Tag Archives: Creation

‘The Babyloniaca’ of Berossus – by Stanley Mayer

The Babyloniaca of Berossus by Stanley Mayer Burstein sources and monographs sources from the ancient near east  volume 1, fascicle 5 undena publication malibu  1978 ANET FGrH Grayson JCS RLA RE
ABBREVIATIONS
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (1948)
Die Fragmente der Grieschischen Historiker (1923-1958)
Texts from Cuneiform Sources, vol. 5, Assyrian and Babylonian
Chronicles (1975)
Journal ofCuneiform Studies
Reallexicon der Assyriologie (1928-1938; 1957-)
Real-Encycloplidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations …………………………………………………………. 1
Table of Contents . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………3
A. Introduction………………………………………………………..4
1. The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Near Eastern Civilization………………………… .4
2. The Life of Berossus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The Babyloniaca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …6
4. Evaluation ………………………………………………………8
5. The Present Edition………………………………………………… IO
B. Book One: Genesis ………………………………………………….. 13
1. Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. The Revelation of Oannes…………………………………………….. 14
3. The Great Year……… : ………………………………………….. 15
4. The Moon ……………………………………………………… 16
5. The Walling of Babylon ……………………………………………… 17
6. Unplaced Fragments of Book One ……………………………………….. 17
C. Book Two: The Book of Kings……………………………………………. 18
1. Kings Before the Flood ……….·…………………………………….. 18
2. The Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Sages After the Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .·. . . ……………………………….. 21
4. Dynasties After the Flood…………………………………………….. 21
5. Nabu-Nasir……………………………………………………… 22
D. Book Three ………………………………………………………. 23
1. Tiglath-pileser/Pulu ………………………………………………… 23
2. Sennacherib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …….. 23
3. Nabukadnezzar II …………………………………………………. 26
4. The Successors of Nebukadnezzar II ………………………………………. 28
5. The Persians . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Possible Fragments from Book Two ………………………………………. 29
7. Doubtful Fragment ………………………………………………… 30
E. Appendices ………..·…………………………………………….. 31
1. The Authenticity of the Astronomical and Astrological Fragments……………………31
2. Berossus’ Chronology of the Dynasties after the Flood in Book Two……………………. 33
3. Berossus’ Chronology of the Reigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon……………………. 36
4. The Ptolemaic Canon……………………………………………….. 38
5. Concordance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

INTRODUCTION

1. The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Near Eastern Civilization
Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire marks a major turning point in the cultural history of the Ancient Near East. Unlike their Persian predecessors, the Macedonians and Greeks were not part of the Mesopotamian culture area, but true aliens, largely ignorant of and unsympathetic to the values and ideals of
the civilizations of their new subjects. True, Greeks had visited the Near East for centuries as travelers, mercenaries and merchants. They had admired and continued to admire the great antiquity and splendid monuments of. its civilizations and had borrowed various artistic motives and techniques and even so important a tool as writing from the area, but they had been and continued largely to be unable to read and understand the cuneiform and hieroglyphic scripts in which the intellectual traditions of these cultures were recorded. 1
Consequently, they were outsiders, dependent for their knowledge on the observations of travelers such as Herodotus for Egypt or romancers such as Ctesias for Mesopotamia and on such information as they could glean from the guides and other members of the Near Eastern cultures who would associate with them. Not surprisingly, the new masters’ view of their subjects was seriously distorted, being based as it was on a curious melange of shrewd if often biased observations and only partially understood oral tradition.
Among those Near Eastern intellectuals who chose to deal with their new rulers we can isolate two essentially  different responses to the challenge posed by them. One group created a literature, both oral and written, of  protest, composing apocalyptic prophecies of the ultimate defeat of their oppressors on the one hand and elaborating still further the folk histories of the great heroes of their cultures’ past on the other. Thus, new conquests were ascribed to Sesostris and Semiramis and alongside them chauvinistic new legends were formed around such figures as Ramses II and Nectanebo II in Egypt, Taharqa in Nubia, Moses and Abraham in Judea 11 -, and Nebukadnezzar II in Babylonia. The other group, however, more willing to cooperate with their new masters, attempted to educate them hy the publication in Greek of authoritative accounts of their respective countries’ history and culture, accounts in which the factual errors of the popular Greek authorities would be corrected; at the same time they provided an introduction to the authentic traditions of their civilizations. The
compilation of such works was a genuine innovation, involving as it did the determination of what constituted the intellectual core of a civilization and then the presentation of that core in a foreign language in such a way that it would be understood by readers almost totally ignorant of it. The greatest and only completely surviving example of such a work is the Jewish antiquities of Flavius Josephus, but the first of them was the Babylonian history of Berossus, composed about 281 B.C. and dedicated to Antiochus I.

————————-
1For examples of late Hellenistic school texts in Greek and cuneiform suggesting that some Greeks attempted to learn cuneiform, see Edmond Solberger, ‘Graeco-Babyloniaca,’ Iraq, 24 (1962) 63-72. laFor Nebukadnezzar II and Taharqa see Megasthenes, FGrH, 3C2, 715 Ff I and 11. For Ramses II see Hecataeus of Abdera, FGrH, 3A, 264, F 25.47-49; Tacitus, Annales 2.60; and for Nectanebo II see Ps. Callisthenes, Historia Alexandri Magni, 1.1-14.
For Moses and Abraham see in particular Eupolemus, FGrH, 3C2, 723 F 1; Pseudo Eupolemus, FGrH, 3C2, 724 Ff, 1-2; and Artapanus, FGrH, 3C2, 726 Ff, 2-3. For this literature see Martin Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938); and Samuel K. Eddy, The King Is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-31 B.C. (Lincoln, 1961).
2Berossus, FGrH, 3Cl, 680 Tt 1-3. For his priorlty to Manetho see Manetho, FGrH, 3Cl, 609 T 11; and Oswyn Murray, ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture,’ Qassical Quarterly, 66 (1972) 209. Paul Schnabel, Berossus und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur (Leipzig, 1923) 8-10, dated the work to between 293 and 280. The more precise date of ca. 281 is based on the chronological discussion in Appendix 2. I have followed Schnabel (16) in assuming that the title of the book was Babyloniaca and that the correct spelling of his name was Berossus (3-5). In regard to the latter, however, G. Komor6czy, ‘Berosos and the Mesopotamian Literature,’ Acta Antiqua, 21 (1973) 125, has recently proposed that the form Berosos is correct and that it should be interpreted as meaning ‘Bel is his shepherd.’ Unless otherwise noted all subsequent dates in this study are B.C. 

2. The life of Berossus
By the early centuries of our era Berossus had become a legendary figure. He was credited with the invention of a common type of sundial and honored in Athens for his prophecies with a statue in one of the city’s gymnasia. A family was even invented for him including a wife, Erymanthe, and a daughter, appropriately
one of antiquity’s famous sibyls, Sabbe, the Babylonian sibyl.3 Unfortunately, however, the known facts about Berossus’ life are, in contrast to the legendary, few and undramatic.
In the preface to his Babyloniaca Berossus stated that he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and this taken together with the fact that he wrote his book about 281 and lived for a time after that year allows us to set the date of his birth no earlier than about 350. In addition, he identified himself as a priest of Bel of Chaldaean origin. This implies, and the fragments of his book confirm, that he received a normal scribal education in the traditional Sumerian and Accadian classics. 4 Further, his ability to write in Greek, his familiarity with popular Greek conceptions of the Babylonian past, and the very fact of his writing a book such as the Babyloniaca for the instruction of Antiochus I points to his being a member of the Seleucid court, (perhaps one of the Chaldaean astrologers consulted by Seleucus I and his predecessors.5 Finally, some time after 281 Berossus abandoned Babylon and settled on the Ptolemaic island of Cos where, we are told, he became the first to give formal instruction to the Greeks in Chaldaean astrology.6 .
Scant though they are, these few facts about Berossus’ life in contrast to the later “Berossus legend” are helpful in the understanding of his book. They identify Berossus as an individual suspended between two cultures, Babylonian and Greek. Steeped in the traditions of Babylon and of its priesthood and proud of them, Berossus still accepted the new Greco-Macedonian regime as legitimate and had adjusted himself to it. For such a person the ignorance of the Greeks and Macedonians he associated with must by itself have been annoying, but Seleucus I’s deliberate policy of degrading Babylon and its shrines by transferring most of its population to his new capital city of Seleucia on the Tigris and the consequent friction between him and the priesthood can only have been deeply disturbing.7 It is tempting to think that Berossus saw in the accession of Antiochus I, long resident in Babylon as governor of the upper satrapies, the possibility of reversing this policy and wrote his book in the hope that a true account of the Babylonian past and its significance and of the proper relationship between the Chaldaean priesthood and a king might aid in inducing Antiochus to
repudiate his father’s policies. If so, then Berossus’ abandonment of Babylon in old age for Cos, Continue reading ‘The Babyloniaca’ of Berossus – by Stanley Mayer

The Role of Bias in the Origins Debate – Video by Brian Forbes + Powerpoint

By Brian Forbes

I aim to show that any evidence presented to us will invariably take a back seat to the fertility of the soil in our hearts. It is our bias that determines what we are able to see and accept for evidence.

Bias defined:  An emotional inclination to a particular view. Bias will often influence how you accept or reject evidence. Any position that has allowed for human evaluation will include bias. The question is not if there is bias. The question is what does your bias support. …and I can prove it.

Science is supposed to be based in objectivity – raw facts that lead to unemotional conclusions. The scientific method can be traced through:

  • René Descartes – who rid his mind of all bias
  • Francis Bacon – who described science in terms of cause and effect (experiments)
  • Karl Popper – falsifiability

They defined how we can know things without appealing to feeling. They set limits for “science” or knowledge. If it ain’t falsifiable,
it ain’t science. WATCH! Continue reading The Role of Bias in the Origins Debate – Video by Brian Forbes + Powerpoint

The Knowledge of God amongst the Early Pagans

Chapter 1 After the Flood, by Bill Cooper

So that we may bring the subject we are about to study into its proper perspective, we must first allow that many of our preconceptions regarding ancient man are mistaken. It is commonly supposed, for example, that the nations if the world became aware of the God of Genesis only after they were evangelised by Christian missionaries. Only since the translation of the scriptures into their own language, it is assumed, did they become conscious of the Creation and the God who created it. It is further supposed that early pagan man can have had no concept of a divinity higher than that of an idol, because it is impossible to come to a knowledge of the one true God without that knowledge being given through the direct revelation of His Word, and so on. Popular thought seems never to have considered the possibility that pagan man was indeed aware of God and of His attributes and power, and that this awareness had existed and flourished for centuries without any recourse at all to the scriptures. So it is with something of a surprise that we meet with exactly that, a profound knowledge and appreciation of an eternal and almighty Creator God, His fatherhood of the human race and His infinite attributes in the writings of various historians in the ancient world and amongst the teachings of the earliest philosophers. It is of the utmost importance that we familiarise ourselves with this truth as we begin our investigations into the Table of Nations itself and the knowledge amongst the pagan nations of those patriarchs and events that are so familiar to us from the Genesis record. Continue reading The Knowledge of God amongst the Early Pagans

Reduced & Revised Industry and Chronology Table for Britain & Ireland from Contemporary Records

AP INTRODUCTION: We like John Hext Fremlin’s attempt to put together a chronology from the Creation of the Universe, that all the ancients testified about, via the Flood that 700 worldwide ethne talked about in their legends, through the birth of Christ, all the way until the Roman era in England, where John resides. This chronology is not necessarily set in stone, but is a fair collection of affirmed dates, plus approximated and educated guesses of other dates. It is our pleasure to post this. Thank you John.
PS: We don’t really relish the paleo-, meso-, neo-lithic “stone age” periodisation terms of John Lubbock, but never mind it. We prefer stone, iron, bronze cultures instead which were often co-existant in the same time. Think of Australian aborigines co-existing with modern Australians. We also don’t like these terms like cavemen and hunter gathrerers because it implies a progressive biological evolution of Man, whereas Man has suffered from devolution rather from bigger, smarter, longer living, high tech primo patriarchs and survivors of the Global Flood. (see our other articles on that) , But never mind all that. John did a great job.
__________________________________________________

By John Hext Fremlin

Reduced and Revised Industry and Chronology Table for Britain and Ireland from Contemporary Records
The chronology that I have given using Usshers chronology to as near as possible the events stated within the table. Most,  if not nearly all, of the dates are calculated on Usshers chronology given how long in years or maybe a couple of hundred of years a “said ” reign of kings or dynasty lasted. Given the remoteness of the period under investigation one is never going to get absolutes. Two slightly differing chronologies are given below for discussion Continue reading Reduced & Revised Industry and Chronology Table for Britain & Ireland from Contemporary Records

Massive Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery In China – Includes Skin And Feathers!

By Michael Snyder

dinobloodcellsA fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time.  According to media reports, “nearly-complete skeletons” have been discovered that even include skin and feathers.  But of course if these dinosaurs are really “160 million years old”, that should be absolutely impossible.  Needless to say, this shocking discovery is once again going to have paleontologists scrambling to find a way to prop up the popular myths that they have been promoting.  What they have been telling us simply does not fit the facts.  The truth is that this latest find is even more evidence that dinosaurs are far, far younger than we have traditionally been taught. Continue reading Massive Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery In China – Includes Skin And Feathers!

Is There Life in Outer Space?

Is There Life in Outer Space? by Dr. Walt Brown

Those who believe that life exists on distant planets usually base their belief on the following reasoning:

Life evolved on Earth. Because the universe is so immense and contains so many heavenly bodies, life independently evolved on other planets as well.

This flawed reasoning assumes that life evolved on Earth. Overwhelming evidence shows that life is so complex it could not have evolved—anywhere! [See pages 724.] Over the last 150 years, our culture has been so saturated with evolution that some uncritically believe it, so they conclude that life must also have evolved on at least a few of the multitude of extraterrestrial bodies.

Yes, there are many stars, and a small fraction have planets. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System” on page 462.] However, the probability of just one living cell forming by natural processes is so infinitesimal, even considering the vast number of stars, that the likelihood of life spontaneously occurring anywhere in the universe is virtually zero!

Despite popular and influential science fiction books and films, such as Star Wars, E.T., Star Trek, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, there really is no scientific evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial life. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been spent trying to find life in outer space. Conditions outside Earth are more destructive than almost anyone suspected before space exploration began: deadly radiation, poisonous gases, extreme gravitational forces, gigantic explosions, and the absence of the proper atmospheres and chemical elements. Just the temperature extremes in outer space would make almost any form of life either so hot it would vaporize or so cold it would be completely rigid, brittle, and dead. Unfortunately, these physical realities do not excite public imagination as much as science fiction and evolutionary stories.

A few people are searching for signals from outer space that would imply an intelligent source. Radio telescopes, linked with computers, simultaneously search millions of radio frequencies for a nonrandom, nonnatural, extraterrestrial signal—any short sequence of information. Yet, the long sequence of information in the DNA of every living thing on Earth is a signal from an intelligence—a vast intelligence—a Creator. Almost all those searching for extraterrestrial life believe it evolved naturally in outer space. If they ever accepted the DNA evidence for a Creator, the evolutionary basis for their search would disappear. [See “Codes, Programs, and Information” on page 11.]

If life evolved in outer space as easily as some people believe, many extraterrestrial “civilizations” should exist, especially on planets around stars that evolutionists claim are older than our Sun. Some civilizations should even be technologically superior to ours, would have recognized that earth has abundant life, and would have tried to reach us. Any superior civilization within our galaxy would probably have already explored our solar system, at least with robots. Because we have no verifiable evidence of any of this, intelligent extraterrestrial life probably does not exist, certainly within our Milky Way Galaxy.

Almost all stories of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have since been traced to natural or manmade causes. Even if technically advanced flying objects exist, they may have a terrestrial, not extraterrestrial, origin. The United States, for example, developed and flew the superfast SR-71 aircraft and its prototype several years before most senior military officers in the United States knew such technology was possible. Evidence that UFOs are from extraterrestrial civilizations, although not disproved, has not been verified and usually relies on the truthfulness, rationality, and accuracy of a few alleged witnesses.

Could God have created life elsewhere? Certainly, but the Bible is largely silent on this subject. However, the Bible does say, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” (Exodus 20:11a). So, if life were created in outer space, it would have happened during the six creation days.

Three other Bible verses suggest that conscious, rational life is unique to Earth.

1. Romans 8:22 states, “the whole creation groans and suffers” because of Adam’s sin. This would be a strange statement if humanlike beings existed in outer space, because it would mean that although not descended from Adam, they suffer because of his sin.

2. Romans 5:12 tells us, “through one man [Adam] sin entered the world.” The Greek word we translate as “world” is kosmos, which generally means the entire universe. Again, if intelligent beings exist beyond Earth, they would be suffering for Adam’s sin.

3. Genesis 1:14 states that the heavenly bodies were made “for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” It does not say that they were created as habitats for other creatures.

Is there life in outer space? Except as noted on page 346and below, probably not. Many people enjoy speculating on this subject, and some want to believe that life is in outer space, usually life that is superior to ours. While they may be right, little rational basis exists for this belief—either scientific or biblical.