SkipCaptcha
110
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + +
Added information related to people who accuse this story of being taken from Babylonian legends,, and how they are wrong.
Noah is also the first planter of a [[vineyard]], and during a drunken sleep one of his sons ([[Ham (son of Noah)|Ham]]) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers [[Shem]] and [[Japheth]]. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the [[Table of Nations]], which is contained in chapter 10.
Noah is also the first planter of a [[vineyard]], and during a drunken sleep one of his sons ([[Ham (son of Noah)|Ham]]) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers [[Shem]] and [[Japheth]]. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the [[Table of Nations]], which is contained in chapter 10.
Some people argue that the flood account was taken from ancient Babylonian legends. This claim, however popular, is anachronistic. There are two proposed dates for the time Genesis was written, around 1440 BC and somewhere from 539 to 424 BC. The reason the claim that the Genesis flood narrative was taken from Babylonian legends is anachronistic are as follows:
If the older date is correct, this means that Genesis was written over eight centuries before the Hebrews made any contact with Babylon that had the potential for Babylonian influence on Hebrew writings. Since Genesis was written too early to have been affected by any Babylonian influence on Hebrew writings, it could not have taken from Babylonian legends, and the claim that it did is an anachronism.
If, however, the newer date is correct, this means that Genesis was written after Babylon had been conquered by Persia. Any Babylonian culture and influence would be uprooted and replaced with the Achaemenid Persian culture and influence. Since Genesis was written after the Babylonian culture and influence had been replaced with Achaemenid Persian culture and influence, it was written too late to have been affected by any Babylonian influence on Hebrew writings. Since Genesis was written too late to have been affected by any Babylonian influence on Hebrew writings, it could not have taken from Babylonian legends, and the claim that it did is an anachronism.
Therefore, if the earlier date is correct, than Genesis was written before any contact with Babylon and too early to have been affected by Babylonian influence on Hebrew writings. This means that it could not have taken from Babylonian legends, and the claim that it did is an anachronism. If the later date is correct, than Genesis was written after the Babylonian culture and influence had been replaced by Persian culture and influence and too late to have been affected by Babylonian influence on Hebrew writings. This means that it could not have taken from Babylonian legends, and the claim that it did is an anachronism. Either way, the claim that the Genesis flood account was taken from Babylonian legends is an anachronism. Since a statement cannot be both true and anachronistic at the same time, and the claim that the Genesis flood story was taken from Babylonian legends is anachronistic, it therefore cannot be true.
===Abraham===
===Abraham===