a certain food or drink any water that would be offered to him. A cautious Adapa shuns the food and water of life, whereby he would have acquired eternal life. [xii]
A fragment of one record of the Adapa legend rests in the Pierpont Morgan Library. Inscribed in Amorite, a Semitic language, this is part of the translation:
In those days, in those years, the sage, the man of Eridu,
Ea, made him like a (riddi) among men;
A sage, whose command no one could oppose;
The mighty one, the Atra-hasis of the Anunaki, is he;
Blameless, clean of hands, anointer, observer of laws.
With the bakers, he does the baking;
With the bakers of Eridu, he does the baking. [xiii]
Adam of the Bible and Adapa of Amorite legend were both human sons of God, or a god. According to the legend, Adapa was a sage, a profoundly wise man, in Eridu.
Could it be only coincidence that Adam was told "by the sweat of his face" he would eat "bread," and Adapa was a baker by trade; or that Adapa was deprived of eternal life by not eating or drinking the "food or water of life," while Adam was cut off from eating the fruit of the "tree of life"?
Regarded as a prophet or seer, Adapa had been priest of the temple of Ea at Eridu. He is described as "blameless," "clean of hands," "anointer and observer of laws." Could that also describe Adam, the first type of Christ? Also, Adam was taken from the ground; in the Hebrew: 'adam from 'adamah. How close phonetically is 'adamah to Adapa?
Did Adam's Fall affect following generations? These two lines are part of one Adapa fragment:
[...] what ill he has brought upon mankind,
[And] the disease that he brought upon the bodies of men ... [xiv]
From the Apocrypha, this Jewish tradition of the Fall is also reflected in II Esdras 7:48:
O Adam, what have you done?
For though it was you who sinned,
the fall was not yours alone,
but ours also who are your descendants. [xv]
Westermann concludes that in this text Adam is not understood as a "representative of mankind created by God, but as an historical individual whose `Fall' was passed on through him to his descendants." [xvi]
Eridu, the Home of Adapa
In 1940-41, the Iraqi government undertook the excavation of Eridu, home of Adapa.
Here at last it was possible to trace a full and uninterrupted sequence of occupations back through the whole duration of the Al 'Ubaid period to an earliest settlement with some features so distinctive that doubts arose as to whether the name Al 'Ubaid could still appropriately be applied to it. [xvii]
Some of the pottery found at the lowest of 19 levels of occupation was so unique that the excavators called it "Eridu ware." It was described as an "extremely fine quality monochrome-painted ware, often with a buff or cream slip." [xviii] There was also at the lowest level a high percentage of coarse green pottery typical of Ubaid ceramic. Enough similarities were noted between the coarse Ubaid pottery at Eridu with that of the earlier Hassuna and Samarra cultures to denote that at least some of those early settlers had been migrants from the north.
If the two different pottery styles found at the lowest level of the site are indicative of two separate cultures living side by side, one Adamite, the other Ubaid, then these pottery shards are of some importance. Quite possibly some of these remnants are from early Adamite populations.
Whatever culture was responsible for Eridu ware, Adamite or otherwise, evidently, it was supplanted by Ubaid culture as only Ubaid pottery could be found at higher levels. And just as the pottery disappeared, so perhaps did the Adamites by moving north.
Is Eridu Synonymous with Eden?
It was pointed out in the previous chapter that the Bible implies irrigation for Adam's garden, presumably via canal from Eden (Gen. 2:8,10). In 1948-1949, Fuad Safer examined several mounds just outside of Eridu, and reported:
The mounds were found to lie on the banks of the bed of a wide canal which, in ancient times, was undoubtedly connected with the River Euphrates. The recognition of this canal and the tracing of its course are now extremely difficult, as it has been filled with sand and soil drifted in from the surrounding plain. The course of the canal crosses the flat depression of Eridu from north-west to south-east and its nearest point to Eridu is about 3 kilometres from the south-west of that site. [xix]
A branch canal from the main canal west of the city to water a garden located east of the city would have flowed through that city, exactly as stated in Genesis 2:8,10.
The Sumerian word edin means "plain," "prairie," or "desert." [xx] Its Accadian equivalent is edinu. [xxi] "Eden" most probably has an Accadian/Sumerian origin. Eridu is the earliest known settlement in Southern Mesopotamia at about 4800 BC. [xxii] The Sumerians also regarded Eridu as a sacred city. Could Eridu be synonymous with Eden? The time and place are an excellent fit. And as Eden has become a staple of our language shortened from edinu, so has a shortened version of Eridu. It’s the word “arid” pertaining to a desert.
Eridu is identified as the home of Adapa, but in another fragment, Adapa is called "the Erechian." [xxiii] This, coupled with the disappearance of Eridu Ware, may indicate a relocation of the Adamites from Eridu to Erech, the Sumerian "Uruk."
Uruk was first settled around 4200 B.C. by the Ubaid people, and at the lower levels it seems to be a characteristically Ubaid site. But beginning around 3500 B.C., there is evidence of major changes which some archaeologists believe were characteristic of a new culture and others believe represented an indigenous evolution of the "Ubaidans." [xxiv]
Erech began around 4200 BC, some 600 years after Eridu. Again, the timing fits. The reason for moving 50 miles north could have resulted from Eridu being sacked. The kingship was overthrown; according to the Sumerian king list, a new king came to power at Badtabira. Erech was established in the pre-flood period according to Sumerian accounts, and re-established after the flood. Erech and the city of Ubaid, located only 30 miles apart, were contemporary cities situated about 140 miles southeast of Babylon. [xxv]
If Adam and his kin journeyed to Erech after the fall of Eridu, then this placed the children of Seth at Erech as near to the Cainite kids at Enoch (the location of the city of Enoch is discussed in chapter 12) as Brooklyn is to the Bronx. Driver took note of the remarkable similarity in names in both lines of descent. [xxvi] Compare Sethites: Enosh, Mahalalel, Methuselah, and Lamech with Cainites: Enoch, Mehujael, Methushael, and Lamech. The similarities are understandable if they lived in close proximity.
In addition to the Bible, possible variations of the name Adam appear elsewhere. On a Sumerian list of ten pre-flood kings ending in Ziusudra (the Sumerian Noah), the first king is "Alulim."
When the kingship was lowered from heaven
the kingship was in Eridu.
In Eridu Alulim became king ... [xxvii]
Adapa (created by the god Ea) and Alulim (king by heavenly decree) are both placed at Eridu. If Eridu is Eden, then Adapa, Alulim, and Adam could all be the same man. Conversely, if Adapa, Alulim, and Adam are the same person, and considering that the Sumerian, Accadian, and Assyrian texts place him at Eridu, then by the same token, Eridu should be Eden.
A clay tablet was recovered in excavations at Khorsabad in 1933-34. It contains a list of Assyrian kings beginning with "17 kings who lived in tents," [xxviii] probably nomads. "Tudia" tops the list of kings followed by "Adamu," a likely namesake of his famous forefather. Farther down the list, the 38th king is "Puzar-Assur." He was one of many Assyrian kings named in honor of a more immediate forefather, Asshur of Genesis 10:11. This exact same naming pattern is consistent with a descendant of Cain in Genesis 4:22 - Tubal-cain.
Another king list is attributed to the Babylonian priest, Berossus. He recorded "Alorus" first on a list of ten pre-flood kings. According to Berossus, Alorus was "appointed by God as Shepherd of men."
The title, "the Son of God," reserved for Sumerian royalty, was used also for one called "Adamu." [xxix] This is a title identical to that used of Adam in Luke 3:38 where the genealogy of Christ originates with "Adam, the son of God."
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." [xxx]
Could Alorus, Adapa, Alulim, Adamu, Atum, and Adam be all the same person? Perhaps a better question would be, what rationale could be employed to explain away the commonalities? At least some of these secular references must pertain to the first man in biblical history. If these Egyptian, Sumerian, Accadian, Amorite, and Hebrew variations are derived from one man, the most obvious conclusion, then this not only establishes an historical Adam, a.k.a. Adamu, Atum, etc., but the time and the place is also confirmed, and in complete harmony with the Genesis text!
It should come as no surprise that Egyptian inscriptions, Sumerian legends, and Amorite epics would be based upon historical persons and events. The Sumerians probably learned about Adamic history from their own forefathers, or from their Semite neighbors who were direct descendants of Adam. Many times the Sumerians were subjects of Semite kings; the great Sargon, for example, began his reign over the entire region in 2371 BC. Adam and his successors also may have ruled over the Ubaidans who, possibly, were ancestral to the Sumerians.
The Amorites (Gen. 10:16) were descendants of Noah's grandson, Canaan. They must have passed the history of their forefathers down through their generations just as the Israelites did, but centuries of retelling took its toll. There was a special purpose in protecting the accuracy of the creation narrative handed down through the line of promise from Shem to Abraham, and through to Moses. Parallel accounts, even with embellishments and distortions, should only increase our confidence in the historical value of the Genesis narrative and affirm the astounding probability there was really a man called Adam.
[i] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1945), 57.
[ii] Isaac de la Peyrére, Men Before Adam. Or a Discourse upon the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth Verses of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. By which are prov'd, That the first Men were created before Adam. (London: 1656), 19.
[iii] Ibid., 3-5.
[iv] From the "Larger Catechism," The Confession of Faith (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1838), 246.
[v] Ibid., 251.
[vi] Peyrére, Men Before Adam, 19.
[vii] Ibid., 19.
[viii] John Wiester, The Genesis Connection (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 187.
[ix] John Gowlett, Ascent to Civilization (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984), 57.
[x] Gwendolyn Leick, A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology (New York: Routledge, 1991), 37.
[xi] Albert T. Clay, A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922), 39-41.
[xii] Ibid., 40.
[xiii] Ibid., 41.
[xiv] James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 103.
[xv] Claus Westermann, Creation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 108.
[xvi] Ibid., 108.
[xvii] Seton Lloyd, "Ur-Al `Ubaid, Uquair and Eridu," Iraq, n.s., 22 (1960), 25.
[xviii] John Oates, "Ur and Eridu, the Prehistory," Iraq, n.s., 22 (1960), 33.
[xix] Fuad Safer, Sumer 6 (1950), 28.
[xx] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen & Co, Ltd., 1938), 38.
[xxi] R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, and Bruce Waltke, editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 2 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 646.
[xxii] C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and Jeremy A. Sarloff, Ancient Civilizations: The Near East and Mesoamerica (Menlo Park: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1979), 110.
[xxiii] Clay, A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform, 41.
[xxiv] Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sarloff, Ancient Civilizations: The Near East and Mesoamerica, 145.
[xxv] Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The MacMillan Bible Atlas (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1977), 20.
[xxvi] S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen & Co, Ltd., 1938), 80.
[xxvii] Thorkild Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), 71.
[xxviii] Arno Poebel, "The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, (1942) Vol. 1, No. 3, 252.
[xxix] L. A. Waddell, The Phoenician Origin of the Britons, Scots, and Anglo-Saxons (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1924), 239, 253.
[xxx] Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3.