Sargon of Akkad finally aligned with Bible: as Nimrod

Terrific article, a must read:

http://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sar

....

JETS 56/2 (2013) 273–305

IDENTIFYING NIMROD OF GENESIS 10 WITH SARGON OF AKKAD BY EXEGETICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL  MEANS


DOUGLAS PETROVICH

*

I. INTRODUCTION Perhaps one of the more intriguing and enigmatic characters in the OT is Nimrod, though his name appears only four times throughout the entire Bible (Gen 10:8, 9; 1 Chr 1:10; and Mic 5:6). His biography is narrated in Genesis 10, and opinions about his identity and character have abounded since ancient times. In Philo’s Questiones in Genes in 2.82, which dates to the first half of the first century AD, he refers to Nimrod as a giant who opposes God, and the original and chief of sinners. In Ant . 1.113–114, Josephus considered not only that Nimrod was alive during the tower of Babel incident, but that he was the one who changed the government into a tyrannical one and incited those at Babel into building the infamous tower, in outright defiance of God. At present, opinions on the identity and character of Nimrod have continued to abound, and a discussion of some of the more noted options ventured will proceed shortly. For now, suffice it to say that Nimrod is thought by some to be heroic, while by others to be devious; he is considered by some to be a mere mortal, though by others to be divine. Thus the goal of this essay is to sift through the diversity of options for the identity of this enigmatic figure named Nimrod, and to determine—if at all possible—whether his biography can be matched precisely with any known figure from antiquity. In order to accomplish this endeavor, the task  will require a careful look at relevant exegetical data, and at the archaeological record that serves to inform the field of ancient Near Eastern (hereafter ANE) historical studies, a vital cognate to biblical studies. The task will be accomplished by proceeding through the following steps:(1) presenting a working translation that will act as a reference point for the reader;(2) investigating the various words, phrases, and constructions that act as exegetical clues to illuminate what can be known for certain about Nimrod biographically;(3) reviewing and critiquing some of the more popularly held opinions on the identification of Nimrod; and (4) presenting an alternative candidate for Nimrod with the help of archaeology and the support of the exegetical work that will have been done up to that point. Finally, a conclusion will be presented, and the reader will be able to judge whether the present writer has made a successful case.

....

First King On Earth

 

 

John R. Salverda Writes:

 

.... isn't it funny how we never seem to associate Atlas with Atlantis (even though he was said to have been its first king, and the place was named for him). The two stories, as separate accounts, don't seem to ring a bell with people. Atlantis was just an ancient idealized civilization that had a series of ten kings before it was washed away in a massive aqueous cataclysm; it is seldom compared with the Scriptural pre-flood civilization. While Atlas was just an ancient gardener who, in Greek myths, had a wife after whom the garden was named; there was a special tree with "golden" fruits; people who weren't supposed to pick from the tree did so; there was an expulsion and a serpent was placed to guard the way to the tree. Also, in a story that is apparently unrelated to the garden story, Atlas rebelled against god (Zeus) and was punished by becoming the mountain that keeps Heaven away from the Earth. However, taken together the two accounts do seem to weave a very much more familiar story.

Once we recognize Atlas as Adam, we can use this same recognition when we look at the whole series of myths, having to do with the characters who are related to him, in the mythic genealogies. The mythic motifs of Prometheus, the brother of Atlas, are full of possible references to the writings of Moses, Exodus (the wandering Io) as well as Genesis (the creation of man from clay). Epimetheus, another brother of Atlas, was the husband of the world's first woman, Pandora who introduced evil into the world by disobeying an order she was given. And Iapetus, the father of Atlas, Prometheus, and Epimetheus, is recognizable as Japheth.

Furthermore, just because we may see Atlas and Atlantis as Adam and the antediluvian world, doesn't necessarily relegate our theory about its location to the Atlantic Ocean only. The western emplacement of Atlantis seems to be a more recent convention. The father and brother of Atlas, Iapetus and Prometheus for instance, are associated more with Cappadocia and the Caucasus respectively. And Atlas, as Mount Sinai would certainly tend to preclude his supposed Western Africa location.

 

....

Mesopotamian Origins of Chinese Civilisation



LDS Growth Ancient Ethnography, Culture, and History

Return to Table of Contents

Nineteenth century French Academy laureate Albert Etienne Terrien de Lacouperie extensively studied the relationship between China and the West, and wrote numerous articles and books on the subject. In Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization (London, Asher & Co., 1894), he wrote:

"The early civilization and writing of the Chinese were simply derivations from those of Elam and Chaldea, about and after the time of Gudea and Dungi [Shulgi], derivations carried eastward later on to the Flowery land, namely in the XXIII century before our era" (1)."The comparatively late beginnings of the Chinese civilization showed themselves to be the outcome of an importation, not a distinct growth from common seeds, but simply a loan, a derivation, an extension eastward from a much older form of culture in the west. I was led slowly by overwhelming evidences, direct and circumstantial from the Chinese and W. Asiatic sides, to the unexpected disclosures alluded to, and which, however astonishing they may appear to those who have not followed the gradual advance of my researches, are now proved to be an assured progress of our knowledge and solid discoveries of historical fact" (1-2). "sifting all fabulous accounts, we find a residue of undisputable evidences showing a small number of families arriving in the N.W. of present China, and in possession of a comparatively advanced civilization which explains the enthusiasm of after ages for these men, and has left a deep impression surviving to the present day in the mental habits of the whole people. The existence of these feelings and beliefs would have been difficult and even impossible, should traces or traditions of savage beginnings, slow development of civilization, pictorial rudiments of writing, and successive progresses of knowledge by self-growth, have ever existed among Chinese, but nothing of the kind exists in their early souvenirs " (3-4). "Everything in Chinese antiquity and tradition points to a western origin. No Sinologist who has studied the subject has been able to ascertain any other origin for the Chinese than one from the West" (4).

"C.J. Ball...a collaborator of The Babylonian and Oriental Record, in several papers published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology�has concluded in favor of a close relationship of the Akkadian and Chinese language, a derivation (established by me in 1888) of the Chinese characters from those of Babylonia between Gudea and Khammurabi, and a migration of civilized Akkadians to China at that time" (xi-xii). Terrien de Lacouperie observed that the ancient Chinese records appear to describe the cuneiform writing of their Bak ancestors:

"There are however in the ancient Chinese traditions several allusions which point in so precise a manner to the cuneiform writing, that we must mention them here. Shen-nung=Sargon was reputed to have used signs like tongues of fire to record facts, at a time when the ancestors of the Chinese were not yet acquainted with the art of writing, and Dunkit (modern Tsang hieh) whose name has the same meaning as that of the Chaldean Dungi [Shulgi] of which it was a rendering and under whom the Bak tribes were taught to write, made marks on clay like claws of birds and animals. The primitive writing was always compared to drops of rain finely drawn out and freezing as they fall. It is difficult to mistake in all this, most distinct descriptions of the cuneiform writing of south-west Asia" (5).

The identification of the Chinese founders with the Bak people has been challenged by Firth, as referenced in my article "Ethnography, Biblical Studies, and Higher Criticism." Indeed, there is some question whether specific tribal identification can be made due to difficulties of transliteration, changes of pronunciation, the lack of adequate original Chinese records from the earliest eras, and linguistic shifts over time. At best, we can say that Terrien de Lacouperie makes an interesting case for identification of the Chinese founders with the Bak tribes of Elam which falls short of the mandate of proof.

Furthermore, our understanding of both chronology and the Sumerian language has changed considerably since Terrien de Lacouperie's day: In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, King "Dungi" of Ur, under whom orthographic reforms occurred and tribes of the Sumero-Akkadian empire were taught to read and write, was believed to have lived in the twenty fourth century BC, leading Terrien de Lacouperie to postulate an exodus for the Bak tribes toward China in the twenty third century BC. Modern scholars now know "Dungi" as Shulgi of Ur, and assign his chronology to the twenty first century BC. Similarly, contemporary scholars date Gudea's rule circa 2144-2124 BC. Either Chinese migrations would have had to come after this time - which is certainly plausible in view of the lack of proven evidences of these forms of Chinese culture before this date - or they would have had to come earlier under a prior ruler, which is also possible. On the other hand, modern chronologies makes certain elements of Terrien de Lacouperie's theory more plausible. For instance, Sargon the Great's reign was attributed to the period of approximately 3900 BC by the Sumerian King lists, which have since been shown to contain serious chronological errors. Modern scholars accept a date in the 23rd century BC, which would explain a persistent memory of these events closer in time and place to the exodus of the putative Chinese ancestors.

Yet the uncertainty of specific tribal identification does not allow Terrien de Lacouperie's overarching hypothesis to be lightly dismissed in demonstrating compelling similarities between Akkadian and Chinese language, culture, and technology.

A few of the borrowings of China cited by Terrien de Lacouperie from Chaldea include:

The remains and loans of Chaldean culture, which we can still now discover in the early Chinese civilization, are so numerous and bear on so many points that we cannot without difficulty summarize them with clearness...The ancient Chinese, through their civilizers, had learned from Chaldea: the solar year; its duodenary division, with the system of an intercalary month, its subdivision into twenty-four parts, and into periods of five days; also the division of days into double hours, and a certain use of a period of seven days. They preserved from their early teachers the same fourfold division of the year into seasons; and they hand not entirely forgotten the symbolism of the names of the twelve months. Nor had they forgotten the allusions in the names of the planets and their symbolical colours the special colours...

LaCouperie continues for many pages citing and documenting various Chinese borrowings from their Chaldean predecessors.

Genetic evidence also suggests that the early tribes of Elam and Chaldea that founded the Chinese civilization may have been genetically very different from modern Chinese. The further back we go, the greater genetic distinctiveness we find between ancient and modern Asian populations. One of the most ancient Asian studies of human remains was conducted in the Linzi area of central China. The authors studied human remains from three different time periods and reported:

"The results indicate that the genetic backgrounds of the three populations are distinct from each other. Inconsistent with the geographical distribution, the 2,500-year-old Linzi population showed greater genetic similarity to present-day European populations than to present-day East Asian populations. The 2,000-year-old Linzi population had features that were intermediate between the present-day European/2,500-year-old Linzi populations and the present-day East Asian populations. These relationships suggest the occurrence of drastic spatiotemporal changes in the genetic structure of Chinese people during the past 2,500 years." (Wang L., Oota H., Saitou N., et al. "Genetic structure of a 2,500-year-old human population in China and its spatiotemporal changes." Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Sep;17(9):1396-400.)]

The authors further noted: "the three smallest genetic distances for the 2,500 year-old Linzi population were from the Turkish, Icelander, and Finnish, rather than from the east Asian populations."(ibid). Not only did a 2,500 year-old population with strong European genetic features live in central China, but these people appears to be the oldest inhabitants of China yet identified. Geneticists are aware of this group, whose genetic features seem to be almost entirely absent from modern Chinese populations, only because of recent research. If we were to imagine a hypothetical Linzi group that might have emigrated to an isolated island in 500 BC, the DNA of their descendants would be completely unrelated to that of modern Chinese and would be classified by proponents of "regional affiliation" genetics as belonging to a European culture group. Self-proclaimed experts would undoubtedly claim that this group had been "proven" not to have originated in China at all. The Linzi data wreak havoc upon the theories of critics who indiscriminately extrapolate the genetics of the modern inhabitants onto ancient peoples without supporting DNA evidence. There is evidence of other Caucasian peoples in ancient China, such as the Taklamakan mummies of the Tocharian civilization that inhabited the Tarim basin in central Asia and Xinyiang province. This group was distinct from and much later than the early Bak tribes, yet it provides further evidence of the fact that the ethnic and genetic makeup of groups inhabiting these regions in antiquity was very different from today.

A paucity of data are available regarding the very ancient Chinese populations. We have no data going back 4300 years to the time of the migration of the Bak tribes. But existing genetic data appears to be, at a minimum, fully consistent with Lacouperie's conclusions based upon technology and linguistics that the founders of the Chinese civilization came from Elam and Chaldea. It appears that this group was eventually absorbed into significantly larger populations who assimilated culture, linguistics, and technology, even though the genetic traces of the original founders are scarcely evidenced in modern populations that identify themselves as Chinese.

Political policies of the Chinese also encouraged this process of assimilation. In The Languages of China before the Chinese, Lacouperie noted:

The policy of the Chinese toward the previous occupiers of the soil...which has so much contributed to the formation of their national character, has always been, with few exceptions, strictly followed. They have, as a rule, always attempted to befriend them, and they had recourse to coercion and conquest only when compelled to do so by the aggressiveness of the tribes" (12).

 

....

 

Taken from: http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_other_articles&story_id=7&cat_id=3 

Archaeology, The Bible and The Post-Flood Origins of Chinese History



Roy L. Hales

During the past century many theories of a western origin for Chinese civilization have been proposed. One of the best documented attempts was based on the similarity of neolithic pottery in eastern Europe and China. It was discarded because archaeologists believed that any such large scale migration should leave abundant evidences in the intervening lands and that evidence was not available. On Biblical presuppositions, of course, we might expect no intervening link because the migration to distant lands occurred rapidly after the Tower of Babel episode. An examination of Chinese tradition, and the legends of the equally ancient Far Eastern Miao tribes, suggests that China was colonised after a flood like that described in the Bible.

THE FLOOD
The flood was as important in the ancient mythologies of the peoples of China, as it is to Scripture. Many primitive peoples described it as a catastrophe of Biblical dimensions. The Miao Legend states that a single human couple escaped the deluge in a wooden drum, and then gave birth to the first members of post flood humanity.1 The Shu King, China's first "history", states:

destructive in their overflow are the waters of the inundation. In their vast extent they embrace the hills and overtop the great heights, threatening the heavens with their floods.2  

WORLD PRE-FLOOD GENEALOGIES
Yu, the Chinese "Noah", overcame the flood waters, but he and his immediate predecessors are of a lineage well known to world mythology. The Bible, the ancient Sumerians and the Chinese all cite a chronology of ten rulers whose last member was the hero of a Great Flood epoch. Similar legends are known from Greece and India. Some modern scholars have recognised the unity of these genealogies and suggested they may have originated in ancient Sumeria. In our Biblical framework, the great flood was an actual event and each of these traditions indigenous to the lands where they are found. Such a currency of like traditions is to be expected on the basis of Scripture, and on that basis Miao are quite correct in ascribing the whole of post flood humanity to a single family.

A BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF CHINESE ARCHAEOLOGY
A Biblical interpretation of China's village culture must necessarily cut 3,000 years off the current reconstruction of that nation's Neolithic era. The vast bulk of early cultures, the Yang Shao and Lung Shan among them, would be incorporated as components of Hsia dynasty times (2205 B.C. to 1766 B.C.). The earliest villages would not have been more than a few hundred years earlier.

SIMILARITIES OF SUMERIAN AND CHINESE CULTURE
Genesis 11:2 states that after the flood mankind found a plain in the land of Sinar (Sumeria) and settled there. There are evidences in China's culture that indicate a Sumerian origin. The term "black-headed people" for their own race, and an emphasis on astronomy and mathematics in early times are common to both cultures.

Furthermore, the identity of a great body of astronomical lores and astrological superstitions, the use of methods of measurement, the cycle of sixty and decimal system, the belief in interrelation and correspondence of five elements, of five colors and the harmony of numbers, together with a multitude of other customs on the part of both the Chinese and Chaldeans cannot be explained as merely co-incidences.3  

JAPHETIC ORIGINS OF THE CHINESE
From Sumeria, mankind spread out across the earth and it seems quite probable that the ancestors of the Chinese accompanied the Japhetic migration into Europe. The Caucasian and Mongolian races have long been recognized as close genetic relatives.4 When Sir William Dawson broke the early Chinese language into its monosyllable roots, in the late nineteenth century, he found them traceable to all stocks of European speech.5 Then, too, the painted urns of one of China's earliest neolithic cultures (the Yang Shao) have no other correspondents in China, but are strikingly like "similar painted wares" from Turkestan, the Caucasus, the Ukraine and the Balkans.

MIAO TRADITIONS OF BEGINNINGS AND THE MIGRATION
Hugo Bernatzek found traditions of another homeland and an ancient migration from among the Miao tribes who now live in Thailand. The first two human beings, a brother and sister, supposedly appeared after "the earth was flooded by the ocean".7 The Miao also talk of a "golden age" before weeds grew in the field and of how ripe grain flew through the air into men's houses.
This age came to an end when one lazy woman disobeyed her husband and didn't sweep the house clean to receive the ripe grain. There are stories, too, of an original homeland many years journey to the north where the days and nights are six months long and it is very cold.8
A missionary named F.M.l. Savina had earlier collected the stories of the Miao who lived in southern China. These people also spoke of the "golden age", indicating that it had ended when a woman picked some forbidden strawberries. They told of how a brother and sister had escaped the flood waters in a wooden drum and how all post flood humanity was descended from them. Then there came a time when mankind grew numerous and tried to reach heaven with a ladder. The "Lord of Heaven" struck these few dead with lightning. Before this time all people had spoken one language: now they were given many languages and, not being able to understand one another, separated. The Miao went to a land where the days and nights were six months long. They eventually migrated into Honan province, in China, and were in possession of that land when the Hia or "Chinese" arrived.9

BlBLlCAL ASPECTS OF MIAO AND CHINESE LEGENDS
Both Miao and Chinese traditions assume several Biblical sounding aspects. Miao legends mention an original "golden age" lost to mankind through disobedience, a great flood and the subsequent dispersal of the human family throughout the world. Chinese tradition possesses no fall Story, and no migration epic, but lists a number of pre-flood characters who are very similar to those found in the Bible.

THE FIRST TEN CHINESE EMPERORS
Stories of the first ten emperors of China follow a chronology much like that of the first ten generations of Genesis. Like Adam, the first emperor was specially created, ruled "over the earth" (Genesis 1 :28) and wore the skins of animals. Shen-nung, the second emperor, was like Adam's son Cain in that he was the first farmer, who invented the plow and instigated the first markets. During another emperor's reign cattle were first herded, pitch pipes were invented and the first instruments of bronze and iron fashioned: Genesis 4:19-22 attributes these innovations to the sons of Lamech. The seventh man of each list was a bigamist. Noah and Yu, the tenth members of their lists, were flood heroes who developed a limp during the course of their labours and who were associated with the discovery of wine.10 The comparisons between Chinese and Biblical chronology are so many that many mythologists have admitted that they must have been inspired by the same source. These modern scholars suggest that both traditions evolved from Sumerian legends, but there are far more resemblances between Chinese and Biblical tradition than exist between the myths of Sumeria and China

SUPPOSEDLY OLDER CHINESE TRADITIONS
Numerous pre-Imperial personalities would appear to refute the thesis that the Imperial/Biblical generations are historical, but these myths in many ways actually strengthen the Scriptural link. Many of the stories can be dismissed as late inventions. Others, of an obvious antiquity, often demonstrate claims contemporary to the Imperial line and Scripture. For instance, Suei Jen taught men how to make fires and set up markets: innovations also claimed by pre-flood emperors and, at least in regard to markets, Cain. The flood waters followed and when they had covered seven-tenths of the earth Kung Kung took advantage of mankind's Compressed situation to make himself king.
Alternate versions relate that Kung Kung was an inept official who failed to halt the rising flood waters and that he was the father of Yu (Noah, in the present thesis). The similarities between these mythical fragments and the Imperial chronologies are such that they may have descended from alternate traditions of the same era.11

MIAO AND CHINESE MIGRATIONS INTO CHINA
The Miao claim to have migrated into China prior to the Chinese and there are many evidences that support such a claim. Ch'ih Yu, the third emperor, was the chieftan of the Li tribes who are part of the Miao race. Some, admittedly late, traditions state that Huang Ti led the Chinese out of the northwest and into China at this time. Huang Ti 's overthrow of Ch'ih Yu, which must be regarded as a Miao/Chinese struggle, is the first war of Chinese history. Whatever historical basis these legends may have, however, they appear to be chronologically misplaced. The entire sequence of preflood Imperial history appears to be like that of the Bible, and Huang Ti is in the middle of this sequence. Furthermore, both Miao and Biblical chronologies cite these events as occurring after the flood. A far more logical candidate for leading the post flood migration to China is Yu, who established the Hsia dynasty (2205 B.C. 1766 B.C.) after the flood.12

YU LED THE "CHINESE" INTO CHINA
Within the legends of Yu are hints of two personalities: a flood hero and a migration leader. During the course of his labours, Yu paced the length of the earth. He then established the Hsia dynasty and cast nine caldrons which became symbolic of his dynasty. The origin of the metal for these caldrons which represent the nine provinces of China is problematic: one authority insists this material came from the nine regions (of the empire)", another states that the metal was "brought from far off countries by the nine shepherds".13 The second interpretation supports a colonization hypothesis, especially when we consider the strong sheepherding traditions of Sumeria and the Balkan regions of eastern Europe. Further hints as to Yu's migration are gained through his father, Kung Kung. One Chinese tradition asserts that when flood waters covered seven-tenths of the earth Kung Kung took advantage of this fact to extend his rule over all of them. Miao tradition states that mankind grew numerous after the flood, but then dispersed after the "confusion of the tongues". Scripture mentions that mankind settled in the land of Shinar (Sumeria) after the flood and that a certain Nimrod established his kingdom there: then came the confusion of tongues and dispersal. Yu's claim to be the son of Kung Kung (Nimrod, in this thesis) may or may not be true, but he probably took the idea of "empire" with him to China. Numerous archaeological remains and retained customs testify to the Sumerian and Japhetic origins of Chinese civilization.

DISTORTION OF CHINESE TRADITION
In time, egocentric ideas of Chinese superiority and of the emperor as the "Son of Heaven" came to distort the traditional chronologies of beginnings. The flood was remembered, but China is the only culture which claims to have conquered its flood and the conqueror was, of course, an emperor. That this "emperor" led the Chinese into their future homeland is most probable. His recasting as "Noah" seems quite natural in a culture which came to disregard anything not Chinese. Omitting the foreign episodes, there was nothing before Yu except the flood.

VALUE OF CHINESE TRADITION
Despite these distortions, Chinese tradition remains one of the most essential evidences in any attempt to build a creationist framework of world history. The Chinese were one of the earliest literate civilizations and, with the Greeks and Hebrews, perhaps the first historically minded people. Most of eastern Asia derived cultural roots from China.

VALUE OF CREATIONIST RECONSTRUCTION TO MIAO AND CHINESE TRADITION
Within a creationist framework of history, both Chinese and Miao traditions derive a historicity which was formerly denied them. The Miao Stories of the flood, of a confusion of tongues and a subsequent migration to China appear as historical events. Many of the first Chinese emperors appear to have been historical characters, which makes it quite possible that the others are as well. Eight people survived the flood, with six different family backgrounds behind them. Any number of details, which are not in the Biblical record but nevertheless true, could have passed into folklore. The framework for any such reconstruction, however, lies in Genesis, chapters 1 to 11. It is within the idea of a post-flood colonization like that described in the Bible that the traditions of China's most ancient peoples the Miao and "Chinese" are reconciled.

FOOTNOTES
1 Hugo Bernatzek; Akha and Miao (1970), p.302 citing F.M.I. Savina Histoire de Miao (Société des Missions étrangères de Paris. Hong Kong, (7930), p. 245.
2 James Legge (trans) "The Canon of Yao" (Shoo Kingi.
3 Kiang Kang Hsi.' Chinese Civilization (Chung Hwa Book Co., Shanghai 1935), p.5.
4 Franz Boas; The Mind of Primitive Man (Free Press paperback, 1965), p. 110.
5 Arthur Custance; Time and Eternity (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mich, 1977), pp. 184-185.
6 Stuart Piggot (ed); The Dawn of Civilization (1968), p.268.
7 Bernatzek, p.301.
8 Ibid, p.305.
9 Savina, pp. 180 & 254 as cited in Bernatzek, pp. 302-306.
10 Bernhard Karlgren "Legends and Cults in Ancient China" (Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, #18,1946) and other sources cited by Joseph Campbell; The Masks of God' Oriental Mythology (Viking/Compass, N.Y., 1974), pp.382-391.
Kiang Kung Ilsi, pp. 8-15.
James MacGowan; The Imperial History of China (Curzion Press London: N.Y.: Harper & Row; N.Y.: Barnes & Noble, 1973), pp. 4-20.
Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews 1.2.1.
11 Campbell, pp. 381-382; Kiang Kung Hsi p.8; MacGowan, pp. 2 & 3.
12 The Shan Hai Ching cited Kiang Kung Hsi p4; Kiang Kung Hsi pp. 4 & 8; MacGowan, pp. 6-8; Campbell, p.383 & 391,392.
13 K.C. Wu; The Chinese Heritage (Crown Publishers, N.Y., 1982), p.112; and also Anthony Christie; Chinese Mythology (Hamlynn, London, N.Y., Sydney, Toronto, 1968), pp. 89, 90.

THE PREFLOOD GENERATIONS

BIBLICAL		CHINESE*
Adam		Fu Hsi
Seth	Cain	Shen-nung
Enos	Enoch	Ch'ih Yu
Cainan	Irad	Huang Ti
Mahalaleel	Mehujael	Shao Hao
Jared	Methusael	Chuan Hsu
Enoch	Lamech	Ku
Methuselah	Tubal-cain	Yao
Lamech		Shun
Noah		Yu

* as reconstructed by Berhard Karlgren & cited in Joseph Campbelle: The Masks of God - Oriental Mythology. pp. 382-389

....

Taken from: http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v06n2p04.htm

Constellations: legacy of the dispersion from Babel



Taken from: http://creation.com/constellations-a-legacy-of-babel

by Jonathan F. Henry

There are deep similarities among diverse cultures in their constellations. The similarities stem from an origin at least as remote as the dispersion from Babel, and vastly pre-date cross-cultural missionary outreaches of recent centuries. Cultural differences in constellations have resulted from distinct developments in various people groups since the dispersion from Babel. Constellations appear to contain memories (in corrupted form) of ancient historical events such as the Flood, but evidence does not support the claim that the constellations were a kind of primeval revelation, a ‘gospel in the stars’.

---

Why do diverse cultures have similar constellations?

Wikipedia.org

Figure 1. Peoples dispersing from Babel carried with them memories of historical events embedded in the stories linked with constellations.

If the biblical story of the dispersion from Babel were true, peoples from Babel would carry common ideas which might survive today in the cultures they founded after the dispersion. From a biblical point of view, therefore, any common denominator among diverse modern cultures is a possible indication that all peoples really did once live at a single place identified in the Bible as Babel. A common denominator crossing many cultures past and present is the prevalence of legends about the creation, the Flood and the dispersion from Babel. Flood legends are especially pervasive:

‘It is commonly understood that something like the story of Noah and the flood is part of the mythology of cultures around the globe. It is less widely realized that the unity of the world’s myths goes far beyond such basic similarities. So elaborate and intertwined are the mythic traditions in places as disparate as Mayan Central America, Viking Scandinavia, and Pharaonic Egypt, that it has for some decades been widely accepted among specialists in the field that a single mythic tradition, what Joseph Campbell called the monomyth, underlies all the discrete mythic traditions.’¹

However, in today’s secular culture, nothing is supposed to point back to the true history of the Bible, especially to the creation, the Flood or the dispersion from Babel. Indications from science and history that the Bible might be accurate are vigorously denied, particularly for the events in Genesis chapters 1–11. Thus it is claimed that the development of constellation patterns is a kind of convergent cultural evolution that happened spontaneously in many cultures. Anthony F. Aveni, for example, ignores the cross-cultural links between constellations and restricts his focus to the Pleiades, which eases the way to supposing that in a kind of ‘convergent development’, the Pleiades pattern could have arisen spontaneously in many isolated cultures. He writes,

‘Among primitive societies, the Pleiades are often the only celestial group paid any attention. In Bali, the Pleiades and Orion’s Belt are the only stars people use to correct their lunar calendar. The Pleiades are also worshipped among aboriginal people who do not practice agriculture. This may be due to the coincidence of the first annual appearance of the group at the beginning of the rainy season. Developing civilizations could hardly fail to observe that wild fruits grew more plentifully and therefore that they would have more to eat after a heavy fall of rain than after a long drought. Hunters could learn of the migration of their prey as a function of the meteorological cycle. It would then be but a simple step to attribute the cause of certain terrestrial occurrences to these stars. Indeed, many of the aboriginal people of Australia regard the Pleiades not merely as a signal but instead as the cause of rain—an astrological rather than an astronomical function. They curse the Pleiades if their appearance in the sky is not immediately followed by a rainy period.’²

Aveni’s view is simplistic. Though no two cultures share constellations identical in every detail, nevertheless there are deep and basic similarities that have attracted the attention of secular researchers who give no credence to Genesis 1–11. Emphasizing the differences cannot erase the similarities, and these similarities are too wide-ranging to be due to coincidence alone. Therefore it is plausible to claim that ‘most cultures recognize more or less the same constellations.’³ The truth is that the constellations trace back to a time consistent with the chronology of Nimrod’s life, were arguably common knowledge at Babel, and have since been preserved among the world’s cultures.⁴

When did the constellations originate?

Using the spread of Western culture and missions to account for the cross-cultural similarity of constellations overlooks the existence of similarities in ancient constellations. As we will see, similarities in ancient constellations are a difficulty for conventional views of the past. On the other hand, having similarities among ancient constellations does not mean that ancient cultures had identical constellations. Biblical creationists have recognized these similarities as being connected with the dispersion from Babel.⁵
Even more, the existence of any similarity at all is damaging to the belief that isolated groups of primitive peoples evolved in different localities. In fact the constellations have no objective existence. The patterns that we call constellations are in the minds of the beholders, for the stars comprising them, with few exceptions, do not lie on the same plane in space. The stars that seem to be situated on the surface of the ‘celestial sphere’ are actually at various distances from us. This may be obvious to astronomers and other scientists, but laypeople are often unaware of the fact that

‘The stars of a constellation have no connection one with another apart from the fact that they happen to lie in approximately similar directions as seen from earth. A constellation is therefore an arbitrary or conventional grouping of stars. Indeed, the Chinese, for example, divided the sky up into groups different from those familiar to us.’⁶

Image from

Figure 2. An illustration from Camille Flammarion’s 1880 Astronomie Populaire.

With the thousands of stars visible to the naked eye, the probability of independently evolving cultures arriving at the same constellations by chance alone is remote. There is no evolutionary approach that explains how different cultures, supposedly developing in separate parts of the world, managed to imagine the same or similar star patterns in the sky. Conversely, the existence of even a few identical constellations suggests that all of mankind was once congregated at one point from which all ethnic groups dispersed.
Since the Bible describes such a dispersion scenario, at least some of the constellation similarities among ancient cultures represented shared ideas originating before mankind dispersed. While some post-dispersion borrowing may have occurred among adjacent cultures, borrowing cannot account for the existence of similarities between ancient Old and New World cultures now separated by the ocean. Even secular authorities place the origin of constellations at a time consistent with the biblical date for Babel. Astronomer and historian of science James Jeans wrote:

‘The earth wobbles as it rotates … so that the portion of the sky which can be seen from any portion of the earth’s surface is continually changing; that part in which the constellations bear ancient names is the part which could be seen from about latitude 40° N., in about the year 2750 BC, and this is thought to suggest that these constellations were grouped and named by the Babylonians of some such date. They are practically identical with our present-day constellations of the northern sky.’⁷

The biblical date for Babel is about 2300–2400 BC,⁸ comparable with the 2750 date that Jeans cited.
Jeans’ assessment was not new. In 1913, one writer noted that ‘[According to Maunder] there was a tradition that Taurus was the original leader in the zodiac; the equinox, therefore, was probably in Taurus when the constellations of the zodiac were formed, and this was the case between 4000 and 1700 BC’⁹ Maunder himself claimed that ‘the [celestial] sphere was mapped out in North latitude 40° and about 2800 years BC’¹⁰

This range of dates, especially the lower end, is consistent with a tight biblical chronology without ‘gaps’ which places the dispersion from Babel around 2300 BC.

Astronomer Michael Ovenden later confirmed a similar date of origin for the constellations. He ‘found the mean of the different dates from the various constellations to be 2800 BC ± 300 years … . There can … be no doubt that the constellations are, individually, oriented symmetrically with respect to the celestial poles of about 2800 BC’¹¹ More recently, astronomer William K. Hartmann concluded that the constellations as we know them date from sometime between 2600 ± 800 BC: ‘Many constellations may be Minoan … handed down to us from around 2600 BC, with still earlier elements incorporated into them. We should not assume that “it all started with the Greeks”.’¹²
Much of this range of dates, especially the lower end, is consistent with a tight biblical chronology without ‘gaps’ which places the dispersion from Babel around 2300 BC. Further, Hartmann is not saying that the constellations began with the Minoans, but that they continued the use of ‘earlier elements.’ This blending of ‘earlier elements’ into new cultural frameworks explains the modifications which became the differences now commonly taken as proof that the constellations were not shared among the early (post-Babel) cultures. Along this line, Evershed proposed that the Assyrians imposed major modifications on the original constellations:

‘Is it not possible that in the golden age of Assyrian astronomy, which began in the 8th century BC, many traditional forms were gathered together, and the whole sphere definitely mapped out; while at the same time, in the new calendar which was introduced under Nabonassar, the first month for the first time connected with the invisible group of Aries, in which the Sun was known to be, instead of with the group Taurus which appeared after his [the sun’s] setting in the west?’¹³

However, the Assyrians cannot be considered the originators of the constellations, even though this has been claimed. B.E. Schaefer, wrote,

‘I have found 172 useful constraints for Eudoxus’ lore [leading to the following conclusion]. … (1) All lore reported by Eudoxus were based on observations from the year 1130 ± 80 BC and at a latitude of 36.0 ± 0.9 degrees north. (2) My derived date and latitude correspond only to the peak of the Assyrian culture. (3) The typical accuracy of the lore is 4–8 degrees even though 1 degree accuracy is easy to be gotten by primitive methods. (4) About half the rise/set pairs [of recorded star positions] recorded in the Mesopotamian MUL.APIN tablets are also given in Eudoxus’ lore. (5) The

‘MUL.APIN tablets have been independently determined to be based on observations from roughly 1000 BC at a latitude of 36 degrees north … I conclude that both Eudoxus’ lore and MUL.APIN were derived from the same old Assyrian observations.’¹⁴

The low accuracy Schaefer perceives for the latitude of the lore also implies a low accuracy in the time inferred from the lore. Having focused on the MUL.APIN tablets as supplying the time frame for the lore, Schaefer inferred the latitude necessary from the lore to give him the time frame he expected, then concluded that the time frame matched the time of Assyria’s cultural dominance. His conclusion that the MUL.APIN tablets and Eudoxus derive from the same source is true, except that the ultimate source dates from c. 2800 BC (a date which should be revised downward by several centuries, as noted below), so could not have been Assyria. Nor could the Romans via Ptolemy have given us the constellations, for ‘Ptolemy’s catalogue bears witness to a constellation scheme that originated and had received its completion before his day.’¹⁵
Even the common belief that the constellations as we know them originated with the Greeks cannot be true.

‘[The Greek naturalist] Hipparchus was not the originator of the constellations. He had before him the description of the sky known as ‘The Sphere of Eudoxus’ (Eudoxus of Cnidos, c. 403–350 BC), and a poetic description of the sphere of Eudoxus given by Aratus (c. 315–250 BC) in the work known as the Phaenomenon. If [2800 BC for] the date of the constellations is correct, then Aratus and Hipparchus lie about half-way between us and the constellation-makers, and Hipparchus will be trying to fit what he sees with descriptions in the sphere of Eudoxus that are really appropriate to a situation 2500 years before his time.’¹⁶

Maunder likewise observed, ‘the correspondence between the Greek and Indian planispheres [sky maps] shows that one of them was copied from the other, or both from the same original model.’¹⁷

Constellation similarities are not coincidence

A number of historians have asserted that the very earliest cultures, those we would recognize as early post-dispersion peoples, did in fact employ the same constellations. Differences developed, but similarities remained. For example, historian Kenneth Brecher pointed out that

‘The Babylonians identify [Sirius] as part of a constellation which they describe as a bow and arrow. The Chinese independently described a bow and arrow in the sky, but they used different stars for their construction. For them, Sirius is part of the image at which the arrow is shooting; and curiously, the image at which that arrow is shooting is a dog. In Western tradition, Sirius is part of the constellation Canis Major, the Big Dog. It is remarkable that the same images—dogs, bows and arrows—occur in the cosmographies of different cultures; after all, if you look at the sky, you see only points of light on a dark field. … [This can be taken] as an indication that the astronomical myths of China and Mesopotamia derive from a common origin.’¹⁸

Historians Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend have also noted that the Orion motif is ‘common to the spheres of Mesopotamia, Egypt and China.’ Further, ‘there is strong circumstantial evidence of this bow and arrow in Mexico also: the bow of the Chichimeca, the Dog-people.’¹⁹ Orion with modifications was also recognized in ancient Iran and India,²⁰ but modification is what one would expect for diffusing legends. Orion was also familiar to the ancient Norwegians,²¹ and Old Norse rock art depicted Orion.²²
The Pleiades were another constellation known worldwide in ancient times, even among Australian aborigines: ‘In Aboriginal mythology there are many stories of the Pleiades: they are given female attributes and are known as seven sisters. In this there is a pronounced similarity to legends from all over the world.’²³ But the Pleiades’ renown is not due to their prominence in the heavens: ‘Those stars are apparently only six’, with the seventh so dim at times so as to be unseen,

‘ … yet all the world over, among civilized and savage races, in Europe, in India, China, Japan, America, and Africa, this diminutive group is not merely regarded as seven stars, but what is still more surprising, as “The Seven Stars,” though the far brighter seven stars of the Great Bear might seem to deserve the title.’²⁴

The Great Bear was also known worldwide in antiquity: ‘The star group in Ursa Major was seen as a bear in Europe, Asia, North America, and even ancient Egypt, where there are no bears … the bear identification may go all the way back to ice-age Euro-Asia, from where it spread.’²⁵ Significantly, ‘ice-age Euro-Asia’ would have been the location of Babel, and would have existed at the time indicated by biblical chronology for Babel.
As mentioned earlier, Maunder estimated that the latitude of the constellation makers was 40° north. A more recent investigation placed the latitude slightly farther south, at approximately 30° to 38° north.²⁶
The latitude of Babylon, 32½° north, is within this range.²⁷ A significant fact about the constellations is that the oldest ones fill only the northern sky and are absent in an empty zone surrounding the south celestial pole.^25,28 This is consistent with the existence of Babel in the northern hemisphere,¹³ together with the fact that dispersing cultures did not reach the extremities of the southern hemisphere until relatively recently. In contradiction, however, Ovenden asserted,

‘There are four main contenders for the title of constellation-makers. The credit is often given to the Babylonians, but their seafaring would have been in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, too far south for the latitude of the constellation makers [but Babel slightly south of Baghdad was at about 32° north, close to Ovenden’s estimated latitude range for these people]. The Egyptians sailed in the Mediterranean, but much of their seafaring also would have been in more southern waters. The Phoenicians were great traders, with a great centre at Byblus, latitude about 34° (consistent with our determined latitude). … But I would like to put forward the claims of the Minoans, based on Crete, who were out in the Mediterranean in strength by the beginning of the third millennium BC’²⁹

Hartmann’s reservation about naming the Minoans as the constellation-makers has been mentioned. Further, Ovenden’s proposals have a chronological problem. The chronologies of his four candidates—and of other ancient chronologies tied to conventional Egyptian chronology—are too long by as much as a millennium.³⁰ Once the chronologies are scaled down, as they ought to be, by shrinking the Egyptian chronology appropriately, and by subtracting out the years of the non-existent ‘dark ages’ from the Minoan and Greek chronologies, these cultures date not from c. 2500 BC, but from closer to 1500 BC, a date roughly a millennium too young to match the date of the constellation-makers.

The constellations: remembrance of Noah’s Flood?

There is a view that God mapped out the constellations as a kind of primeval revelation before man had the Bible.³¹ An even older view of the constellations is that they were a device of Nimrod at Babel to lead mankind away from God, or at least they reflect the corrupted mythologies that mankind fell into at Babel and afterward.³² In between these extreme views is a middle view that constellations are corrupted memories of significant events happening early in history. The most traumatic such event was the global Flood of Noah, and—as Glasglow University astrophysicist and historian of science Michael Ovenden observed—one of the most expansive constellations is

‘ … the large constellation of Arago the Ship, often shown in early representations [of the constellations] as though atop a mountain. Coming from the ship is the Centaur, a man-animal, sacrificing a Beast upon the Altar. We see, too, the Water-snake (Hydra) with a Raven (Corvus) eating its flesh. There can be no doubt that here we have, in imagination pictured in the sky, a version of the story of Noah and the Flood. The picture is complete with the Milky Way seeming to rise as smoke from the Altar.

‘Consider the following quotation, with which we are all familiar: “And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt offerings at the altar. … And God said, ‘This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you for perpetual generations. I do set my bow in a cloud, and it shall be a token of a covenant between me and the Earth’.” The bow of Sagittarius is fixed pointing to one of the most obvious rifts, or clouds, in the Milky Way. Of course, this association of the Southern constellations with the flood story that occurs in Genesis, and in the Babylonian Book of Gilgamesh, is no new insight, for when the stars left vacant by changing the course of Eridanus [due to precession] were later given a name, Columba the Dove was chosen [i.e. the “Dove” motif was preserved even as the star patterns in the heavens changed over the centuries because of precession]. …

‘Did the constellations inspire the myth [of the Flood] or did the myth inspire the constellations? I am sure that the latter was the case. Indeed, what better aid to memory of the pattern of the stars by uneducated sailors could there be than to associate the star-patterns with the stories known to the sailors from their childhood, as a pictorial mnemonic.’³³

It appears that Ovenden’s assessment has support from other quarters, for Arago is not the only stellar reminder of the Flood. ‘from the Lake Eyre region [Australia] there is a myth that links [the Pleiades, known as the Seven Sisters] with a flood’.³⁴ In this myth, ‘the ancestor figure who tried to capture one of them was prevented by a great flood.’³⁵ By association with the Flood, the Pleiades became associated with the giving of rain, even though the aborigines were not farmers and therefore had no practical reason to monitor rainfall.

‘[Primitive peoples] have commonly timed the various operations of the agricultural year by observation of [the Pleiades’] heliacal rising or setting. … great attention has been paid to the Pleiades by savages in the southern hemisphere who do not till the ground. … Now amongst the rudest of savages known to us are the Australian aborigines, none of whom in their native state ever practised agriculture. [Yet they] sing and dance to gain the favour of the Pleiades … the constellation worshipped … as the giver of rain.’³⁶

There is also a Jewish legend that links the Pleiades with the Flood: ‘The upper waters rushed through the space left when God removed two stars out of the constellation Pleiades.’³⁷ How the Pleiades became connected with the Flood is not known. Nevertheless, the Pleiades are another component of legends worldwide that testify to the reality of Noah’s Flood.

Is the Gospel in the stars?

Table 1. Constellations and asterisms in the Bible.

The gospel-in-the-stars concept is the idea that God originally defined the constellations as a primeval revelation preceding the giving of the written Word. The constellations were intended to tell the Gospel story, but eventually the meaning of the constellations was corrupted into astrology; now we have God’s revelation in His Word, a ‘more sure word of prophecy’ (2 Peter 1:19).
Though God made the stars (Genesis 1:16), and though the Bible mentions various constellations and groups of stars called ‘asterisms’, e.g. the Pleiades (see table 1³⁸), the Bible nowhere claims that God designed the constellations for a revelatory purpose. Biblical references to constellations merely assert that God, not pagan deities, controls the stars in the constellations. Biblical references to constellations are therefore a rebuttal of ancient and modern astrology, not proof of a ‘gospel in the stars’.
In fact God has a name for each star: ‘He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names’ (Psalm 147:4). Isaiah 40:26 links God’s ability to create and name each star with His ability to control them: ‘Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names of the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.’ Isaiah 40:26 is a strong assertion that God controls the heavens, which means that God, not the heavens, controls our lives. This assertion remains relevant today, for astrology was and still is a common belief. In antiquity,

‘ … astrology was based on the doctrine that the outer spheres of the universe influenced the inner. … This conception coloured all departments of thought and embedded itself deeply in speech. “The scheme was conceived under an evil star”, “His fortune is in the ascendant”, “The seventh heaven of delight”, “He has gone to a higher sphere”, “The British sphere of influence”, “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades” (Job XXXViii. 31), “He has the influenza” are such cases.’³⁹

Figure 3. Title page of Rolleston’s Mazzaroth, the origin of the modern ‘gospel-in-the-stars’ concept.

Modern belief in the constellations as Gospel revelation began with the publication of Mazzaroth: or, the Constellations by Frances Rolleston (figure 3).⁴⁰ Rolleston cited ‘proof texts’ without context but in so doing made an argument which became popular. Rolleston’s assertion was that ‘the signs [in the zodiac] were intended to symbolize prophecy, as recorded in the Holy Scriptures.’⁴¹
Subsequent books teaching a Gospel in the stars trace back to Rolleston’s Mazzaroth. For example, Joseph R. Seiss in The Gospel in the Starsacknowledged: that ‘from [Rolleston’s] tables and references the writer of these Lectures was helped to some of his best information.’⁴² E.W. Bullinger in The Witness of the Stars likewise described his debt to Rolleston: ‘Some years ago it was my privilege to enjoy the acquaintance of Miss Frances Rolleston, of Keswick, and to carry on a correspondence with her with respect to her work, Mazzaroth: or, the Constellations. She was the first to create an interest in this important subject.’⁴³ Kenneth C. Fleming in God’s Voice in the Stars cited Rolleston, Seiss, and Bullinger in a conceptual lineage spanning more than a century,⁴⁴ as did Henry M. Morris⁴⁵ and Ruth Beechick.⁴⁶
Christians gravitated to Rolleston’s argument because it seemed to lend historical veracity to the early chapters of Genesis. But similarities among the constellations provide intriguing evidence of biblical history without the need of resorting to Rolleston’s ‘gospel in the stars’ idea. Indeed, Rolleston and Seiss advanced the claim of this present paper, that constellations of diverse cultures show basic similarities, implying that humanity once lived at a single site. Rolleston, for example, noted that ‘the Egyptian and Chaldean signs were the same as everywhere else, but differently named.’⁴⁷
Seiss maintained that he came to the gospel-in-the-stars concept by encountering sceptical polemical works attempting ‘to throw contempt on Christianity as a mere accommodation of certain old mythic ideas common to all primitive peoples’, but rather than doubting Christianity, Seiss began noticing the ‘striking correspondence between [the ancient myths] and the subsequent Scriptural story of Christ and salvation.’⁴⁸
The skeptics had exploited the cultural similarities among the constellations as evidence that Christian beliefs were merely primitive archetypes. With input from Rolleston, Seiss in turn interpreted these archetypes as evidence that the stars carried an ancient Gospel message visible to all. However, the remembrance, in legendary form, of historical events such as the Flood also accounts for these so-called ‘archetypes’. Images of these ‘archetypes’ were indeed imposed on star patterns. That is the claim of this paper. Thus the similarities in constellations reflect the reality of historical events affecting all mankind rather than a supposed prophecy in the stars.
Was there ever a need for a Gospel in the stars? A careful reading of the Bible suggests not, for even among the ante-diluvians Enoch (Genesis 5:21–24) ‘prophesied … saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints’ (Jude 14–15). And long before this, Genesis 3:15—the so-called ‘proto-evangelium’—records that God, speaking to Adam and Eve, had prophesied the coming of His Son to Earth. Gospel-in-the-stars advocates associates constellations with the biblical statement in Genesis 1:14–18 that God created stars for ‘signs’, but these verses mention only stars, not constellations. Seeing constellations in Genesis 1:14–18 is a kind of eisegesis, the reading in of a concept not mentioned in the passage but present in the mind of the reader.

Table 2. Names of the 24 brightest stars according to Fleming.⁴⁴
References for Table 2. (1) Fleming,⁴⁴ pp. 21–22. (2) Pages cited in Allen.²¹ (3) In Fleming⁴⁴ (p. 21), Rigil Kentaurus is Toliman. (4) Vega and Capella are actually 5th and 6th; Arcturus is 4th.⁵⁰ (5) Altair is actually 12th, after Betelgeuse and Hadar.⁵⁰ (6) In Fleming (p. 21), Hadar is Agena. (7) A-crux is actually 24th.⁵⁰ (8) Aldebaran, 14th, is actually preceded by HD 213468,⁵⁰ not listed in Fleming.⁴⁴ (9) Pollux, Spica and Anteres are actually 17th, 15th and 16th, respectively.⁵⁰ (10) Regulus is actually 21st and Mimosa is 20th.⁵⁰ (11) In Fleming⁴⁴ (p. 22), Mimosa is B-crux. (12) Castor is actually 25th, Alioth 33rd, and Bellatrix 28th.⁵⁰

Gospel-in-the-stars advocates also infer from star names that the stars individually must have been primeval revelation. Some of the brightest stars, for example, have names reminiscent of biblical themes⁴⁹ (see table 2). However, the Bible nowhere reveals the name that God has given to each star, so there is no guarantee that the traditional star names preserve elements of divine nomenclature. Mankind’s ancient awareness of special revelation as mentioned in Genesis 3:15 and Jude 14–15, along with mankind’s memories of ancient historical ‘archetypes’, however, explains the similarity between star names and biblical themes.
Further, the primeval meaning of many star names is uncertain at best; ‘“etymology has full play with a word which has not traveled beyond astronomical language”—a statement … applicable to very many … star names.’²¹ By stretching uncertain meanings, the appearance of agreement can be produced between the supposed ancient meanings and biblical themes. In addition, the errors in Fleming’s list of star brightness order, noted at the bottom of table 2, do not add credibility to the supposed ‘revelatory’ significance he attributed to each star name.

Conclusions

The cultures of today emanated from a single point which the Bible identifies as Babel. Constellation similarities are an evidence of this fact.

The cultures of today emanated from a single point which the Bible identifies as Babel. Constellation similarities are an evidence of this fact. The question has been asked, ‘is there not a good deal of evidence to show that the constellations grew up gradually in Babylonia, and approximated more and more nearly to those we know as time approached the age of Greek astronomy?’¹³ The answer appears to be yes.
This conclusion falsifies the claim that the constellations were a kind of primeval Gospel revelation. It strengthens the realization that God has always given special revelation to mankind though His chosen prophets and His written Word, this last being the exclusive source of special revelation since the close of the apostolic age.

Acknowledgments

The crucial assistance of Mr Michael Clater, head librarian at Clearwater Christian College, in locating original versions of the old documents cited herein is gratefully acknowledged.

• Astronomy And The Bible
• Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers
• Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic

Further Reading

• Astronomy And The Bible
• Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers
• Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic

References

1. Murray, C., Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950, HarperCollins, New York, pp. 21–22, 2003. Return to text.
2. Aveni, A.F., Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico, University of Texas, Austin, TX, pp. 30–31, 1989. Return to text.
3. Henry, J.F., The Astronomy Book, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1999, pp. 24–25. Return to text.
4. There has long been the idea that God defined the constellations as a pre-biblical revelation, a so-called ‘gospel in the stars’. See in the text the section, ‘Is the Gospel in the stars?’ Return to text.
5. Morris, H.M., The Genesis Record, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, p. 278, 1976. Return to text.
6. Ovenden, M.W., The origin of constellations, The Philosophical Journal 3:1–18, July 1966; p. 1. An exception is the three stars in Orion’s belt (Levy, D.H. and Betelgeuse, J.P., Astronomy15(4):7–13, April 1987. Orion’s belt has the three bright stars zeta Orionis (Alnitak), epsilon Orionis (Alnilam), and delta Orionis (Mintaka). These three stars are at the same distance from earth (1,500 light-years), so they lie in the very plane in which they appear to be situated. Perhaps that is why, in Job 38:31, God asks Job, ‘Canst thou … loose the bands of Orion?’ in an apparent allusion to His ability to maintain the placement of the Pleiades’ stars in space. These three stars are also remarkably similar in other ways (the same size, about 20 times larger than the sun; and similar surface temperatures, about 50,000 ºC or somewhat higher). Return to text.
7. Jeans, J., The Story of Physical Science, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, p. 8, 1951. Return to text.
8. Morris, ref. 5, p. 675. Return to text.
9. Evershed, M.A., The origin of the constellations, Observatory36:179–181, April 1913; p. 179. Return to text.
10. Maunder, E.W., The zodiac explained, Observatory21:441, December 1898. Return to text.
11. Ovenden, ref. 6, p. 6. Return to text.
12. Hartmann, W.K., Astronomy, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, p. 15, 1991. Return to text.
13. Evershed, ref. 9, p. 181. Return to text.
14. Schaefer, B.E., The latitude and epoch for the origin of the astronomical lore of Eudoxus, American Astronomical Society Meeting203, #35.01, December 2003; , 8 July 2004. Return to text.
15. Maunder, E.W., The origin of the constellations, Observatory36:330, April 1913. Return to text.
16. Ovenden, ref. 6, p. 8. Return to text.
17. Maunder, ref 10, p. 439. Return to text.
18. Brecher, K., Sirius Enigmas; in: Brecher, K. and Feirtag, M. (Eds.), Astronomy of the Ancients, MIT, Cambridge, MA, p. 91, 1979. Return to text.
19. de Santillana, G. and von Dechend, H., Hamlet’s Mill, Gambit, Boston, MA, p. 216, 1969. Return to text.
20. de Santillana and von Dechend, re. 19, p. 358. Return to text.
21. Allen, R.H., Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning, Dover, New York, p. 313, 1963; originally published as Star-Names and Their Meanings, G.E. Stechert, New York, 1899. Return to text.
22. Schoemfeld, M., Prehistoric astronomy: a zodiac from bohusian province, Norway, Scientific American 3:301–303, 1921. Return to text.
23. Aitchison, J.E., The Pleiades in Aboriginal Mythology, SIS Workshop 5, September 1983; in: Tresman, I. (Ed.), Catastrophism!: Man, Myth and Mayhem in Ancient History and the Sciences, CD–ROM version 1.41, (33 Reginald Street, Derby DE23 8FR, UK, Knowledge Computing, May 2004). The Nazca Indians of Peru recognized the Pleiades. Hadingham, E., Lines to the Mountain Gods, University of Oklahoma, Norman, p. 104, 1988. Return to text.
24. Haliburton, R.G., Primitive traditions as to the Pleiades, Nature 25:100–101, 1 December 1881; p. 100. Return to text.
25. Hartmann, ref. 12, p. 14. Return to text.
26. ‘… if we take the date to be 2800 BC ± 300 years, the observers’ latitude becomes 34° ± 4° … [On the other hand, a statistical analysis of star positions inferred from various statements in Aratus yields an estimate for the date and latitude of] 2600 BC ± 800 years, 36°N ± 1½°’ (Ovenden, ref. 6, pp. 11, 12). Return to text.
27. Pannekoek, A., A History of Astronomy, Allen and Unwin, London, 1961, p. 74; reprinted Dover, Mineola, New York, 1989. Return to text.
28. Gingerich, O., On the origin of the zodiac, Sky & Telescope 67:218–220, March 1984; p. 218. Return to text.
29. Ovenden, ref. 6, p. 15. Return to text.
30. Henry, J.F., Fallacies of radiometric dating, Appendix A, The Sothic Cycle and Egyptian chronology, 2007, , accessed 30 August 2008. Return to text.
31. See the section, ‘Is the Gospel in the stars?’ Return to text.
32. Hislop, A., The Two Babylons: or the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, NJ, p. 13, 1959. Hislop began this work in 1853 in the form of a pamphlet; it was first published as a book in 1919. See ‘The Two Babylons’ (, April 24, 2007). Ralph Woodrow, in Babylon Mystery Religion (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Palm Springs, CA, 1966), once advocated Hislop’s ideas. But in The Babylonian Connection? (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Palm Springs, CA, 1997), pp. 23–28, Woodrow claimed some of Hislop’s conclusions to be undocumented speculation. However, one should not swing from Hislop’s assertion that nearly all cultural practices began at Babel to the opposite claim that virtually nothing began at Babel (Woodrow, 1997, p. 24). In fact, History Begins at Sumer is the title of a book by historian Samuel Noah Kramer (Doubleday Anchor, Garden City, NY, 1959). Sumer was the biblical Shinar (Genesis 11:1), the location of Babel, and the centre of the first civilization after the Flood. Kramer asserted that many cultural practices and patterns did in fact first appear in the Sumer of 2800 BC (p. 29). Return to text.
33. Ovenden, ref. 6, pp. 16–17. Return to text.
34. Aitchison, ref. 23. Return to text.
35. Isaacs, J. (Ed.), Australian Dreaming, Aboriginal Arts Board and Lansdowne Press, Sydney, Australia, p. 152, 1980. Return to text.
36. Frazier, J.G., The Golden Bough, Part 5, Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild vol. 1, Macmillan, London, p. 313, 1920. Return to text.
37. Ginzberg, L., Szold, H. (tr.), Legends of the Jews vol. 1, Jewish Publication Society of America, Phildelphia, PA, p. 162, 1968; reprint of 1909 edition. Return to text.
38. Allen, ref. 21, p. 554. Return to text.
39. Singer, C., A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900, Oxford University, New York, p. 215, 1959. Return to text.
40. Rolleston, F., Mazzoroth, or, the Constellations, Rivingtons, London, 1862, ), reprinted 1882. Return to text.
41. Rolleston, ref. 40, part 1, p. 7. Return to text.
42. Seiss, J.R., The Gospel in the Stars, E. Claxton, Philadelphia, p. 6, 1882; reprinted Kregel, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972. Return to text.
43. Bullinger, E.W., The Witness of the Stars, Lamp Press, London, p. iii, 1954. Return to text.
44. Fleming, K.C., God’s Voice in the Stars, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, NJ, p. 143, 1981. Return to text.
45. Morris, H.M, Many Infallible Proofs, Creation-Life, San Diego, CA, p. 343, 1974. Return to text.
46. Beechick, R., Adam and His Kin, Arrow Press, Pollock Pines, CA, pp. 50–53, 172, 175, 1990. Return to text.
47. Rolleston, ref. 40, part 2, p. 7. Return to text.
48. Seiss, ref. 42, p. 6. Return to text.
49. Fleming, ref. 44, pp. 21–22. Return to text.
50. Kornberg, C., The Brightest Stars, 9 November 1998, . Return to text.