The Historical Nimrod

 

 

[The AMAIC accepts this historical ID of Nimrod,

and would agree with this article in substance, though not in every detail]

....

The book of Genesis states that Nimrod's kingdom began with "Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." On the ancient Sumerian King List Nimrod appears as the second king who ruled the Dynasty of Uruk (Erech) a short time after the Flood:

The First Dynasty of Uruk

- Mesh-ki-ang-gasher of E-ana, "the son of Utu": 324 years. "Mesh-ki-ang-gasher entered the sea and disappeared."
- Enmerkar, "the son of Mesh-ki-ang-gasher, the king of Unug, who built Unug (Uruk)": 420 years
- Lugalbanda, "the shepherd": 1200 years
- Dumuzid (Dumuzi), "the fisherman whose city was Kuara." ("He captured En-me-barage-si single-handed."): 100 years.
- Gilgamesh, "whose father was a phantom (?), the lord of Kulaba": 126 years. ...

British author David Rohl has written extensively about Enmerkar and his connections with the Biblical Nimrod. Rohl cites German scholar Werner Papke who translates the suffix 'kar' as "hunter" thus translating Enmer-kar as "Enmer the Hunter." The correlation with "Nimrod the Hunter" then becomes self-evident. However, as another Semitic languages scholar has pointed out to me, this translation is probably flawed. The cuneiform sign for "kar" can have a meaning of "to take away by force," yet this is as close as it gets. The truth is that the final sign used in the name En-me-er-kar is actually "kar₂", and this sign is translated as either "to blow; to light up, shine; to rise," or "to insult, slander." Either of these meanings may in fact be be related to Nimrod, yet neither of them has anything to do with the designation of "hunter." [1]

In any case the connection between Enmerkar and Nimrod is evidenced by the fact that both are directly associated with the origins of ancient Sumer. The Bible says that Nimrod's kingdom began at Babel and Uruk, while the historical King Enmerkar built Uruk and was also involved in a particular building project at Eridug the original city of Babel.

The origins of the city of Eridug date back to a time long before the Flood. In fact, the Sumerians believed that Eridug was the first city ever built and that it was the place where "kingship descended from heaven" for the very first time [2]. Given the fact that "kingship" was always associated with the "gods" and a divine right to rule, it becomes even more clear why the Babylonian historian Berossos translated Eridug into Greek as Babylon, which is itself derived from Bab-ilani which means "the gate of the gods." Eridug was the original "gate of god" or "gate of the gods," and when Nimrod rebuilt Eridug after the Flood he was attempting to re-establish physical contact with the "gods" once again.

Enmerkar the Builder

Enmerkar was the very first semi-divine Sumerian warrior-hero and the stories of his life can be found in several narratives that have survived from ancient times as hard-baked cuneiform tablets. The Epic of Gilgamesh is very famous, but Gilgamesh was only an heir to the legacy that Enmerkar left behind. The most important narrative of the life of Enmerkar is found in the epic tale Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. In this story Enmerkar demands tribute and raw materials from the mountainous region of Aratta for the purpose of building a temple in Uruk for the goddess Inana, whom he refers to as his "sister." In addition to this project Enmerkar also puts forth his plans to build a "great shrine" in Eridug. It will be the "abode of the gods" that will be built high and covered in gold and silver so that it gleams like a snow-capped mountain in the distance!

At that time, the lord chosen by Inana in her heart, chosen by Inana in her holy heart from the bright mountain, Enmerkar, the son of Utu, made a plea to his sister, the lady who grants desires, holy Inana:
"My sister, let Aratta fashion gold and silver skilfully on my behalf for Unug. Let them cut the flawless lapis lazuli from the blocks, let them …… the translucence of the flawless lapis lazuli ……. …… build a holy mountain in Unug. Let Aratta build a temple brought down from heaven -- your place of worship, the Shrine E-ana; let Aratta skilfully fashion the interior of the holy ĝipar, your abode; may I, the radiant youth, may I be embraced there by you. Let Aratta submit beneath the yoke of Unug on my behalf. Let the people of Aratta bring down for me the mountain stones from their mountain, build the great shrine for me, erect the great abode for me, make the great abode, the abode of the gods, famous for me, make my me prosper in Kulaba, make the abzu grow for me like a holy mountain, make Eridug gleam for me like the mountain range, cause the abzu shrine to shine forth for me like the silver in the lode. When in the abzu I utter praise, when I bring the me from Eridug, when, in lordship, I am adorned with the crown like a purified shrine, when I place on my head the holy crown in Unug Kulaba, then may the …… of the great shrine bring me into the ĝipar, and may the …… of the ĝipar bring me into the great shrine. May the people marvel admiringly, and may Utu witness it in joy." (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, lines 33-64)

In the passage above the city of Unug is simply Uruk, and Kulaba is another name for Uruk. The shrine of the abzu is the E-abzu, or Temple of the Abyss, also known as the E-Nun or Nun.ki, which means "Mighty Place." What we learn from this passage is that Enmerkar intended to build a temple for the goddess Inana in Uruk, and he also wanted to rebuild the shrine of the abzu located at Eridug that had been destroyed in the Flood. He says, "Build the great shrine for me... the abode of the gods... make the abzu grow for me like a holy mountain..." We know that this "great shrine" is located at Eridug because of what we read at the end of lines 470-499:

"...let them take the mountain stones, and rebuild for me the great shrine Eridug, the abzu, the E-nun; let them adorn its architrave for me ……. Let them make its protection spread over the Land for me."

It would be a "great shrine," an "abode of the gods", that was to be re-built in order to spread its protection over the Land on behalf of Enmerkar. Now some may notice that in the text above we are told that "mountain stones" were to be used to rebuild this "great shrine," yet aren't we told in Genesis 11:3-4 that the Tower of Babel was built with brick? The truth is that Nimrod's people built both a city and a tower, and both structures used a good deal of brick. In fact, within the story of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta there are seven references to "brick-built Kulaba." The city of Uruk was built with brick, but for the "great shrine" at Eridu it seems that Enmerkar also used stone that was quarried and brought down from Aratta. Here are some further words on the subject of Enmerkar and his Tower from British scholar David Rohl:

"The conquest of resource-rich Aratta was the culmination of Enmer's expansionist policy. By the end of his long reign the king of Uruk controlled much of Mesopotamia and had greatly enriched the cult centres of Sumer. He also controlled the donkey trade routes through the Zagros mountains and sea trade via the Persian Gulf. To the north, large heavily fortified colonies were established close to the main waterways and therefore connected the heart of the empire by means of fast-moving ships. Exotic goods and metals were pouring into the capital city of Uruk and, of course, Enmer's palace coffers. This really does make him the first potentate on Earth, just as the Genesis tradition states. In his guise of warrior-hero Enmer/Nimrod is remembered as the founder of the mightiest cities in Assyria and Babylonia, as well as a great builder in the old religious centres of Sumer." [3]

"[Nun.ki] is otherwise known as Eridu – the very first royal capital in Sumer and the residence of the god of the abyss, Enki. Indeed, it seems that the sacred precinct at Babylon was named after that original Nun.ki, even going so far as to call the temple dedicated to Marduk, E-sagila or the 'lofty house' and also known as the 'mooring post of heaven and earth', after the original tower temple at Eridu. So, the biblical Tower of Babel/Nun.ki was not the second millennium Old Babylonian ziggurat at Babylon but rather the prototype third millennium ziggurat built at Eridu/Nun.ki in the Late Uruk period." [4]

Enki, Lord of Eridu

Enmerkar's source of inspiration was the god Enki whom we have identified as the Sumerian representation of Satan, the leader of the fallen angels who defected from the family of God and descended to earth as part of their rebellion. In the story of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta Enki is the god who imparts his "wisdom" to Enmerkar while he is engaged in his building projects. This myth also seems to make a reference to the confusion that resulted from the creation of the different languages that took place at this time because of the Tower of Babel as told in the book of Genesis:

Once, then, there was no snake, there was no scorpion,
there was no hyena, there was no lion,
there was no wild dog, no wolf,
there was no fear, no terror:
human had no rival

Once, then, the lands of Shubur-Hamazi, polyglot Sumer,
that land great with the me [5] of overlordship,
Uri, the land with everything just so,
the land Martu, resting securely,

the whole world—
the people as one—to Enlil in one tongue gave voice.

Then did the contender—the en (Lord)
the contender—the master
the contender—the king
the contender—the en
the contender—the master
the contender—the king
Enki, en of hegal (Lord of Abundance),

the one with the unfailing words,
en of cunning, the shrewd one of the land,
sage of the gods, gifted in thinking,
the en of Eridu, (Lord of Eridug)

change the speech of their mouths,
he having set up contention in it,
in the human speech that had been one. [6]

The god Enki is a very suspicious character. He is the Lord of Eridug and the Lord of the Abyss, and throughout Sumerian myths he is described as the great friend and champion of mankind. He is the god of wisdom and the god of magic, and all of the Sumerian heroes relied upon him as their guide to bring them through their trials. The late great Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer referred to Enki as "the crafty god" in his hard-to-find study of Enki, which I believe is an intentional allusion to Genesis 3:1. In the final lines quoted above we see that it is Enki who claims responsibility for "changing the speech" and bringing "contention" to a human family that had once been "as one." The parallels with the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel are obvious and unmistakable.

....

 

Taken from: http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/raiders4.htm

 

Ancient Chinese History in Light of the Book of Genesis

By Hieromonk Damascene Note: This is a three- part article submitted by Hieromonk Damascene. Fr. Damascene, from the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, California, recently completed a trip to China. (Please see “OMHKSEA News” later in the June 2004 issue.) 1. The Chinese Border Sacrifice: The Earliest Chinese Theology and Worship of God In looking at the Chinese history in light of the Book of Genesis, it will be helpful to look first at the earliest known religion in China. Later, we will see how this ancient religion fits in with the Biblical account of ancient history. The earliest account of religious worship in China is found in the Shu Jing (Book of History of Book of Documents), the oldest Chinese historical source. This book records that in the year 2230 B.C., the Emperor Shun “sacrificed to Shangdi.” That is, he sacrificed to the supreme God of the ancient Chinese, Shangdi meaning Supreme Ruler. This ceremony came to be known as the “Border Sacrifice,” because at the summer solstice and Emperor took part in ceremonies to the earth on the northern border of the country, and at the winter solstice he offered a sacrifice to heaven on the southern border. The Chinese have been called one of the most history-conscious and tradition-conscious peoples of the world. This is seen in many aspects of Chinese culture. Perhaps it is seen most of all in this very Border Sacrifice which the Emperor performed twice a year. This ceremony, which goes back at least to 2230 B.C. was continued in China for over four thousand years, up until the fall of the Manchus in A. D. 1911. Even though the people gradually lost an understanding of what the ceremony was all about, and Shangdi was obscured behind all kinds of pagan deities in China, nevertheless the worship of the one God, Shangdi, was continued faithfully by the Emperor up into modern times. The oldest text of the Border Sacrifice that we have dates from the Ming Dynasty. It is the exact text of the ceremony that was performed in A. D. 1538, which was based on the existing ancient records of the original rituals. Let us look at portions of the recitation script that the Emperor used Above: The Circular Mound Altar of the Temple of Heaven in Beijing, built in A. D. 1420, where the Emperor would offer sacrifice. Temple of Heaven Photo and caption courtesy of Hieromonk Damascene The Emperor, as the high priest, was the only one to participate in the service. The ceremony began: “Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements [planets] had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof there existed neither forms for sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Thou madest heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproductive power got their being.” This recitation praising Shangdi as Creator of heaven and earth sounds surprisingly like the first chapter of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1: 1- 2). So, in the earliest records of Chinese religion, we see that the people worshiped One God, Who was Creator of all. We also see that the original people of China looked at Shangdi with a sense of love and a filial feeling. The Emperor continued his prayer: “Thou hast vouchsafed, O Di, to hear us, for Thou regardest us as a Father. I, Thy child, dull and unenlightened, am unable to show forth my dutiful feelings.” As the ceremony concludes, Shangdi is praised for His loving kindness: “Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. As a potter, Thou hast made all living things. Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. Great and small are sheltered [by Thee]. As engraven on the heart of Thy poor servant is the sense of Thy goodness, so that my feeling cannot be fully displayed. With great kindness Thou dost bear us, and not withstanding our shortcomings, dost grant us life and prosperity.” These last two recitations, taken together, bear the same simile as found in the Prophecy of Isaiah in the Bible: “But now, O Lord, Thou art our Father; we are the clay, and Thou our Potter and we all are the work of Thy hand” (Isaiah 64: 8). In general, reading the text of the Border Sacrifice reminds one strongly of the prayers of the ancient Hebrews as found in the Old Testament: the same reverent awe before God, the same selfabasement, humility and gratitude before His greatness. For us Christians, these most ancient of Chinese prayers to God are strangely familiar. Why is this? It seems that the most ancient Chinese religion and the ancient Hebrew religion are drawn from the same source. And that is indeed the case, as we will see. 2. The Book of Genesis and the Beginnings of China Let us begin at the beginning. Adam and Eve, as we know from the book of Genesis, were cast out of Paradise, and Cherubim with flaming swords guarded the East Gate of Eden so that Adam and Eve could not return to it. Paradise, according to tradition, was on a high place, like a mountain. Adam and Eve remained near to Paradise, “over against” it according to the Greek (Septuagint) version. They remained on a high place, viewed Paradise from afar, and lamented what they had lost. God placed it into the minds of Adam’s sons Cain and Abel (and, we assume, Adam himself) to offer sacrifice. They would have done this near to the border of Eden. The sacrifice, of course, was not enough to save mankind, or open to him the Paradise and the access to heaven which he lost. However, God placed in man the idea of sacrifice in order to prepare man to understand the Sacrifice that would save man: the Sacrifice of the Son of God on the Cross. Adam lived to be 930 years old. According to the Hebrew genealogy, Adam lived at the same time as Noah’s father Lamech: Lamech was 56 years old when Noah died. According to the genealogy in the Greek version of the Old Testament, there about a thousand years more time between Adam and Noah, so there would have been another generation. But, at any rate, Noah would have heard about the creation and the Fall from his father Lamech, who was only one, and perhaps two, generations removed from Adam himself. This gives us an idea of how direct the knowledge was that Noah had. The Great Flood occurred, according to the Biblical reckoning, in approximately 2348 B.C. It was a global Flood which wiped out the entire earth and all human beings except for Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives (8 people in all). The Bible says that, when Noah got off the Ark after the Flood, the first thing he did was to offer sacrifice to God, just as his forefather Adam had once done. In fact, before the Flood Noah had brought on the Ark with him some animals which were specifically meant to be offered in sacrifice, in addition to all the other animals that were on the Ark. So, the religion of Noah, which he had received from his forefather Adam, included the sacrifice of animals. Only 101 years after the Flood, evil abounded again; and therefore, as the Bible tells us, “the earth was divided.” This occurred at the Tower of Babel, when God confounded the languages, and people began to be scattered about the earth. The Tower of Babel incident occurred at about 2247 B. C . And it is soon after this point that Chinese history begins. The original people of China were undoubtedly a group of people (of unknown number) who traveled to China from Babel. It is probable that most of the people living in China today have descended from this original group. Many Christians who have looked into this question have suggested that, in the Genesis “table of nations” chronicling the language groups migrating from Babel, the “Sinite people” (Genesis 10: 17) could refer to the group that became the Asian peoples. Whether or not this is the case, here is a very interesting fact to consider: According to the Chinese records, the establishment of China’s first dynasty, the Hsia (Xia) dynasty, occurred in 2205 B.C. Modern scholars ascribe a somewhat later date of between 2100 and 2000 B.C. Therefore, depending on which reckoning one accepts, the establishment of China’s first dynasty occurred anywhere from 42 to 205 years after the approximate date of the Tower of Babel incident. That was the time it took for the protoChinese to migrate to China from present- day Iraq (the site of the Tower of Babel) and already begin their dynastic civilization. From the Bible we know that Noah lived 350 years after the Flood. So the founding of China’s first dynasty occurred while Noah was still alive. The first people of China could have heard about the creation, the Fall, and life before the Flood from Noah himself. And Noah, as we have said, could have learned about these things, through one or at most two intermediaries, from Adam himself. This gives us an idea of how close were the first Chinese people to the first man, Adam. We know that when the original settlers of China came to their new land, they brought the religion of Noah with them. We know this from the Border Sacrifice of which we spoke earlier. The Border Sacrifice was like the sacrifices of Noah, which were like the sacrifices of Adam. And, as we have seen, the God that was invoked at the Border Sacrifices was the One God, the Creator of universe, that both Noah and Adam worshiped. The prayers that were at the Chinese Border Sacrifice bear remarkable similarity to the prayers of the ancient Hebrews because both come from the same source: the religion of Noah. An interesting point to ponder is why the Chinese called their sacrifices “Border Sacrifices,” and why the Emperor traditionally performed them at the border of the Empire. We know that Adam would have performed his sacrifices outside the borders of Paradise, probably as close as possible to Paradise, outside the Gate that was guarded by the Cherubim. It is possible that the Chinese Border Sacrifice were based on the tradition of a “border sacrifice” from the time of Adam. As we have said, the Sacrifices— whether of Adam, Noah, or the Chinese Emperors— could not save mankind from the consequences of the Fall: death, and eternal separation from God. They could not get man back into Paradise. For this, a totally pure and unblemished sacrifice had to be offered, by a totally pure and sinless human being: one who would be the Second Adam and set aright what Adam had ruined. This sacrifice was offered for all time by Jesus Christ, the “Second Adam.” And another interesting point: Just as the first Adam had offered his sacrifice outside the Gates of Eden, the Second Adam offered His Sacrifice outside the Gates of the Holy City of Jerusalem, when He was taken outside the city to be crucified. Christ fulfilled what was prefigured by the sacrifices of Adam and Noah, and by the Border Sacrifices that were offered by the Chinese from the very beginning of their history. 3. Chinese Recorded History in Light of the Bible Let us go back now and look at the recorded history of China in light of what we’ve just been talking about, that is, in light of the Biblical history of the world. We’ve already mentioned the oldest book of Chinese recorded history: the Shu Jing, or Book of Documents. This book was written in about 1000 B.C. and was based on material from the Shang Dynasty, which began in 1700 B.C. (1700 B.C., by the way, is 200 years before the time of Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis.) Even if we assume that the original materials for the Shu Jing came from the beginning of the Shang Dynasty in 1700 B.C., this means that at least 500 years would have passed from the beginning of China to the first written record of its history. The first thing that students of Chinese history learn is that Chinese history began with a Flood. This is not surprising, since we know that ancient peoples from all the continents of the world have a story of a Great Flood which covered all the earth as a judgment on man’s sin. In many cases, the details are remarkably like the details recorded in the book of Genesis. The Aboriginal peoples of Australia, for example, speak of a global flood and how only eight people escaped it in a canoe. Above: Noah with his family, having come out of the Ark, offer a sacrifice upon an altar. 16th- century Russian icon. Icon image and caption courtesy of Hieromonk Damascene The flood story was the most pervasive of all the other legends in ancient China. The Shu Jing records: “The flood waters are everywhere, destroying everything as they rise above the hills and swell up to heaven.” Since the Shu Jing only begins with Chinese history, however, this statement does not refer to the global Flood, but rather to the local flooding that was caused in China by the remnants of the Great Flood. The Shu Jing speaks of how, after the Great Flood, some of the land was not yet habitable because the flood waters were still inundating the land. This was certainly possible. The time between the Flood and the founding of the first Chinese dynasty was as little as 143 years, and we would expect that huge pockets of water would have been on the land at that time, which are not there today. This phenomenon of post- Flood water- pockets is described in the book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, written by a geologist, Steven Austin. Dr. Austin is a believer in the Biblical account of the Flood, and in this book he posits that Grand Canyon was formed by a huge pocket of water that was left over from the Flood, and which broke loose over the land. Since the layers of sediments had recently formed during the Flood and the land was still soft, the leftover Flood waters were able to carve out the magnificent Grand Canyon. Going back to ancient China: These leftover Flood waters made parts of the land uninhabitable. At that time, according to Chinese history, there were the first righteous Chinese Emperors, Yao and Shun: the first emperors to offer the Border Sacrifices to Shangdi. To a man named Kun given the task of ridding the land of the flood waters, but he was not able to do so. It was not until Kun’s son, Yu, devised a new technique to channel the waters out to sea that the land was eventually made habitable. Yu the Great It took nine years for Yu to channel the waters out to sea. He became a hero because of this amazing feat. As a result, Shun turned the rulership over to Yu. Yu became emperor, thus beginning China’s first dynasty, the Xia. After that, China’s dynastic culture lasted almost another four thousand years. There do exist legends about dynasties in China before the Xia dynasty, but these dynasties are of a different sort, with questionable details attributed to them and very long lives ascribed to their people. The Xia dynasty is the first precisely documented dynasty. Christian geologist Dr. John Morris suggests that the welldocumented dynasties date to dispersion from Babel, “while the prior dynasties were faded memories of pre- Flood patriarchs, preserved as legends.” Emperor Yu of the Xia dynasty “evidently gained prominence when he engineered the draining of swampy land left saturated by leftover flood waters. His following dynasty commenced about the time of Abraham or so, and the memories of long- lived patriarchs of pre- Flood days became legends of early dynasties.” 4. Indications of Ancient Chinese Knowledge of the Creation and the Global Flood So, now we have looked at Chinese history in relation to the Bible. If we start with the most ancient record of Chinese history, the Shu Jing, we find that the history of ancient China matches very well with the history of mankind as recorded in the Bible. (The Shu Jing, by the way, was the source of Chinese history used by Confucius, considered by him to be the most authentic source of Chinese history.) Since the Shu Jing begins with specifically with Chinese history, however, it does not refer to Noah, or to what occurred before the Great Flood. Is there anything in ancient Chinese history that refers to the Great Flood or to what occurred before it? Yes, there is, but unfortunately it was written much later than the Shu Jing, and thus filled with legendary material. In the Huainan- tzu, written in the 2nd century B.C., we read the story of Nu- wa (also pronounced Nu- kua), whose name sounds a lot like “Noah.” The story says that, in very ancient times, the habitable world was split apart, waters inundated the earth without being stopped, and fires flamed without being extinguished. “Therefore,” the text reads, “Nu- kua fused together stones of the five colors with which to patch together the azure heaven.” This is perhaps a distorted retelling of the Flood story, over 2,000 years after it happened. The stones of Five Colors by which Nukua patched the heavens may be a legendary retelling of the rainbow that Noah saw in the sky after the Flood, which was to be a covenant between God and the earth that God would never again destroy the earth by water. Whether or not the Nu- kua legend was based on actual history of the Noahic Flood, we know that the original people of China knew the basic facts concerning the creation of the world. We know this because these facts are laid out in the text of the Border Sacrifice which we have quoted earlier. As we have shown, the Border Sacrifice describes the creation in a way remarkably similar to the book of Genesis. Dr. John Morris points out that many of the language groups migrating from Babel “took with them technological knowledge which they put to use in their new homelands. History documents the fact that several major cultures sprang into existence seemingly from nowhere at about the same time— the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenecians, the Indians, as well as the Chinese— and each possessed a curious mixture of truth and pagan thought, as would be expected from peoples only briefly separated from Noah and his teachings as well as the star- worshipping, pyramid- building heresy of Nimrod at Babel.” 5. About the Evolutionary Explanation of the Origin of the Chinese People Now that we have gone this far in our examination of Chinese history in the light of Genesis, a few questions may remain. First of all, it may be objected that, according to secular scientists, the first inhabitants of China were actually hominid ancestors of man. About thirty years ago, it was generally believed by evolutionists that the hominid ancestor of Chinese man was the Asian Homo erectus, otherwise known as “Peking Man” or Sinanthropus (meaning China Man). Sinanthropus was supposed to have lived from a million or two million years ago in China. Today, however, some scientists disagree that this Sinanthropus is really an evolutionary ancestor of today’s Chinese people. In fact, the whole field of paleoanthropology is becoming more and more confused as time goes on. The paleoanthropologists can’t agree on the evolutionary tree of man, and different parties among them have heated fights over this question. Now it is generally thought that there is not an evolutionary tree at all in relation to man, but rather a confused “bush.” If we look at the so- called ancestors of man, we can see that, in some cases they are extinct apes, and in some cases they are human beings. Sinanthropus, whose skulls have been found in China, is a case in point. What is this Sinanthropus? Clearly, he is a human being, probably one of the early settlers in China after the dispersion at Babel. He did not live two million years ago, which is an inconceivable amount of time. All over the world, recorded human history begins no earlier than about 2,400 B.C., which is the approximate date of the Flood. The radiometric dating methods that are used to get ages of a million or a billion years are based on untestable and unprovable assumptions, as the scientists who believe in them will admit themselves. (As an indication of hypothetical nature of these methods, rocks known to have been formed in volcanic eruptions within the last 200 years have yielded radiometric dates of up to 3.5 billion years.) Many secular and even evolutionist scientists today say that the distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (human beings) is an artificial one: Homo erectus, including Sinanthropus, is nothing else than a human being. This claim has been made by paleoanthropologists both in the West and in China (such as Wu Xin Zhi at the Institute of Paleoanthropology in Beijing). Professor William S. Laughlin (University of Connecticut), in studying the Eskimos and the Aleuts, noted many similarities between these peoples and the Asian Homo erectus people, specifically Sinanthropus (Peking Man). He concludes his study with a very logical statement: “When we find that significant differences have developed, over a short time span, between closely related and contiguous peoples, as in Alaska and Greenland, and when we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus belongs within this same diverse species.” 6. Chinese Dragons Another question arises: If, as we believe from the Biblical account, the earth is only several thousands and not billions of years old, and if Adam lived only two or three thousand years before the first Chinese dynasty, then how do we account for the dinosaurs, which supposedly became extinct seventy million years before the first man appeared on earth? This is a very fascinating subject to discuss, especially in relation to China. What about dinosaurs? Were there dinosaurs in China? The Censer Dragons, of course, are depicted everywhere in Chinese culture. But these are only legendary creatures, some will say. No, not at all. Later depictions of dragons, to be sure, contained fanciful elements, because they were drawn by people who did not see dragons themselves but had only heard about them from others or from historical sources. But dragons did live contemporaneously with humans in the history of ancient China. Dragons are written about in ancient Chinese annals, and not as imaginary creatures, but as real live animals. It is known from Chinese history that certain parts and fluids of dragons were used for medicines. And one historical account even mentions a Chinese family that bred dragons to be used to pull the Royal Chariot during Imperial processions! What the ancient Chinese wrote about dragons fits in with what ancient people all over the world had to say about them. In all the ancient cultures of the world, people wrote about seeing dragons or killing dragons. They painted pictures of them or, in the case of some Central American cultures, made statues of them. Many of the historical descriptions and depictions of dragons match precisely with the physical features of known dinosaurs such as Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus Rex. They were not called dinosaurs then, because the word “dinosaur” was not invented until 1841 (by the way, it was invented by a Christian scientist who believed the Biblical account of origins). When the army of Alexander the Great (356- 323 B.C.) went through India, they went to see a dragon living in a cave, which the Indians worshiped as a god, bringing it sacrificial food. This is only one of many historical accounts of dragons from places in the world other than China. One of the Holy Fathers of the Church, St. John Damascene (A. D. 674- 750), wrote of dragons as actual creatures that still existed in his time in small numbers. When people with an evolutionary frame of mind read of such things, they automatically think of them as legends. But it is very hard to explain why peoples from all over the world have spoken of dragons as real, living creatures. From these accounts from all over the world, we know that some dinosaurs went onto the Ark with Noah (probably as babies). There is much evidence that, after the Flood, the climate and conditions of the earth became harsher; and thus the dinosaurs had a more difficult time surviving (hence Alexander the Great’s army saw one living in a cave). They did spread all over the earth, since people from China to South America tell of seeing them. But they were much more rare than other creatures, and they eventually died out due to the new conditions of earth and also, undoubtedly, to the fact that people killed them because they saw them as a threat. To the ancient Chinese, dinosaurs or dragons were a symbol of power. It was natural that they would be fascinated with them and make them such a frequent subject of their art, because of all the land creatures that ever lived, what was greater and more powerful than a dinosaur? In the book of Job, chapter 40, God calls Job’s attention to his greatness by reminding him that He created the great and powerful creatures of the earth. And the land creature that God mentions is the behemoth, which has a tail like a cedar tree. The Biblical description of the behemoth matches no other creature than a sauropod dinosaur. Not only Chinese history, but even Chinese sayings and the Chinese lunar calendar, make it clear that the Chinese have traditionally regarded dragons as real creatures. Here’s an interesting story, which indicates that a few winged dinosaurs may have survived in China into relatively recent times. At the end of the 19th century, a Russian Orthodox saint named St. Barsanuphius was stationed in Manchuria to pastor the Russian soldiers during the RussianJapanese War. From there he wrote in his journal: “I happened to hear from soldiers that stand at the posts at the Hantaza station, forty miles from Mullin, that two years ago they often saw an enormous winged dragon creep out from one of the mountain caves. It terrified them, and would again conceal itself in the depths of the cave. They have not seen it since that time, but this proves that the tales of the Chinese and Japanese about the existence of dragons are not at all fantasies or fables, although the learned European naturalists, and ours along with them, deny the existence of these monsters. But after all, anything can be denied, simply because it does not measure up to our understanding.” As mentioned earlier, the Chinese people are one of the most tradition- conscious and history- conscious peoples. So it should not be surprising that they, of all peoples, should be the ones to have retained such a strong cultural memory of dinosaurs. Their records showing that dinosaurs lived alongside man, and not in an “age of dinosaurs” ending 70 million years earlier, further supports the Biblical account of the world’s history. 7. Conclusion When the world was inhabited by people groups coming out of Babel, some groups retained more awareness of the original religion Adam and Noah, and some retained less awareness. The Chinese, as we have seen, retained more than most other cultures. They have retained it up until modern times in the Imperial Border Sacrifice. Also, with the great value they place on history, they have preserved a knowledge of their own past which matches in its essentials the history of the world which is given in the Holy Bible. .... Taken from: http://www.orthodox.cn/localchurch/200406ancientcnhist_en.htm

Those Sophisticated Cave Men



Taken from: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1616697176973091291#editor/target=post;postID=5178291178604779880

....

These Pages Print Best In Landscape Mode

Ever notice how hard it is to find a real nice cave man picture these days? Take it from me--it's not as easy as it used to be. Those classic artist renderings from a single tooth, from small bone fragments or from skull pieces -and on occasion, entire skulls permitted artists to let their imaginations run wild and silmultaneously to support the idea that our ancestors were primitive.

Click and drag photo to resize.

This of course supported evolutionary theory and caused many who believed in the Biblical view of creation to perplexedly wonder where cave men fit in.

As time goes by, the truth of what our ancestors actually looked like became more and more evident--like us, pretty much. That's why it's becoming more difficult to find those old cave man characterizations, even most "knowledgeable" evolutionists have to admit that "Cro-Magnon" and "Neanderthal man" are fully human. (Photo:top left; recent computer and/or forensic recreations of "Neanderthal", right and "Cro-Magnon", left who is scowling, of course. Far right: Cro-Magnon steps out.)

So while, in the past evolutionists have been drawing them as ape-like and brutish to drive home the notion that we have "evolved"--we now both (Christians & evolutionists) know that they look like what a Christian or Bible believer would expect--us. Not only that, when " "they" drew themselves from life, (15,000 years ago according to evolutionary time) they tended to look more like this (Photo: Below, left "caveman" self portrait) (more on these self portraits on page 2).

Obviously, this kind of look is more like what Christians might have expected. When's the last time you saw a representation of our supposed evolutionary ancestors with a Supercuts like trim and hat at a jaunty angle?

In Genesis, Adam and Eve are created without dragging knuckles--they raise children and carry on conversations just like "normal" people. They tilled the soil. They spoke to God. Evolutionists, however are tied to the idea of very primitive beginnings--where for long periods, our ancestors were not even fully men.

We've even come to accept the idea that larger brows or thicker bodies necessarily suggests less sophistication--less advancement. I laughed when I read this morning that this particular evolutionist had to admit that "Neanderthal" looked a lot like us but--probably was short and had sloping shoulders.

(See Also the cosmetic surgery performed on Neanderthal,in Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo--See page 8 of this section)That's still supposed to suggest that he was less advanced than modern man--but when you really think about it, --even if it were true about the shortness and sloping shoulders--all that would really mean is that there was little chance he could make it as a runway model.

Shortness and sloping shoulders--even a prominent brow have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence, survival or level of "advancement".

You yourself may be short, have sloping shoulders and/or a prominent forehead. Even so, the evidence is that our ancestors were smarter, faster, and larger--had better eyesight, better technology than we suppose and were as "handsome" as we are.

And by the way, a cave man is simply a man (or woman) who lives in a cave! If they stooped, it was because the roof was low. Why were they in there in the first place? Perhaps war, pestilence, Flood, tower of Babel or other hardships forced men into caves for protection in certain locales and from time to time.

One of the items we discuss here below is suppressed information (over 100 stone tablets) that "cave men" had an early written language--much, much earlier than science admits.

See also: Scientists: Neanderthal More Like "Modern Man" Than Previously Thought

Artifacts of Ancient Man

ANCIENT HUMAN CULTURES APPEAR IN SOPHISTICATED FORM

"...A more exact profile on ancient man can be derived from examination of actual artifacts which reveal his extensive sophistication. Rene Noorbergen writes that "for the past thirty years there has been a steadily increasing number of historical and archaeological discoveries made at various sites around the world, which, because of their mysterious and highly controversial nature, have been classified as 'out-of-place' artifacts.

....The reason for this designation is that they are found in geological strata where they shouldn't be, and their sudden appearance in these layers of ancient dirt has baffled the minds of many a trained scientific observer.

They emerge from among the remains of the treasured past sans evidence of any preceding period of culture or technological growth. In many cases, the technical sophistication of the (out-of-place artifacts) extends far beyond the inventive capabilities of the ancient peoples among whose remains they were discovered.''

Site Medzamor in Soviet Armenia is of intriguing interest. An international scientific report published in 1969 expressed the belief that these finds point to an unknown period of technological development.

"Medzamor was founded by the wise men of earlier civilizations. They possessed knowledge they had acquired during a remote age unknown to us that deserves to be called scientific and industrial.'

The preceding year Koriun Megurtchian of the Soviet Union unearthed the oldest large-scale metallurgical factory currently known. At this site over 4,500 years ago an unknown prehistoric people worked with over 200 furnaces, producing an assortment of vases, knives, spearheads, rings, bracelets, etc.

The Medzamor craftsmen wore mouth-filters and gloves while they labored and expertly fashioned their wares of copper, lead, zinc, iron, gold, tin, manganese, and fourteen kinds of bronze.

The smelters also produced an assortment of metallic paints, ceramics and glass. Scientific organizations from the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, France and Germany verified that several pairs of tweezers made of exceptionally high grade steel were taken from layers predating the first millennium B.C.

In Scientific American (June 1951, Vol. 7, p. 298) a report was given concerning a metallic vase that had been dynamited out of solid rock on Meeting Horse Hill in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The report read, "On putting the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4 1/2 inches high, 6 l/2 inches at the base, 2 1/2 inches at the top and about an eighth of an inch in thickness.

The body of the vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the sides there are six figures of a flower, a bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure silver, and around the lower part of the vessel, a vine, or wreath, inlaid also with silver.

The chasing, carving and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning craftsman. This curious and unknown vessel was blown out of the solid pudding stone, fifteen feet below the surface."

The scientific journals Nature (London,1886) and L'Astronomie (Paris,1887) published confirmation that in 1886, in the foundry of the Austrian Isador Braun of Vocklabruck, a block of coal dating from the Tertiary period was broken open.

A small metal cube was discovered inside. Tests indicated that the cube was composed of a steel-nickel alloy. It measured 2.64 by 2.64 by 1.85 inches, weighed 1.73 pounds, and had a specific gravity of 7.75.

The edges of this ancient cube were perfectly straight and sharp; four of its sides were flat, while the two remaining opposite sides were convex. A deep groove had been cut all the way around the cube. It appeared that the cube had been machine made and was part of a larger mechanism.

It was perhaps with uncanny insight that historian Will Durant wrote, "Immense volumes have been written to expound our knowledge, and conceal our ignorance, of primitive man...primitive cultures were not necessarily the ancestors of our own; for all we know they may be the degenerate remnants of higher cultures..."

Prehistorian Robert Silverberg describes the sophistication of Paleolithic art in terms which equate with the thesis of this dissertation: "The cave paintings are upsetting to those who prefer to think of Quaternary man as little more than an ape.

Not only do they indicate great craftsmanship, but they point to a whole constellation of conclusions: That primitive man had an organized society with continuity and shape, religion and art.

It was so dismaying to learn that the earliest inhabitants of Western Europe...had scaled heights of artistic achievement that would not be reached again until late in the Christian era. That exploded the theory [that] man's rise from barbarism had been steady and always upward.'' From the facts at hand there is warrant for the concept that barbarism occurred after the great heights of achievement were manifest.

The great archaeologist, William F. Albright, in From The Stone Age To Christianity, gave his expert impressions about Paleolithic art: "...though the number of motifs, techniques and media available to him now is, of course, immeasurably greater, it is very doubtful whether man's artistic capabilities are actually any higher today than they were in late prehistoric times."

Research has supported the concept that Stone Age man lived in well-constructed houses. The Magdalenian paintings have been admired for their originality and profusion. Yet, in these Lascaux Caverns one can still see the holes in the rock that supported wooden crossbeams.

These crossbeams held scaffolding that enabled Cro-Magnon artists to execute their works on the cave ceilings ten to twelve feet above the cavern floor, much like Michelangelo constructed many millennia later.

Rene Noorbergen sheds revealing light on this subject of Stone Age sophistication:

What are perhaps the most disturbing prehistoric construction and civilization finds were uncovered in 1965 by archaeologist Dragoslav Srejovic at a site now called Starveco, on the Danube River, on the Yugoslavian and Rumanian border.

Digging into the Yugoslavian bank, Srejovic first encountered traces of a Roman road; beneath this were fragments of proto-Greek pottery, and below these were Neolithic remnants and traces of Mesolithic cultural artifacts.

Deeper still, Srejovic came upon something totally out of place: the remains of a cement floor. More specifically, the material was an amalgam of local limestone, sand and water, considered a feat of chemistry and construction several millennia ahead of its time. The cement surfaces were not placed haphazardly, but were carefully laid out in large slabs to form the foundations of houses.

Several foundations were built one on top of another, indicating that buildings had been constructed and reconstructed over an indeterminate period. Yet there was also remarkable uniformity. (Photo:some of the Starveco foundations) The layout of the houses in the later periods was the same as that in the earlier periods - there was no evidence of a gradual development from a simple to a complex pattern.

Rather, the Starveco village suddenly appeared, fully mature, flourished, then decayed and was abandoned in the same advanced state. In addition to the foundations, the individual Starveco buildings also showed a high order of architectural sophistication. They all had one side larger in size than the other three, with proportions of either 3:1 or 4:1. The larger side was shaped like a 60-degree segment of a circle.

This larger side always faced toward the river, providing the occupants with the maximum view of the Danube and the surrounding hilly country. Inside each house, the shape of the dwelling was repeated in the hearth or oven, which was bounded by carefully shaped stone slabs and always located in the eastern or sunny end of the house.

Srejovic noted that the position of the hearth was significant, as it was situated in the exact center of an equilateral triangle if the lines of the house were extended....The implications of the mathematical and geometrical knowledge cannot be ignored.

The same precision and order evident in the architecture is also found in the arrangement of the dwellings at the Starveco site. The structures were laid out in what appears to have been a planned fan shape, opening toward the riverbank.

The larger buildings, presumably those belonging to members of a higher class or governing body, were located toward the center, surrounding a paved plaza...

The Starveco site has yielded a number of other cultural characteristics previously thought to have been developed thousands of years later, in the Middle East. Behind the hearth in each house, laborers unearthed the remains of altars, indicating religious beliefs and practices.

Each altar was composed of a flat stone, with a cup impression for burning a sacriffce, which faced two or more upright stones of reddish sandstone. This sandstone has been excavated from an outcrop, located in a ravine several miles away, and many of the stones had carved wavy lines or chevrons in low relief, considered the oldest examples of architectural decoration. Even more significant was the discovery of twenty sculpted life-size human faces of stone....

An interesting aspect of the site was the evidence of very good health among the Starveco population. There was a striking absence of deformed or diseased bones, and the women were so robustly built that it was difficult to tell their skeletal remains from those of the men.'

In spite of his absence from Western culture and history "Stone Age" man is seen to equal or, in some cases, to surpass our own modern accomplishments."...

Source:Rene Noorbergen

Melchizedek not an ‘Enlightened Pagan’



Bible Critics Can Overstate Idea Of ‘Enlightened Pagan’

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22)

“I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece” (Zechariah 9:13)

 

 

PART ONE

 

Here it will be argued that - contrary to what is often believed about the following biblical characters - none of these can really accurately be designated as an ‘enlightened pagan’:

 

1.      MELCHIZEDEK

2.      RAHAB (in genealogy of David and Jesus)

3.      RUTH

4.      ACHIOR (in my Catholic Bible, Book of Judith)

5.      JOB

6.      (Probably also) the Magi.

 

Let us consider why.

 

1.      MELCHIZEDEK was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king. Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah. This is apparently a Jewish tradition and I have long accepted it. Now, this is all explained very well in a recent article that I have posted at: http://amaic-abraham.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/melchizedek-was-shem-son-of-noah.html

 

 

Regarding 2, 3 and 4, for Rahab (as specified above), Ruth and Achior to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case (2.) and Moabites in the other two instances (3. and 4.), then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaic law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 in the case of Rahab (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-genealogical-rachab-was-not.html), and Deuteronomy 23:3 for the presumed Moabites (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ruth-was-israelite.html).

 

 

2.      RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose ‘faith’ both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised incidentally (like Jesus with the Roman centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was not she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The true situation, as well explained in the above-mentioned “Rachab” article, is that Rahab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list.

 

3.      RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably a Moabite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior, a male, does not (see 4. next). Then necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article.

 

4.      ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not a Moabite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was a Moabite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this can one day be rectified.   

 

5.      JOB I have firmly identified as Tobit’s very son, Tobias. See our site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”, http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/ Thus the righteous Job was, not an enlightened Edomite (and not an Arabian sheikh), but a sage of Israel.

 

6.      THE MAGI. There is some tradition that has them descending from the family of Job. I would suspect that the “east” in which the Magi dwelt was, not Persia by any means, but the same approximate “east” wherein Job dwelt, in the land of Uz, in Transjordanian Bashan. See our Jobian articles at site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”. 

 

PART TWO

 

Our {AMAIC} appreciation of the cultural, sapiential and spiritual supremacy of the holy people of Israel (the sincere Yahwists) has led to further important Israelitic identifications of certain famous historical characters (even dynasties), such as:

 

-          the gifted Senenmut (Senmut) of 18^th dynasty Egyptian history, consort of Hatshepsut, with King Solomon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/ Hatshepsut herself rightly being identified by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I) with the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. See our site: http://hatshepsut-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

-          King Hammurabi the Lawgiver as King Solomon again, this time in his guise as ruler of Babylon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/

 

And, selectively following Dr. E. Metzler, “Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt” (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), I have accepted his identification of Egypt’s 18^th dynasty as Israelite, with the mighty Thutmoside pharaohs as Davidide.

The El Amarna dynasty was, I believe, a Baalistic Israelite resurgence under King Ahab (Akhnaton) and his wicked Phoenician wife, Queen Nefertiti (Jezebel). See e.g. our: http://queennefertiti-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

General Jehu is the ambiguous Horemheb, making the 19^th dynasty that he (Horemheb) initiated, as Syro-(Israelite?).

And I further suspect that Egypt’s 20^th dynasty was Judaean again, with pharaoh Ramses III as the mighty King Amaziah of Judah. See our: http://ramsesiii-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

 

 

To conclude

 

Whilst there are indeed to be found in the Scriptures some highly ‘enlightened pagans’ or Gentiles of ‘faith’, such as Rahab the harlot and the Roman centurion, the Old Testament ones at least would not have been allowed into the Yahwistic fold according to the very strict Laws of Moses.

Melchizedek Was Shem Son of Noah



The Identity of Melchizedek

by

Bill Lavers

So many have sought the identity of Melchizedek, yet nothing of a definitive nature has ever been forthcoming from their deliberations. The reason for their failure - their stumbling block may be a more apt way of putting it - has always been that single verse to be found in the seventh chapter of the Book of Hebrews, namely, verse 3, which says of him that he was: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abiding a priest continually.”

____________ _ ____________

Before we consider the reason why the author of Hebrews made this seemingly sweeping statement about Melchizedek, I want you to take particular note that, in the three verses where he is spoken of in Genesis 14, verses 18 to 20, nothing whatever is said that would intimate that he was anything more than a normal human being. Yes, he was a king; but so was David. He was also the priest of the Most High God; yet, in Psalm 82:6, God refers to His people as children of the Most High, and adds in verse 7: “but ye shall die like men.”

Where, then, did the author of Hebrews get the idea that Melchizedek was anything more than a mortal man - if, indeed, that is what he was seeking to convey? The only other place in the Old Testament where Melchizedek is mentioned is in Psalm 110:4; but, again, there is nothing in that verse that would depict him as being an immortal being, although some might argue otherwise, in view of the reference God made to the age-abiding nature of Christ’s affirmed priesthood: “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

God was there simply expressing the unique nature of Melchizedek’s priesthood - that it did not pass to another as did that of Aaron. In like manner, therefore, the priesthood He was conferring on Christ, being in resurrection life and glory, would never be taken from him, that it would remain his unique status in the Father’s eyes. There can be no doubt that the author of Hebrews understood this to be the meaning and intent of the Father’s words by what he says in Hebrews 7:20-25. Here is what we are told in that passage of scripture, as recorded in The Jerusalem Bible.

“What is more, this was not done without the taking of an oath. The others, indeed, were made priests without an oath; but he with an oath sworn by the one who declared to him: The Lord has sworn an oath which he will never retract: you are a priest, and for ever. And it follows that it is a greater covenant for which Jesus has become our guarantee. Then there used to be a great number of those other priests, because death put an end to each one of them; but this one, because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

In no way was God confirming some type of immortal status upon Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4; and certainly not with the meaning that we have so erroneously and so foolishly assigned to the words of the author of Hebrews 7:3. Had that been the case, then God would have been placing Melchizedek on a par with Himself, proclaiming him as an ever existent being, having neither a beginning nor an end of life. Why, even Christ was born from a mother’s womb.

Hebrews 7:3

How, then, are we to understand Hebrews 7:3? Before I ventured on writing this paper, I browsed through a number of Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries to find out which, if any, actually backed up what I believed to be the answer to the problem, and gave a simple and perfectly rational approach by which the solution could best be explained and most easily understood. The one I found which best met these criteria was the Dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Hastings, under the article, Epistle to the Hebrews in the second volume of the set. The following, therefore, is basically a brief summary of that part of the article having particular relevance to our subject.

The article shows that the answer we are seeking actually becomes abundantly clear when we simply consider the intention that the author had in mind when he wrote those first three verses of chapter 7. Notice that he was giving a summary of the facts about Melchizedek as they were stated in Genesis 14:18-20, adding a brief commentary to point out their religious significance, and extracting from those facts exactly what were the determining marks of the Melchizedek order. To make the facts serve his purpose, the writer found it necessary to attach importance, not merely to what is said of Melchizedek, but to what is not said - to the silences as well as the utterances of history. He was also giving ideal meaning to the names occurring in the story.

By this means, he attains what he set out to do. He defines and clarifies the typology of the Melchizedek priesthood. Look at those first three verses and read them with this in mind. You will see that he brings five distinct types to our attention. Taking them in the order of presentation, we are shown that the Melchizedek priesthood is, first, a royal priesthood, Melchizedek having kingly status. Secondly it is a righteous priesthood; he is said to have been king of righteousness in verse 2. Thirdly, and again emphasized in verse 2, his priesthood promoted and exercised peace; he was “also king of Salem, which is king of peace.” Fourthly, and I want you to notice this carefully, his priesthood was a personal, not an inherited dignity, because, as far as the record was concerned, he was without father and without mother; and only in that sense. Fifth, and lastly, it is an eternal priesthood; without beginning of days or end of life - again, so far as the record is concerned.

By making this ingenious commentary on the narrative in Genesis, the author is trying to fix the characters of an ideal priesthood. He is portraying to the minds of his readers the highest conceivable type of priesthood: that the priest must be really, not ritually, holy; one whose priestly ministry is a course of gracious condescension - a royal priest. He must also be one who, by his personal worth and official acts, can establish a reign of righteousness, peace, and perfect fellowship between man and God. Finally, he must be one who ever lives, whose priesthood does not pass from him to another, thereby giving an absolute guarantee for the preservation and maintenance of peace.

Order of Melchizedek

This was the perfect type of priesthood - after the order of Melchizedek - that the Most High God was conferring on Christ. As the author seeks to assure his readers in the last two verses of the sixth chapter of his epistle: “Here we have an anchor for our soul, as sure as it is firm, and reaching right through beyond the veil where Jesus has entered before us and on our behalf, to become a high priest of the order of Melchizedek, and for ever” (Jerusalem Bible).

With these facts in mind, therefore, allowing us to accept Melchizedek as a mortal human being, his identity need no longer remain an enigma. There really was only one renowned and august personage in that period of Old Testament history who could have held that divinely appointed office of authority. That person was Shem, one of Noah’s three sons who were born prior to the great Noachian Deluge and came through the Flood with their wives and their parents - the only eight souls saved from that old world.

Shem was 98 years of age when God brought the great flood upon the earth. He was not the eldest of Noah’s sons, as one would assume from the order in which they are each presented in Genesis 5:32; and the boys were certainly not triplets, all born together when Noah was five hundred years old. That was obviously the age of Noah when the first child was born, that son being Japheth. This is clear from Genesis 10:21, which specifically says that Japheth was the elder - and he was the elder by at least two years where Shem was concerned, as can easily be understood from what we are told in Genesis 10:1.

I don’t want to spend an unnecessary amount of time on the boys’ ages; but they do reveal an interesting trait that we find time and again in the scriptural record, that the one on whom the greatest blessings fell was often the youngest. I have no way of proving directly from the scriptures that Ham was Noah’s second son, thereby making Shem the third and last in the birth process, but Jewish tradition certainly holds this to be true. In volume 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, page 1195, under the sub-heading Jewish Tradition, we are told this:

“The Tannaitic and Amoraitic teachers considered Shem, Shem the Great, as he is called by some, Noah’s youngest son. They say that in the Bible he is mentioned first among the members of his family because he was the most righteous, wisest, and most important son, not because he was the oldest”

Generations of Shem

In that most important genealogical table, entitled The Generations of Shem, which begins with verse 10 in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, we are given the name and age of each of the patriarchs in the righteous line of descent from Shem. You will find those same patriarchs listed in Luke’s genealogical record of Christ’s ancestry from Adam. In Genesis 11, you will notice a break at the end of verse 26. It is interesting that, at that point in the patriarchal line of descent from Shem, we now find The Generations of Terah taking precedence. It is as though God is here saying: “I now want you to take particular note of the lineal relation of Shem to Abraham.”

There is an interesting note on this which is given in The New Bible Commentary Revised, page 92. The short account opens by saying that “Man’s kingship under God had found expression in Noah’s kingdom in the ark. Now the kingdom of God is given to Abram to be possessed in God’s promises, by faith.” In other words, from the time of Noah, God had given His kingdom inheritance into the charge of Shem and his patriarchal line, because it was through Shem that the righteousness of Noah, in God’s eyes, found its full expression.

Each of those ancient patriarchs, then, under the overall leadership and divinely directed and inspired guidance of their forefather, Shem, were responsible, before God, for governing that area of the world that God was later to give as an inheritance to Abraham and his seed. One might wonder, then, why the break in Shem’s genealogical record was made with Terah, and not with Terah’s son Abram. Isn’t it interesting, by the way, to see that Terah, like Noah, had three sons, named as Abram, Nahor, and Haran in verse 27, and that, like Shem, it was the youngest of the three, Abram, in whom the righteous line was destined to continue.

But to get back to the theme of our discussion; why do we find the break in Shem’s genealogical record made with Terah and not with Abram, or Abraham as he was later to be called. Again, we find the answer in The New Bible Commentary Revised that I quoted from above. “The appearance of Terah’s (not Abram’s) name in the 11:27a heading accords with the Genesis framework’s concern with the genealogical origins of the twelve tribes of Israel, for they stemmed from Terah not only through Abram but through Sarai (20:12) and through Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel of the lineage of Nahor, son of Terah.”

The answer to so many questions is so clearly answered in those genealogical records given us in Genesis if we only have the eyes to see what God is trying to show us there; and, most important from our present perspective is the answer to Melchizedek’s identity. From what we have already considered, who was better qualified to have held that most majestic office than Shem, the first patriarchal descendant of Noah in the righteous line of descent.

We have now seen that Shem was the lineal ancestor of the Jewish people. He lived for the first 98 years of his life in the pre-Flood world. Not only did he witness the build up of the evil that led to the total corruption of that ancient society before God, filling it with such violence that God had no alternative but to completely destroy it, but, having that same righteous mind that God saw in his father Noah, he would have had an abhorrence of all manner of ungodliness. He had seen and experienced the terrible end-result of unmitigated sin and evil, and there can be little doubt that he was determined to do all he could, led and directed by the power of God in that new world, to preach and teach the righteousness of God to his descendants.

He had been blessed by God, together with his father and brothers, and heard God’s blessed pronouncement, to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen.9:1). He had also heard God establishing His covenant, not only with Noah, himself and his brothers, but with their seed after them. Furthermore, that covenant he knew to be all-inclusive, to the extent that it was made with every living creature that would come to exist on that new earth (9:10).

Shem had no illusions as to his God-given responsibilities, for Noah had conferred them on him with the words: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem” as recorded in Genesis 9:26. The blessing was Shem’s identification with God’s covenant name, Yahweh, as was to be seen later in the Abrahamic covenant.

600 Years Old

From the opening two verses of Shem’s genealogical record in Genesis 11, you will see that Shem lived to be 600 years old, which means he outlived all in his patriarchal line, with but one exception, down to and including Terah, the father of Abraham. The one exception was Eber, whose death followed 29 years after that of Shem. But then, Eber was the third generation patriarchal descendant of Shem, Shem being already 165 years of age when Eber was born.

The important point I want to make here, however, is that Shem lived on into the lifetimes of both Abraham and Isaac. He was 450 years of age when Abraham was born, and 550 years old at the birth of Isaac. In fact, he died just 10 years before Jacob was born. As far as Abraham was concerned, he outlived Shem by only 25 years. That means that Shem would have known Abraham – and, indeed, would undoubtedly have had a long and paternal-like relationship with him, probably from the time that Abraham first came into the land of Canaan at age 75.

Of course, being the most renowned and, probably, the most revered figure on earth at that time, I am sure that Abraham would also have known Shem quite early in his life, throughout those first 75 years he had lived, first in Ur of the Chaldees, and then, of course, in Haran up until the death of his father Terah. At least, if he had not known him personally, which I doubt, he would certainly have known him by repute.

How natural, then, it would have been for Abraham to have given to this ancient and most esteemed personage, now revealed to us as Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, the tithes of all when he returned from Hobah, having brought Lot and all those who had been taken captive with him, back to the safety of their own land once again (Gen.14:14-20).

It is so clear from that important passage of scripture contained in verses 18 to 20, that Melchizedek was very well acquainted with Abraham, and was thoroughly informed as to the unique role that God had called and chosen him to perform in His great plan of salvation for mankind. Just give a moment’s thought to the manner of his address to Abraham in the last two verses of that passage in particular: “And he blessed him, and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the Most High God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand…’”

As God’s highest representative on the earth at that time, I, personally, feel sure that Shem would have been fully informed of all that God intended to do through Abraham; and, what is more, all that He intended for that very same city that was later to be known as Jerusalem. We have only to look at Isaiah 22:11, and realise that it was undoubtedly Shem, king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God, who is there spoken of as the maker of the ancient pool at the Gihon spring. But that is a continuation of the story that must be reserved for another time.

Copyright 2002 - Bill Lavers

From www.godward.org

Under new listings