Re: Seely's Views

Dennis wrote,

> <<I had the earlier patriarchs in mind, namely Noah's line through Shem
> (and Japheth). From the time of the flood, which Kenneth Kitchen (and Hislop)
> dates as early 3rd millenium BC (2900 BC), by the time of Abraham and the
> founding of Babylon (late 3rd millenium), the patriarchal accounts would have been
> well-known and widespread. Given that Babylon itself was founded by a
> descendent of Ham, the knowedge of God passed down through Noah would have been
> known by the early Babylonians.>>
>

This really opens up a lot of questions. The biblical account of the times
after Noah is based on the belief that the flood destroyed all human beings
except the eight on the ark. Are you following that scenario? The more modern
account of a flood c. 2900 is about a flood of the Tigris and Euphrates that did
not destroy all humans even all of them in Mesopotamia. Are you following that
scenario? Also, the original discussion was about Genesis 1. Are you assuming
that Noah had an account like that in Genesis 1? Or, are you now talking about
(or adding) the Flood account?

Also you say "the knowledge of God" passed down through Noah would have been
known by the early Babylonians. I don't see any monotheism or mention of
Jehovah anywhere in Babylonian literature. Did you mean something else?

The "rules" followed in Gen 10 which tell who descended from whom are not
always simple literal father-son physical descent. They include political
associations and other combinations. A descendant of Ham is said to have founded
Babylon; but a direct son is Egypt (Mizraim), which has very different stories of
creation and very little if anything to say about a flood.

<<I am interested as one who has recently read The Two Babylons for the first
time what is not dependable about it. I am aware that details of the ancient
world, such as the various Semitic language groups, were not known to Hislop
in the 1860s, but that would not be critical to his philological tracing of
pagan mythology from Babylon in its various strands throughout the word to our
time. It must be something else ...>>

I am not saying there is nothing true in Hislop; but, he had a bias and our
knowledge of the languages and cultures is so much greater today that it is
inevitable that he makes errors. I would say Hislop's book is like White's the
Warfare of Science with Theology. It may have lots of good information, but you
never know when something he says is going to be inaccurate. I guess you could
say that of any book, but with Hislop and White, there are too many places
they are not dependable. If you really want to use Hislop, check with a modern
scholar on each issue before believing what he says.

Paul
Received on Wed Aug 25 20:40:33 2004