The Flood and Subsequent Civilization



by Dr. David Livingston

Terra Is Truly Firma An article in US News & World Report told a marvelous story about "Terra," the super-computer program at Los Alamos, New Mexico, which was designed "to prove that the story of Noah and the flood of Genesis 7:18 . . . happened exactly as the Bible tells it." It seems that John Baumgardner, who designed it, is the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, the process by which the earth develops volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates. He is also a fundamentalist Christian "who believes, in accordance with the Bible, that the earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago." Terra is an attempt to reconcile the most literal reading of Scripture with the most advanced science in existence. Some time went by after his conversion, before evolutionist Baumgardner gave much thought to the creation of the universe by God. But as his walk with the Lord deepened, he became convinced that "indeed there had been a major catastrophe in the Earth's past that accounts for a large fraction of the geological features we observe at the earth's surface today." And this catastrophe was the Flood of Noah's day. The enormous significance of this is seen, for instance, in that the 100 mile-an-hour runoff of the water covering the earth back into the oceans could easily create the Grand Canyon "in about a week!" Most physicists "believe" the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And the results of Terra, run with that assumption, works out OK. On the other hand, run the program assuming the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that there was a catastrophic universal Flood, and all the geology works out OK that way also! But, as Baumgardner points out, scientists wrongly take for granted that geology happens consistently, without catastrophes. "If you look at the geological record," he insists, "there are fingerprints of catastrophe everywhere one looks." Details of the Terra program and how it works, as well as more of Baumgardner's evidences for a young earth, make the article well-worth looking up. (US News & World Report, 6/16/97:55-58.) Where Did the 40 Days and Nights of Rain Come From? The answer, or part of it, may be found in a recent theory proved correct. Louis Frank of Iowa University published an article in 1986 postulating that small icy comets continually pelt the earth. Other scientists scoffed at the idea. A leading atmospheric expert argued that no atmospheric expert supported such a thing. Another commented, "If he's correct we'd have to burn half the contents of the libraries in the physical sciences." Well, he IS correct! A report in US News and World Report noted stunning evidence from three cameras on NASA's Polar satellite actually have captured images of comets as big as a house(!) plunging into the atmosphere. Between five and 30 comets hit the upper atmosphere every minute! "The ice becomes water vapor that later comes down as rain." That could be a lot of rain! (US News & World Report, 6/23/97.) Tale of Two Cultures: Ancient Chinese Dynasty Linked to New World's Earliest Civilization Abroad for the first time in his life, Han Ping Chen, a scholar of ancient Chinese, landed at Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C., the night of September 18, 1996. The next morning, he paced in front of the National Gallery of Art, waiting for the museum to open so he could visit an Olmec exhibit -- works from Mesoamerica's spectacular "mother culture" that emerged suddenly with no apparent antecedents, 3,200 years ago. After a glance at a 10 ton basalt sculpture of a head, Chen faced the object that prompted his trip: an Olmec sculpture found in La Venta, 10 miles south of the southernmost cove of the Gulf of Mexico. What the Chinese scholar saw was 15 male figures made of serpentine or jade, each about 6 inches tall. Facing them were a taller sandstone figure and six upright, polished, jade blades called celts. The celts bore incised markings, some of them faded. Proceeding from right to left, Chen scrutinized the markings silently, grimacing when he was unable to make out more than a few squiggles on the second and third celts. But the lower half of the fourth blade made him jump. "I can read this easily," he shouted. "Clearly, these are Chinese characters." For years, scholars have waged a passionate debate over whether Asian refugees or adventurers might somehow have made their way to the New World long before Columbus, stimulating brilliant achievements in cosmogony, art, astronomy and architecture in a succession of cultures from the Olmec to the Mayan and Aztec. On one side are the "diffusionists," who have compiled a long list of links between Asian and Mesoamerican cultures, including similar rules for the Aztec board game of patolli and the Asian pachisi (also known as Parcheesi), a theological focus in ancient China and Mesoamerica on tiger-jaguar and dragonlike creatures, and a custom, common both to China's Shang dynasty and the Olmecs, of putting a jade bead in the mouth of a deceased person. "Nativists," on the other hand, dismiss such theories as ridiculous and argue for the autonomous development of pre-Columbian civilizations. They bristle at the suggestion that indigenous people did not evolve on their own. Striking Resemblances For diffusionists, Olmec art offers a tempting arena for speculation. Carbon-dating places the Olmec era between 1000 and 1200 BC, coinciding with the Shang dynasty's fall in China. American archaeologists unearthed the group sculpture in 1955. Looking at the sculpture displayed in the National Gallery, as well as other Olmec pieces, some Mexican and American scholars have been struck by the resemblances to Chinese artifacts. In fact, archaeologists initially labeled the first Olmec figures found at the turn of the century as Chinese. Migrations from Asia over the land bridge 10,000 - 15,000 years ago could account for the Chinese features, such as slanted eyes, but not for the stylized mouths and postures peculiar to sophisticated Chinese art that emerged in recent millennia. Yet, until Chen made his pilgrimage to the museum, no Shang specialist had ever studied the Olmec The scholar emerged from the exhibit with a theory. After the Shang army was routed and the emperor killed, he suggested, some loyalists might have sailed down the Yellow River and taken to the ocean. There, perhaps, they drifted with a current which skirts Japan's coast, heads for California and peters out near Ecuador. Betty Meggers, a senior Smithsonian archaeologist who has linked Ecuadorian pottery to 5,000 year old ship wrecked Japanese pottery, says such an idea is "plausible" because ancient Asian mariners were far more proficient than given credit for. But Chen's identification of the celt markings sharpens the controversy over origins even further. For example, Mesoamericanist Michael Coe at Yale University labels Chen's search for Chinese characters as insulting to the indigenous people of Mexico. There are only about a dozen experts worldwide in the Shang script, which is largely unrecognizable to readers of modern Chinese. When Prof. Mike Xu, a professor of Chinese history at the University of Central Oklahoma, traveled to Beijing to ask Chen to examine his index of 146 markings from pre-Columbian objects, Chen refused, saying he had no interest in anything outside China. He relented only after a colleague familiar with Xu's work insisted that Chen, as China's leading authority, take a look. He did and found that all but three of Xu's markings could have come from China. Xu was at Chen's side in the National Gallery when the Shang scholar read the text on the Olmec celt in Chinese and translated: "The ruler and his chieftains establish the foundation for a kingdom." Chen located each of the characters on the celt in three well-worn Chinese dictionaries he had with him. Two adjacent characters are usually read as "master and subjects," but Chen decided that in this context they might mean "ruler and his chieftains." The character on the line below he recognized as the symbol for "kingdom" or "country" -- two peaks for hills, a curving line underneath for river. The next character, Chen said, suggests a bird but means "waterfall" completing the description. The bottom character he read as "foundation" or "establish," implying the act of founding something important. If Chen is right, the celts not only offer the earliest writing in the New World, but mark the birth of a Chinese settlement more than 3,000 years ago. At lunch the next day, Chen said he was awake all night thinking about the sculpture. He talked about how he had studied Chinese script at age 5, tutored by his father, the director of the national archives. But Chen's father did not live to enjoy the honors the son reaped, such as a recent assignment to compile a new dictionary of characters used by the earliest dynasties -- the first update since one commissioned by a Han emperor 2,000 years ago. Color Nuances Chen was so taken with the Olmec sculpture that he ventured beyond scholarly caution. The group sculpture, he said, might memorialize "a historic event," either a blessing sought from ancestors or the act of founding a new kingdom or both. He was mesmerized by the tallest figure in the sculpture -- made from red sandstone as porous as a sponge, in contrast to the others, which are highly polished and green-blue in hue. Red suggests higher status, Chen said. Perhaps the figure was the master of the group, a venerated ancestral spirit. The two dark blue figures to the right might represent the top noblemen, more important than the two others, carved out of pale green serpentine. The Smithsonian's Meggers says that Chen's analysis of the colors makes sense. But his reading of the text is the clincher. "Writing systems are too arbitrary and complex. They cannot be independently reinvented." More than 5,000 Shang characters have survived, Chen says even though the soldiers who defeated the Shang forces murdered the scholars and burned or buried any object with writing on it. In a recent excavation in the Shang capital of Anyang, archaeologists have found a buried library of turtle shells covered with characters. And at the entrance lay the skeleton of the librarian, stabbed in the back and clutching some writings to his breast. The Olmec sculpture was buried under white sand topped with alternate layers of brown and reddish-brown sand. Perhaps it was hidden to save it from the kind of rage that sought to wipe out the Shang and their memory. (U.S. News & World Report, 11/4/96.) Why This is Important It demonstrates that shortly after Noah's Flood, there was wide migration of the families who were descendants of Noah. They were intelligent -- not evolving brute beasts -- and by 1200 BC (actually even much earlier) were able to navigate on the world's oceans. This diminishes the need for a Siberia-to-Alaska ice/land bridge crossing. In fact, the scanty evidence we find for ancient settlements in Alaska could even be the remains of migrants coming from south of Alaska instead of from Siberia. The Native Americans, then, were probably of oriental descent and did not "evolve" locally from some lower form of life in the Americas.

Homepage Articles





© 2003 David Livingston    

....

 

Taken from: http://davelivingston.com/postfloodciv.htm

Who Was Nimrod?

 

[AMAIC: According to David Livingston, Nimrod (early post-Flood) was the similarly famous character, Gilgamesh.]
 

 

Who Was Nimrod?
by Dr. David Livingston

"Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. He was a might hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD. " The centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh in Shinar. (Genesis 10:8-10) Many consider this to be a positive, complimentary testimony about Nimrod. It is just the opposite! First, a little background study is necessary. Cultural Connections in the Ancient Near East Found at Khorsabad, this eighth century BC stone relief is identified as Gilgamesh. The best-known of ancient Mesopotamian heroes, Gilgamesh was king of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia. His story is known in the poetic Gilgamesh Epic, but there is no historical evidence for his exploits in the story. He is described as part god and part man, a great builder and warrior, and a wise man in the story. Not mentioned in the Bible, the author suggests Gilgamesh is to be identified with Biblical Nimrod in Genesis 10:8-12. Besides the stories of the Creation and Flood in the Bible, there ought to be similar stories on clay tablets found in the cultures near and around the true believers. These tablets may have a reaction, or twisted version, in their accounts of the Creation and Flood. In the post-Flood genealogical records of Genesis 10, we note that the sons of Ham were: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. Mizraim became the Egyptians. No one is sure where Put went to live. And it is obvious who the Canaanites were. Cush lived in the "land of Shinar," which most scholars consider to be Sumer. There they developed the first civilization after the Flood. The sons of Shem -- the Semites -- were also mixed, to some extent, with the Sumerians. We suggest that Sumerian Kish, the first city established in Mesopotamia after the Flood, took its name from the man known in the Bible as Cush. The first kingdom established after the Flood was Kish, and the name "Kish" appears often on clay tablets. The early post-Flood Sumerian king lists (not found in the Bible) say that "kingship descended from heaven to Kish" after the Flood. (The Hebrew name "Cush" was much later moved to present-day Ethiopia as migrations took place from Mesopotamia to other places.) The Sumerians, very early, developed a religio-politico state which was extremely binding on all who lived in it (except for the rulers, who were a law unto themselves). This system was to influence the Ancient Near East for over 3000 years. Other cultures which followed the Sumerian system were Accad, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia, which became the basis of Greece and Rome's system of rule. Founded by Cush, the Sumerians were very important historically and Biblically. Was "Nimrod" Godly or Evil? Nimrod started his kingdom at Babylon (Genesis 10:10). Babylon later reached its zenith under Nebuchadnezzar (sixth century BC). Pictured are mudbrick ruins of Nebuchadnezzar's city along with ancient wall lines and canals. First, what does the name Nimrod mean? It comes from the Hebrew verb marad, meaning "rebel." Adding an "n" before the "m" it becomes an infinitive construct, "Nimrod." (see Kautzsch 1910: 137 2b; also BDB 1962: 597). The meaning then is "The Rebel." Thus "Nimrod" may not be the character's name at all. It is more likely a derisive term of a type, a representative, of a system that is epitomized in rebellion against the Creator, the one true God. Rebellion began soon after the Flood as civilizations were restored. At that time this person became very prominent. In Genesis 10:8-11 we learn that "Nimrod" established a kingdom. Therefore, one would expect to find also, in the literature of the ancient Near East, a person who was a type, or example, for other people to follow. And there was. It is a well-known tale, common in Sumerian literature, of a man who fits the description. In addition to the Sumerians, the Babylonians wrote about this person; the Assyrians likewise; and the Hittites. Even in Palestine, tablets have been found with this man's name on them. He was obviously the most popular hero in the Ancient Near East. Part of Nimrod's kingdom (Genesis 10:11), Nineveh along the Tigris River continued to be a major city in ancient Assyria. Today adjacent to modern Mosul, the ruins of ancient Nineveh are centered on two mounds, the acropolis at Kuyunjik and Nebi Yunis (Arabic "Prophet Jonah"). Pictured is Sennacherib's "Palace without a rival" on Kuyunjik, constructed at the end of the seventh century BC and excavated by Henry Layard in the early 20th century. The Gilgamesh Epic The Babylonian Flood Story is told on the 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, almost 200 lines of poetry on 12 clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform script. A number of different versions of the Gilgamesh Epic have been found around the ancient Near East, most dating to the seventh century BC. The most complete version came from the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. Commentators agree that the story comes from a much earlier period, not too long after the Flood as described in the story. The person we are referring to, found in extra-Biblical literature, was Gilgamesh. The first clay tablets naming him were found among the ruins of the temple library of the god Nabu (Biblical Nebo) and the palace library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. Many others have been found since in a number of excavations. The author of the best treatise on the Gilgamesh Epic says, The date of the composition of the Gilgamesh Epic can therefore be fixed at about 2000 BC. But the material contained on these tablets is undoubtedly much older, as we can infer from the mere fact that the epic consists of numerous originally independent episodes, which, of course, did not spring into existence at the time of the composition of our poem but must have been current long before they were compiled and woven together to form our epic (Heidel 1963: 15). Yet his arrogance, ruthlessness and depravity were a subject of grave concern for the citizens of Uruk (his kingdom). They complained to the great god Anu, and Anu instructed the goddess Aruru to create another wild ox, a double of Gilgamesh, who would challenge him and distract his mind from the warrior's daughter and the noblemen's spouse, whom it appears he would not leave in peace (Roux 1966: 114). The Epic of Gilgamesh has some very indecent sections. Alexander Heidel, first translator of the epic, had the decency to translate the vilest parts into Latin. Spieser, however, gave it to us "straight" ( Pritchard 1955: 72). With this kind of literature in the palace, who needs pornography? Gilgamesh was a vile, filthy, man. Yet the myth says of him that he was "2/3 god and 1/3 man." Gilgamesh is Nimrod Model of ancient ziggurat. How does Gilgamesh compare with "Nimrod?" Josephus says of Nimrod, Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah -- a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny -- seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence upon his own power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers (Ant. 1: iv: 2) What Josephus says here is precisely what is found in the Gilgamesh epics. Gilgamesh set up tyranny, he opposed YHVH and did his utmost to get people to forsake Him. Two of the premiere commentators on the Bible in Hebrew has this to say about Genesis 10:9, Nimrod was mighty in hunting, and that in opposition to YHVH; not "before YHVH" in the sense of according to the will and purpose of YHVH, still less, . . . in a simply superlative sense . . . The name itself, "Nimrod" from marad, "we will revolt," points to some violent resistance to God . . . Nimrod as a mighty hunter founded a powerful kingdom; and the founding of this kingdom is shown by the verb with vav consecutive, to have been the consequence or result of his strength in hunting, so that hunting was intimately connected with the establishing of the kingdom. Hence, if the expression "a mighty hunter" relates primarily to hunting in the literal sense, we must add to the literal meaning the figurative signification of a "hunter of men" (a trapper of men by stratagem and force); Nimrod the hunter became a tyrant, a powerful hunter of men (Keil and Delitzsch 1975: 165). "in the face of YHVH can only mean "in defiance of YHVH," as Josephus and the Targums understand it (op. cit.: 166). And the proverb must have arisen when other daring and rebellious men followed in Nimrod's footsteps and must have originated with those who saw in such conduct an act of rebellion against the God of salvation, in other words, with the possessors of the divine promise of grace (loc. cit.). Often attributed to Nimrod, the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) was not a Jack and the Beanstalk type of construction, where people were trying to build a structure to get into heaven. Instead, it is best understood as an ancient ziggurat (Assyrian "mountaintop"), as the one pictured here from ancient Ur of the Chaldees, Abraham's hometown (Genesis 11:31). A ziggurat was a man-made structure with a temple at its top, built to worship the host of heaven. After the Flood there was, at some point, a breakaway from YHVH. Only eight people descended from the Ark. Those people worshipped YHVH. But at some point an influential person became opposed to YHVH and gathered others to his side. I suggest that Nimrod is the one who did it. Cain had done similarly before the Flood, founding a new city and religious system. Our English translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 10:8-10 is weak. The author of this passage of Scripture will not call Gilgamesh by his name and honor him, but is going to call him by a derisive name, what he really is -- a rebel. Therefore we should translate Genesis 10:8-10 to read, Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a tyrant in the earth. He was a tyrannical hunter in opposition to the Lord. Thus it is said, "Nimrod the tyrannical opponent of YHVH." Likewise, Gilgamesh was a man who took control by his own strength. In Genesis 10 Nimrod is presented as a type of him. Nimrod's descendants were the ones who began building the tower in Babel where the tongues were changed. Gilgamesh is a type of early city founders. (Page numbers below are from Heidel 1963) He is a "shepherd" .................. page 18 From Uruk ............................. page 17 (Kramer 1959: 31 calls Uruk, Erech.) A giant ................................... page 17 (11 cubits) Builds cities ............................ page 17 Vile man "takes women" ......... page 18 Mighty hunter ......................... page 18 Gilgamesh Confronts YHVH! The name of YHVH rarely appears in extra-Biblical literature in the Ancient Near East. Therefore we would not expect to find it in the Gilgamesh epic. But why should the God of the Jews rarely be mentioned? The Hebrew Bible is replete with the names of other gods. On the other hand, the nations surely knew of Him even though they had no respect for Him. If so, how might His Name appear in their literature, if at all? The name of YHVH, in a culture which is in rebellion against His rule, would most likely be in a derisive form, not in its true form. Likewise, the writers of Scripture would deride the rebels. Putting the Bible and the Gilgamesh Epic Together The Gilgamesh Epic describes the first "God is Dead" movement. In the Epic, the hero is a vile, filthy, perverted person, yet he is presented as the greatest, strongest, hero that ever lived. (Heidel 1963: 18). So that the one who sent the Flood will not trouble them anymore, Gilgamesh sets out to kill the perpetrator. He takes with him a friend who is a monstrous half-man, half-animal -- Enkidu. Together they go on a long journey to the Cedar Mountain to find and destroy the monster who sent the Flood. Gilgamesh finds him and finally succeeds in cutting off the head of the creature whose name is "Huwawa" ("Humbaba" in the Assyrian version; see Heidel 1963: 34ff). Is there a connection with the Gilgamesh epic and Genesis 10? Note what Gilgamesh says to Enkidu, the half-man, half-beast, who accompanied him on his journey, found in Tablet 111, lines 147 - 150. "If I fall," Gilgamesh says, "I will establish a name for myself. 'Gilgamesh is fallen,' they will say, 'in combat with terrible Huwawa.'" But the next five lines are missing from all tablets found so far! Can we speculate on what they say? Let's try . . . We suggest that those five lines include, "But if I win,.. they will say, Gilgamesh, the mighty vanquisher of Huwawa!" Why do we say that? Because Genesis 10:9 gives us the portion missing from the Gilgamesh tablets. Those lines include... "it is said, Nimrod (or Gilgamesh) the mighty vanquisher of YHVH." This has to be what is missing from all the clay tablets of the Gilgamesh story. The Gilgamesh Epic calls him Huwawa; the Bible calls Him YHVH. This face supposedly represents Huwawa who, according to the Gilgamesh's Epic, sent the Flood on the earth. According to the story, Huwawa (Humbaba in the Assyrian version) was killed by Gilgamesh and his half-man/half-beast friend, Enkidu. The author suggests Huwawa is the ancient pagan perspective of Yahweh (YHVH), the God of the Bible. About 3 inches (7.5 cm), this mask is dated to around the sixth century BC. Of an unknown provenance, it is now in the British Museum. Heidel, speaking of the incident as it is found on Tablet V says, All we can conclude from them (the lost lines) is that Gilgarnesh and Enkidu cut off the head of Humbaba (or Huwawa) and that the expedition had a successful issue (ending) (1963: 47). The missing lines from the Epic are right there in the Bible! Because of the parallels between Gilgamesh and Nimrod, many scholars agree that Gilgamesh is Nimrod. Continuing with Gilgamesh's fable, he did win, he did vanquish Huwawa and took his head. Therefore he could come back to Uruk and other cities and tell the people "not to worry about YHVH anymore, he is dead. I killed him over in the Lebanon mountains. So just live however you like, I will be your king and take care of you." There are still other parallels between the Bible and the Gilgamesh epic: "YaHVeH" has a somewhat similar sound to "Huwawa." Gilgamesh did just as the "sons of god" in Genesis 6 did. The "sons of god" forcibly took men's wives. The Epic says that is precisely what Gilgamesh did. The Bible calls Nimrod a tyrant, and Gilgamesh was a tyrant. There was a Flood in the Bible, there is a flood in the Epic. Cush is mentioned in the Bible, Kish in the Epic. Erech is mentioned in Scripture, Uruk was Gilgamesh's city. Gilgamesh made a trip to see the survivor of the Flood. This was more likely Ham than Noah, since "Nimrod" was Ham's grandson! Historically, Gilgamesh was of the first dynasty of Uruk. As Jacobsen points out (1939: 157), kings before Gilgamesh may be fictional, but not likely. The fact that the Gilgamesh Epic also contains the Deluge story would indicate a close link with events immediately following the Flood. S.N. Kramer says, A few years ago one would have strongly doubted his (historical) existence . . . we now have the certitude that the time of Gilgamesh corresponds to the earliest period of Mesopotamian history. (Kramer 1959: 117) Originally established by Nimrod (Genesis 10:11), and today known as Nimrud, Calah became an important city in Iraq. This is an artist's reconstruction of the interior of Tiglath-pileser III's palace (late seventh century BC). What a contrast Psalm 2 is compared with the Gilgamesh Epic! Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. "Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters." The One enthroned in heaven laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "you are my Son, today I have become your Father, Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery." Therefore, you kings, be wise; he warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Psalm 2) Bibliography Brown, F., Driver, S.R., and Briggs, C.A.(abbreviated to BDB) 1962 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cassuto, U. 1964 A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 2 Vols., Jerusalem: Magnes. Frankfort, R. 1948 Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University Press. Heidel, A. 1963 The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago: University Press. Jacobsen, T. 1939 The Sumerian Kinglist. Chicago: University Press. Josephus 1998 Jewish Antiquities. Books I-III, Loeb Classics, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Kautzsch, E., ed. 1910 Genesius' Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. Kramer, S. N., ed. 1959 History Begins at Sumer. Garden City NY: Doubleday. Keil, C. F., and Delitzsch, P. 1975 Commentary on the Old Testament., Vol. I, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pritchard, J. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Old Testament. 3rd ed., Princeton: University Press. Roux, G. 1992 Ancient Iraq. 3rd ed., Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin. Thomas, D.W. 1958 Documents From Old Testament Times. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Homepage Articles





© 2003 David Livingston    

....

 

Taken from: http://davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm

The Date of Noah's Flood



  The Date of Noah's Flood:
Literary and Archaeological Evidence

by Dr. David Livingston

Considerable interest in the Flood has been generated by recent attempts to find the Ark in the Mt. Ararat area of easternmost Turkey. At the same time, those who date the Flood within known Near Eastern ancient history - about 3000 BC - have long been derided by many Bible scholars. Even some who believe the Bible to be historically true feel the date cannot be later than 10,000 - 12,000 BC, placing it well beyond the reach of any related archaeological or literary data for which dates are known. There are important reasons for reexamining the evidence which points to a date closer to 3000 BC. Genesis Genealogies Unfortunately, many still accept William Henry Green's out-of-date interpretation of the patriarchal genealogies: On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world (1890:303). Green plainly says he has allowed for great genealogical gaps in order to accomodate scientific "facts" which seem to indicate a very old earth (1890:286). And his view has captured the fancy of several generations of theistic evolutionists. But Green's study is considerably flawed. One study on the weaknesses of an approach like Green's begins on page 18 of Archaeology and Biblical Research, Vol. 6, #1, Winter 1993, under the title "The Bible, Science and the Ages of the Patriarchs" by Bert Thompson. (Contact Associates for Biblical Research for back issues of the magazine.) Mesopotamian Evidence Before we look at the evidence itself, the following by an eminent Assyriologist is significant: There is, it is true, considerable vagueness and contradiction in cuneiform literature about the antediluvian traditions. This is not unexpected, even in the light of the latest discoveries. These now make it seem possible that a specific historic flood provided the original inspiration for the Mesopotamian versions of the deluge, and that this particular flood occurred about 2900 BC. At the same time, the beginnings of Sumerian literature (and thus of all literature) can now be traced back as far as the finds from Fara and Abu Salabikh, which I am inclined to date no later than 2600 or 2500 BC. Fara is the site of ancient Shuruppak, last of the antediluvian cities and home of the hero of the flood story. Abu Salabikh has not yet been identified with any ancient city, but its many literary tablets include a version of the "Instructions of Shuruppak" in which the father of the flood-hero appears under the name of his city. Thus the gap between the antediluvian period and its first reflexes in cuneiform literature has been narrowed down to three or four hundred years. This is no small achievement if we recall the three or four millennia that separated earlier estimates of the date of the Flood from the first limitations -- Hellenistic and Neo-Assyrian -- of native traditions about it (Hallo 1970:61-62). Biblical "Cush" Is Sumerian "Kish" In this section it will be important to realize that Egyptian history begins after 3000 BC. Egyptian prehistory, then, is probably very short, again substantiating little time since the great Flood. Hebrew "Cush" of Genesis 10:6f. may be transliterated "Kish," which links this passage with well-known extrabiblical Sumerian history. In earliest times, the Hebrew letter vav was evidently interchangeable with yod. This is evidenced by the writer's explanation in Genesis 3:20 that hevah, Eve, means hayah, the "mother of all living" (Keil and Delitzsch 1975:106). Thus Biblical "Cush" or Kush with a vav, can be equated with Sumerian "Kish" with a yod. That the name Cush was also to be found in Africa by Isaiah's time (Isaiah 20:3-5) is not questioned. In fact, that very movement may be tied to the genesis of the dynastic period in Egypt. However, that Cush or Kish was first located in Mesopotamia is well attested (Genesis 2:13,14; 10:6-10). All of Cush's descendants lived in Mesopotamia, seat of the Sumerian kingdom of Kish. Cush is presented first and originally was connected with Babylonia and only later with Egyptian Kosh or Nubia. The Babylonian connection is very likely to be sought in the exceedingly ancient city-kingdom of Kish in lower Mesopotamia, resurrected by modern archaeology. From Kish the Babylonian emperors of the third millenium BC took their royal title as kings of the world. The home of the original Cushites was clearly on the lower Tigris and Euphrates, where Nimrod raised them to great power. Thence they spread into the southern peninsula of Arabia and eventually crossing the Red Sea, colonized African Nubia and Abyssinia. Original Asiatic Cush, however, was watered by the Gihon River in Babylonia (Unger 1954:83; also 1967:53). The Sumerian King List (listing in order the earliest kings of Sumer) begins with Kish immediately after the Flood, and both the List and the Bible speak of several cities with the same names as having come from "Kish" and "Cush" respectively. George Roux says the kingdom of Kish began in approximately 2700 BC (1966:120). It is important, as H.W.F. Saggs points out, that when the city of Kish was excavated, the earliest level was only from the Jemdet Nasr period (ca 2800-2400 BC; 1962:51,60). M.E.L. Mallowan in "Noah's Flood Reconsidered" concluded the date must have been about 2700 BC (1964:82). Although Mallowan believed the flood to be only a local event, he nevertheless established its date from the available literature, which is exactly what we are trying to do. The epic hero Gilgamesh was king of Uruk at about this time (ca 2700 BC) and, as the legend goes, was actually able to speak with a survivor of the Flood who had been on the Ark. (This would be impossible with a 10,000 BC date.) The experiences of Gilgamesh, coupled with the Sumerian King List (in which he is mentioned), suggest a Flood date close to the one we propose. There are problems with our date, however. At several sites there was occupation, apparently, which preceded 3000 BC. Several so-called "flood levels" (at Ur, Jemdet Nasr, Fara, el-Obeid and other sites) were earlier thought to be the evidence for Noah's Flood. However, they can hardly be related to the great Flood (Bright 1942:32). Some of the archaeological evidence is puzzling. However, it may be explained by the fact that, (as so often has been done), in the first place, dates that were much too high were assigned for early civilizations. George Roux describes the situation: Proto-history has been divided into five great periods, each of them characterized by a distinctive cultural assemblage and named after the site where this assemblage was first identified. They are in order: The Hassuna-Samarra period; The Halaf period; The Ubaid period; The Uruk period; and The Jemdat-Nasr period. As we shall presently see, these divisions do not actually apply to the whole country under study. The first two cultures are restricted to the north, the last two are predominant in the south. Moreover, the reader should be warned that all is not as clear in practice as it is on paper, and that scholars are still divided on the question of the exact limit between the Uruk and the Proto-literate periods and even on the name which should be given to the latter (1966:61). The chronology of early periods rests upon more fragile foundations. In theory, it should be possible to work out from king lists and dynastic lists, but these have often proved to be misleading. Not only do they show significant differences, but they contain a number of gaps or scribal errors, or they give as successive dynasties which, in fact, partly overlapped or were contemporaneous. One should not therefore be surprised to find different figures in different textbooks and occasional changes of opinion (1966:40). Egyptian Evidence There is no known Egyptian flood tradition in literature. However, there is important evidence from other literary indications and archaeology. The First Dynasty of pharaohs, after 3000 BC, apparently corresponds to the arrival of a group of people from Mesopotamia who in a short time established a complete civilization. Arts, crafts, architecture, etc. of a high level suddenly (possibly in less than a hundred years) appeared all over Egypt. Was this from Mesopotamia? Many scholars think so (Edwards 1964:35-40; Emery 1961: 30-3; Frankfort 1956:124-37; Gardiner 1966:395-8; Kantor 1952; Roux 1966:80; Wilson 1956:37-41). More important, much of lower Egypt at the founding of the First Dynasty was marshland, and today's deserts were pasturelands. This was true as late as the 5th and 6th Dynasties (Frankfort 1948:16, Kees 1961:17-24). None of the land north of Lake Moeris was above water (Herodotus 1954:104). This includes the whole Delta, meaning the shore was at least 150 miles inland (near Cairo) compared to its present position. The first Pharaoh, Menes, is famous for making embankments, draining swamps and establishing Memphis, which became for millennia the capital of Egypt. As founder, he was its "Creator" and was deified in the person of the god "Ptah." The story of this is found in the Memphite Theology (Frankfort 1948:17-20, 24f., Wilson 1956:58-60). Indications of Lower (northern) Egypt as marsh is taken from tombs. This may have been during the period after the Flood while the remaining waters were drying up. Radiocarbon Dating Although the equipment used to date radioactive materials has become more sophisticated, basic problems originally discovered by Willard Libby, inventor of the C14 dating method, still pertain. Radiocarbon (C14) dating, calibrated using known dates of Egyptian artifacts, has proved accurate back to only about 2000 BC, according to the discoverer (Libby 1965:ix; for an application to Mesopotamia, see Mallowan 1968:7-8). This has created problems for radio carbon dating older than 4000 BP (Before Present). Dates earlier than that cannot be calibrated since there is no known historical material older than 5000 BP. Dr. Libby himself said: The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5000 years. We had initially thought that we would be able to get samples along the curve back to 30,000 years, put the points in, and then our work would be finished . . . We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages are not known; in fact, it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last [earliest] historical date of any real certainty has been established (1958:531). Further, dendrochronologically dated wood, when compared with C14 dates, has shown that C14 dates are about 500 years too low at 3900 BP; before that time, there is no accurate way to calibrate C14 dates (Pearson and Stuiver 1986). River Deltas Begin Forming Worldwide About 3000 BC One more important point needs to be mentioned. There was only one event in the history of man which was such a stupendous catastrophe as to make it possible for rivers worldwide to all begin flowing at about the same time -- 3000 BC. That event was the worldwide Flood in the time of Noah. When the waters on the landmass finally subsided into the deepened oceans, and rain began to fall, the rivers could commence to flow and begin depositing the sediments which now form their deltas. Problems with an Early Date (10,000 BC) If the Flood occurred as early as 10,000 BC, where is the 7000 year gap (10,000-3000 BC) in Scripture or, for that matter, in any of the literature of the Ancient Near East? The descendants of "Cush" built actual cities (Genesis 10) whose foundations date less than 3000 BC in most cases. Cush was the grandson of Noah. The ziggurats (the Tower of Babel?) are later than 3000 BC. There is no trace of anything like them in earlier civilizations. A little time obviously elapsed between the Flood and when they were built. But 7000 years? That is longer than the entire history of man. Look at the accomplishments of man and the population growth in only 5000 years! We have no basis for imagining a 7000 year gap. The genealogies of Genesis 10 may be "stretched" one or two generations, but 7000 years makes them meaningless for genealogical purposes. They cease to be genealogies if huge gaps exist. Conclusion When literary documents are present to date an event, these must have precedence over and control scientific observations and dating which conflicts with the literary evidence. This is so in that ancient documents are eyewitness observations of the events recorded. And isn't this what science is all about? Better to Doubt the Scholars Than to Doubt God's Word! [Author's note to the reader: if you have evidence refuting or corroborating this article, we would like to hear from you.] Bibliography Bright, J., 1942 Has Archaeology Found Evidence of the Flood? Pp.32-40 in Biblical Archaeology Reader I (Garden City NY: Doubleday). Edwards, I.E.S., 1964 The Early Dynastic Period in Egypt. Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. I, chap. 11. (Cambridge: University Press). Emery, W.B., 1961 Archaic Egypt (Baltimore: Penguin). Frankfort, H., 1948 Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University Press). 1956 The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (Garden City NY: Doubleday). Gadd, C.J., 1962 Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. I, chap. 9 (Cambridge: University Press). Gardiner, A., 1966 Egypt of the Pharaohs (New York: Oxford University Press). Green, W.H., 1890 Primeval Chronology. Bibliotheca Sacra 48:286-303. Hallo, W., 1970 Antediluvian Cities. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23/3:61-62. Herodotus, 1954 The Histories (Baltimore: Penguin). Kantor, H.J., 1952 Further Evidence for Early Mesopotamian Relations with Egypt. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 11:239-50. Kees, H., 1961 Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University Press). Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, P., 1975 Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. I. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmam). Libby, W.F., 1958 Chemistry and the Atomic Nucleus. American Journal of Physics 26:528-41. 1965 Radiocarbon Dating (Chicago: University Press). Mallowan, M.E.L., 1964 Noah's Flood Reconsidered. Iraq 26:62-82. 1968 The Early Dynastic Period in Mesopotamia. Cambridge Ancient History,, Vol. I, chap. 16. (Cambridge: University Press). Pearson, G.W. and Stuiver, M., 1986 High-Precision Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, 500-2500 BC. Radiocarbon 28:839-62. Roux, G., 1966 Ancient Iraq (Middlesex, England: Penguin). Saggs, H.W.F., 1962 The Greatness That Was Babylon (New York: Mentor). Unger, M.F., 1954 Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). 1967 Unger's Bible Hand Book (Chicago: Moody). Wilson, J.A., 1956 The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University Press).

Homepage Articles





© 2003 David Livingston  

....

 

Taken from: http://davelivingston.com/flooddate.htm

Secular Deluge

 

Atheist Nobel prize winner mourns Pope's retirement

....

Lima, Peru, Feb 27, 2013 / 12:41 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- An atheist Peruvian author has praised the spiritual and intellectual stature of Pope Benedict XVI and said that his departure is a loss for the cultural and spiritual life of the world.

“I don’t know why Benedict XVI’s abdication has been such a surprise,” said Mario Vargas Llosa, a Nobel laureate in literature and a self-proclaimed atheist opposed to the moral teachings of the Church.

“Although it is unusual, it was not unpredictable,” he said of the Holy Father’s announcement earlier this month that he would be resigning on Feb. 28 due to advanced age and declining strength.

“You could tell just by looking at how fragile he was and how lost he seemed among the crowds in which his office required that he immerse himself,” Vargas Llosa said in a column published by the Spanish daily El Pais.

The Peruvian author observed that the Holy Father’s “profound and unique reflections were based on his enormous theological, philosophical, historical and literary knowledge, acquired in the dozen classic and modern languages he commanded.”

While they were “always conceived within Christian orthodoxy,” the Pope’s “books and encyclicals often went beyond the strictly dogmatic and contained novel and bold reflections on the moral, cultural and existential problems of our times,” Vargas Llosa reflected.

He went on to note that Benedict XVI’s papacy spanned “one of the most difficult periods that Christianity has faced in its more than 2000 year history.”

“The secularization of society is progressing with great speed,” he said, “especially in the West, the citadel of the Church until relatively just a few decades ago.”

“Benedict XVI,” Vargas Llosa added, “was the first Pope to ask forgiveness for the sexual abuse that has taken place in Catholic schools and seminaries, to meet with victims’ associations.”

The Holy Father also convened “the first Church conference devoted to listening to the testimonies of the victims themselves and to establishing norms and rules to prevent such evils from occurring again in the future,” he said.

It would therefore be a mistake to celebrate the Pontiff’s resignation “as a victory of progress and freedom,” the author explained.

“He not only represented the conservative tradition of the Church, but also its greatest legacy: that of the high and revolutionary classic and renaissance culture that, let us not forget, the Church preserved and spread through its convents, libraries and seminaries.”
 

Tags:Pope Benedict, Atheists, Papal resignation

....

Taken from: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/atheist-nobel-prize-winner-mourns-popes-retirement/