So, Moses was alive around 1300 BC....correct? Hammurabi ruled in the 1700 BC.....correct? So, you are saying Mosaic Law is "older"?
In light of the latest UK bombing, how many of you progressives
- Thread starter Snow Sled Baby
- Start date
So, Moses was alive around 1300 BC....correct? Hammurabi ruled in the 1700 BC.....correct? So, you are saying Mosaic Law is "older"?
Brother, the Mosaic Law did not precede Hammurabi, Ugarti, etc. Murder was against many laws before Moses. The story of Moses tells you Moses fled because he murdered.
Last edited:
The article you linked about is pure garbage. They conflate Sumer with Babylon, as well as make several other errors. No one--NO ONE--in the field says what this article says. It seems like it came from a Christian version of The Onion. I would now. I teach Near Eastern Archaeology.
More importantly, the article confuses Babylonian dynasties.
Thank you! I was hoping you'd come in with your condescension at some point in this thread. I kid. You know your ****, especially with regard to the scripture and history. And I respect your knowledge on these points.
There is a legitimate debate about the origins of the language and I thought the article did a fair analysis of that debate.
BTW, I just mention there's no debate to let you now you're on the wrong trail. There are certainly issues with timelines and issues with how to interpret data but people do not debate the general sequence of the development of language. Nor is there any debate about the sequence of kingdoms.
You remember the kid in class who had really strong opinions about whatever subject was being discussed but the longer he talked the more obvious it became he didn't read the assignment? That's what the article you posted reads like. It's clear the author has no clue about the topic on which he is opining. It looks legit to someone who has never studied the field, but to someone who has it's nonsense.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions on the subject of language and chronology and I'm certainly no expert. If you read this I'd be curious where you find it in error given your previous statements in this thread
http://www.creationstudies.org/articles/who-is-god/341-ancient-sumerian
And of course you're completely "open" to the idea than Man is NOT causing Global warming? You actually want to believe it's not true?
Myself? No, I'm not. In my classroom? I don't push anything but facts, and since I teach social studies -- it's mostly historical fact, but even then I bring in competing perspectives quite often
It is clearly written from a biased agenda. It's very poorly researched. The writer demonstrates a lack of understanding of epigraphy, archaeology, Hebrew, and history while purporting to speak conclusively on all these topics. He makes many patently false statements. Because his research and understanding are so poor he draws a completely fallacious conclusion. And I accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. There is debate between maximalists (those who give maximum validity to the historicity of the Bible and the group to which I belong) and minimalists. The debate with this article is between ignorance and knowledge. The article is not valid on any level.
Here's a good start for you for getting into the world of actual research...
Once you read this go to the other books by Hoffmeier. He's done amazing research in the field.
That is your opinion which certainly cannot be summarily rejected, but I did ask you to specifically refute the factual errors in his analysis.
That's fine, he explained there is an honest debate about the language origins depending on if one accepts the Biblical chronology or the secular reclassification of those events. He explained both sides of the debate in my opinion fairly, & accurately.
Since I am a believer in Almighty God's Holy inspired word, I choose to accept the Biblical rendition of how the languages originated.
Could it be wrong?
I suppose so. But once I start picking and choosing which parts of Almighty God's Holy word I'm going to accept and which I'm going to reject, I'm no different than those who eventually pick and choose to reject all of it!
People are free to challenge Biblical history as well as his instruction, but I choose not to do so since I accept his Holy Word in total, in Faith.
Since Truth is not relative, ultimately whichever view proves to be correct will be validated, and that which is in error will be exposed against the Truth hopefully for all to accept.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you believe the Bible is the ultimate authority on Almighty God's word, but if you don't believe that, where else is one to go to find out?
If the Bible says Almighty God scattered the languages and confused non believers who refused to follow his Law and instead preferred to replace it with their own, where is one to determine if that's True or a fallacy?
I suppose my basic question to you is what is the ultimate historical record or documented accuracy beyond God's Holy Word which is found in the Bible?
It depends on which civilizations you find prominent prior to Exodus, when the Jewish Law was handed down.
There is an honest debate about that, depending on how you begin counting backwards from Exodus, and which calendars you use to mark certain historical events subsequent to God's delivery of Mosaic Law at Sinai.
I'm of the opinion Mosaic Law came first, but it can be debated and is.
http://www.creationstudies.org/articles/who-is-god/341-ancient-sumerian
When I say the Bible is the inspired Word of God I'm using the word "inspired" as derived from the Apostle Paul's word in 2 Timothy 3:16. The word there is theopneustos, meaning "God-breathed." So, yes, I believe the Bible is historically accurate. The problem I have with the article have to do with the author's misunderstandings of the Bible and his misunderstandings of history, epigraphy, archaeology, and the Hebrew language, which I will detail in a second post.
The history of the historical significance of the Sumerian language:
Many of those who attack the veracity of the Bible believe the Sumerian language to be the oldest written language in existence.
Here the author sets up a debate which no serious student of history or archaeology is debating. He is falsely connecting the scientifically provable fact that the Sumerian language is the oldest written language thus far discovered with a denial in the veracity of the Bible. Once can affirm both that Sumerian is the oldest written language known and the veracity of the Bible without being inconsistent at all. One is not tied to the other.
First attested about 3100 BCE in southern Mesopotamia, it flourished during the 3rd millennium. Sumerian never extended much beyond its original boundaries in southern Mesopotamia; the small number of its native speakers was entirely out of proportion to the tremendous importance and influence Sumerian exercised on the development of the Mesopotamian and other ancient civilizations in all their stages.
I have no idea what the author means by "out of proportion." The continued development of Mesopotamian cultures is exactly what one would expect from both from a sociological/anthropological study as well as from a biblical study of the effects of the tower of Babel, but only if one places the tower of Babel centuries before Sumer.
About 2000 BCE, Sumerian was replaced as a spoken language by Semitic Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), but continued in written usage almost to the end of the life of the Akkadian language, around the beginning of the Christian era (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011).
I'm not sure what the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011, says but I certain it doesn't say that. Cuneiform was used until the 2nd century, AD--true. But the development of the cuneiform writing and the development of the spoken language paralleled one another. We only understand the spoken language through what we find written. In other words, as the Akkadian written language developed from Sumerian so also did the spoken language.
According to most secular sources, the Sumerian language is the earliest known written language. What is referred to as the “proto-literate” period of Sumerian writing spans ca. 3500 to 3000 BCE. In this period, records are purely logographic, with no linguistic or phonological content (Wikepedia, 2011). Because secular scholars give little or no weight to biblical sources, they just ignore the evidence from the Bible entirely.
The use of Wikipedia as a source is a sure sign someone is not familiar with the field. If one is knowledgeable of the field one would source primary resources. When one doesn't do the hard work of becoming knowledgeable its easy to have hardened opinions contrary to the facts. Also, he misspelled Wikipedia.
In truth, no one actually knows what the original language of man was.
The best sentence in the entire article.
Because most philologists are heavily indoctrinated into the Darwinian worldview, they cannot accept the biblical revelation as being authentic.
Creationists who are actual archaeologists would reject the entire article as fallacious. The issue here is not between Bible-believers and secularists, nor is it between creationists and evolutionists. The issue is between knowledge of the data and a lack thereof.
For this reason, these scholars reject the evidence concerning the origination of all language as revealed in Genesis chapter ten, e.g. the Tower of Babel, assigning it to mythical status.
People who accept the tower of Babel as historical reject what this author is proposing.
It is important to realize that the ancient Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people and the language of the Tanakh, is at least as old as ancient Sumerian.
This is demonstrably false. One can easily trace the development of the Hebrew language from its ancient Semitic roots.
While secular scholars believe Hebrew developed along side of some other ancient languages and dialects, it does not mean that the ancient Hebrew came from, or was predated by, other languages. This is just one more example of a conclusion from a secular academic community driven by a Darwinian worldview. In fact, the patriarchs of Israel had Hebrew names. The names of Adam and Eve were derived from the Hebrew. All of the accounts of the geographical locations, etc. are in Hebrew. The Bible tells us there was one seminal language, so what was that language? My vote would be ancient Hebrew.
Do you not see the how illogical the author's statements are? You have to assume first that Hebrew is the oldest language in order to state that these names in Genesis have Hebrew roots. We have these names attested outside Genesis in what every expert would agree is older than Hebrew.
I can go on and on through the article debunking nearly every sentence. No serious scholar uses Unger. No one I now of uses Ussher at all. Bottom line there is no conflict at all between Genesis and the scientifically understood development of language. There is no scholarly debate on the topic. If you choose to believe someone who clearly has no understanding of the field beyond Wikipedia that's up to you. I am a believer in the accuracy of the Bible. I am knowledgeable in these fields and an expert in a couple of them. I'm telling you this guy does not know the field. He is speaking about things he hasn't studied. If you want to begin to understand these fields start with the book I linked above. Hoffmeier is an evangelical Christian.
Last edited:
Cajuneer, first of all I respect what you've laid out here, honestly I do. I don't see where you or this author are speaking in dissimilar chronology actually, despite your obvious objections to some of his analysis.
He doesn't invalidate the secular view or I'd assume for the purposes of your analysis the "maximalist" view. He simply says that view often times rejects the Biblical chronological interpretation of those events.
That's just a statement of fact, not his opinion aimed at shooting down the secular view. He openly says it comes down to how one chooses to examine the chronology, and he admits he chooses the Biblical explanation. One is free to reject that and it doesn't invalidate anything the Bible says about it.
The other things you've laid out here to me show that there is indeed no conflict between the Bible's rendition of when language originated and what the secular historical records actually reveal.
Nothing in what you've carefully laid out here as an expert review of his analysis negates the Bible's explanation or history, including once the one common language spoken by Man was confused by Almighty God at Babel. The actual date of when that all happened is of course open to debate, but not the actual event itself!
So I'm not sure what you disagree with him over, except the exact methods for dating the appearances of other languages?
His point (and I assume yours too) is that Almighty God is both the author of all languages and the supreme author of morality used by Man to explain his Law.
Exactly which language preceded the other is of course interesting study and certainly open to investigation and debate, however the Bible's explanation of where languages originated and why in my mind is not arguable.
I suspect as a believer that fact is also constant in your understanding of God's Holy Word?
Judging from your excellent deconstruction of this particular Author's view of that subject, I do not see where you are in conflict with the Bible's explanation.
Why would a non-Biblical view of history ever take the Biblical interpretation into account? The Bible says man first, all other life, then sin, then death. Evolution says all other life first, then death, then man, then sin. You will have to evaluate for yourself how you interpret differences between Biblical belief and secular belief.
It was an analysis of the time sequencing of the appearance of alternate languages other than the common language the Bible says was spoken by Man before Almighty God confused them.
There is a secular view (oldest, first, second, etc) then the Biblical account which doesn't name a specific time reference before the languages were scattered only that there was a common spoken language antecedent to Mosaic Law.
The question was if Almighty God authored rules against murder prior to issuing the 10 commandments, and if not where did that concept originate?
Last edited:
I'm in my study boxing up books to return to a library. I wrote a small 8-page paper on an OT topic. I cited 41 separate resources. I read 26 books I'd never read before starting this paper. My paper is far less against the grain than the article you posted. Do you think the author put in as much research to his article which is contrary to all reputable resources as I did to mine which is much more mainstream?
This is true of course, because Man has a tendency to add things not there or read into Almighty God's Word things he didn't mean. However I will agree extra Biblical scholarship and artifactual evidence can often help us better understand Almighty God's orginal intent without actually changing what he said in the Bible.
I can't answer that Cajuneer, because I can only assume what you say and all I have as evidence of that Author's research is what he wrote in his piece. His analysis wasn't wrong, just different from your interpretation as I read what you commented on about his work.
In the end, there is no confusion over the chronology of languages...only differences interpreting how and where they developed.
The Bible says out of one common language spoken by Man, came many caused by Almighty God himself.
Nothing you or this Author I initially linked to refutes that, just as the Bible says it happened.
Last edited:
The issue isn't between what the Bible says verses what "secular" experts say. The issue is the author doesn't know what he's talking about. He is creating an issue between science and the Bible where none exists.
I'm sorry, I just don't see where there's a conflict over what the Author reveals about what the Bible says. Let's assume you are correct and this guy is all wet. Where does he contradict the Bible's story on Almighty God causing the confusion of languages?
He points to its origin and while it's clear there is disagreement over which languages emerged first, I honestly don't see a conflict between that chronological incident in history vs the actual event itself whenever and wherever it actually happened.
Do you?
If so, where is the author in error over that?
The author notes that some say there are gaps in the chronology. That's a fact. He ignores that in his analysis. No one appeals to Ussher. He acts as if Ussher's work is relevant. It's not. He appeals to Unger. Unger has been discredited time and again. The problem with both, and thus the problem with the author, is they ignore how the original readers would have understood the text. He is looking at an ancient Eastern agrarian document through contemporary Western post-industrial eyes and acting as if it were written by Stephen Ambrose a decade ago. He assumes a level of specificity common today but totally foreign to the ancients. He seems unaware of how the ancients used numbers in patterns so that the count--according to modern eyes--is inaccurate. But the eyes of the ancients would see the harmony and semblance. What the author does is take genealogies and numbers which from a modern point-of-view are inconsistent with the extrabiblical evidence and finds a schism between the Bible and scholarship. He then blames the "secular" scholars for not valuing the Bible when in fact it is his misunderstanding of the Bible which is the problem.
You don't have to assume what I say. Start with the book a linked. I can take you into a world where what was left in the dirt by the ancients is consistent with what the Bible--rightly interpreted--says. I can show you in the dirt the route of the Exodus, and how it is just as the Bible says, and how it would be impossible for someone inviting the story hundreds of years later to have known of such an impossible route. I can show you in the dirt Joshua's conquest of Jericho, and how it is in complete harmony with the Bible. I can show you in the dirt how Solomon's Temple was constructed and how it would have been impossible for someone hundreds of years later to have invented the story. I can show you in the dirt Joseph's tomb in Goshen--now empty of any bones just as the Bible says. But I can't show you any of these things if you cling to an errant understanding of the Bible. You have to see the Bible through the eyes of the ancients--the original audience. To this pursuit I have given my life.
Again I'm just not seeing what you're seeing Cajuneer. That Author is clear to point out there is indeed a difference in how the competing chronology is measured. He doesn't deny that, and emphatically states it as an ongoing conflict between Darwinian emphasis and Biblical categorization which is not as specific in terms of its time references, but nevertheless is accurate in terms of its explanation of actual events.
You seem to be suggesting he (Author) has so screwed up the chronology, so as to question the actual events and formation of the languages themselves. He has done no such thing!
Is there a difference in his interpretation of the sequential occurrences and dating of the languages?
Absolutely!
Is he wrong in his final analysis that indeed these languages emerged from one common point of origination, and spread from there after Almighty God caused them to be confusing and ultimately scattered?
No!
What the Bible states about all of that is definitive, even if his explanations of the actual sequence of those events is a different interpretation based on a strictly Biblical time frame reference not common to any secular analysis or understanding..
Last edited:
Nowhere does the Bible suggest that Hebrew must predate Sumerian. He says, "modern biblical scholarship dates the confounding of the languages to ca. 4000 BCE." Modern biblical scholarship does no such thing. His sources have been decades refuted. Harrison doesn't even say what the author says Harrison says. Why would the author insist that Hebrew was created at the Tower of Babel? The Bible doesn't say or even suggest that. No doctrine of the Bible depends on Hebrew predating Sumerian. Why does the author set up this false dilemma?
That's awesome Cajuneer, and honestly I wish I could walk that journey with you. I'm not sure where our conflict is, and I certainly do not misunderstand Almighty God's Word, although I'm not for one minute suggesting I understand it as well as you do!
That being said, there is not much we actually disagree on except for how dates can be alternately measured or placed into specific historical time references. As complete as the Bible is explaining to us "what" happened so many years ago, it is not as easy to always agree on exactly "when" or "how" it all happened. This is why a measure of Faith is needed if not required because we will not always completely understand or even agree on how or why Almighty God did the things he did.
I'm not as troubled about if the Hebrew language pre dated the Sumarian or ran concurrent with it as I am by the notion that Almighty God's specific reference to killing is NOT the source of that aspect of our human morality. Others in this thread have indeed suggested that to be the case, and while I cannot say for certain if God's Law to Moses at Sinai was delivered prior to or subsequent to the formation of the Sumerian language, I certainly do not see anywhere else he specifically issued that particular instruction...at least it's not explained anywhere else in the Bible is it?
Since I place all moral authority with him, I'll leave it up to scholars such as yourself to determine when or if he has "another" set of moral orders that preceded those delivered at Sinai and from which all other languages and people drew their chosen moral order?
That essentially was the original point of contention I had with the non believers in this thread.
Last edited: