Devotional Short Note to Genesis 8


Anyone who has taken classes in Bible at University, Adventist or non-Adventist is familiar with the knowledge that the biblical Flood account also had echoes in Cuneiform tablets that were discovered in the past. The concepts of this chapter in the Bible and Cuneiform tablets are the same: birds were sent out; birds did not return; both accounts explains of three birds; in both accounts a dove and a raven is involved. Secondly, the spelling of some of the birds are exactly the same. The Bible account is Genesis 8 and the Cuneiform tablet is called the Gilgamesh Epic. Here is the spelling: Tablet XI line 152 for raven is aribi and in Genesis 8:7 by Moses is h`rb. Thirdly, the verbal actions are the same: Tablet XI line 152 “and I sent out….” ušeima compared to the biblical account Genesis 8:7 “and he sent out…” wyšl. Another one is: GE line 154 “she flew about….” išaḫḫi compared to the biblical account Genesis 8:7 wz’yzw’. Still another : GE line 154 “repeat the process…” itarri compared to the biblical account in Genesis 8:7 wšwb and lastly one more: GE line 153 “When he saw that the waters had abated” qaruru šá mê [A.MEŠ] imurma compared to the same words in Genesis 8:8 lr’wt hqlw hmym. This tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic as well as the Creation account of the Enuma Elish were found by H. Rassam in 1854 at the Niniveh Library. It was presented to the world in 1872. Now the punch-line that all scholars since the discovery overlooked and never worked into the methodology discussing these tablets: the Niniveh Library dates to 650 BCE and was called the Library of Assyrian King Ashurbanipal. All scholars admit at least this part. H. Gunkel who wrote his book to show that Genesis was plagiarized from the Babylonian Account, sounded so correct as it was presented by the critics F. Delitzsch and Winckler shortly after the discoveries. Even in our day, Universities will present this data likewise as a masterpiece in Hebrew plagiarism. They never consider the reverse process. Why should they? Because when the scribe was copying the Gilgamesh Epic or composing it, it was not after the Flood in 2692 BCE [biblical chronology dating Exodus as 1450 BCE, the year Thutmosis III died and other factors outside the Bible], it was supposed to be dated to 650 BCE in the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian times. Get it clearly please: at this time Israel was already 73 years in exile in the area. What happened to Jews migrating to New York in 1939 and during the Second World War? Can a book be published in New York without a Jewish hand? Some of them adopted Christianity and are great Christians even Adventists! They are librarians in that city. This factor all scholars overlooked. Now the other punch line: who came first, the chicken or the egg? Moses lived according to the chronology of the Bible before 1450 BCE [date of the Exodus] and wrote the Book of Genesis in 1460 BCE in Midian after he killed the Egyptian by manslaughter. The Gilgamech Epic scribe lived in 650 BCE among Jews. What scholars, and many famous universities all over the world failed to do since the discovery of the tablets, was to prove first that Jewish hands did not lean heavily on the neo-Babylonian composition and borrowing from Moses into Gilgamesh Epic. Moses predates this Jewish-Babylonian speaking scribe in the Niniveh Library by 810 years.

Now here is the important part to prove that the Old Babylonians did not have these “biblical concepts” in their Flood accounts: compare all the Flood accounts since the earliest Cuneiform texts and see if they agree with the Gilgamesh Epic. If they don’t then the Gilgamesh Epic scribe copied his similarities with Genesis 8 from Moses. If they do, then maybe Moses did use Old Babylonian texts for his account. This methodology was never suggested by any famous university, Harvard, Yale, Tübingen, Uppsala, Oxford, Cambridge et al. They all followed Winckler, Delitzch, Gunkel ever since.

The Sumerian literature of 2500 BCE mentioned the Flood: It is mentioned briefly in the Kings Lists of Lagash; Ishme-Dagan of Isin (1940 BCE) and Ur-Ninunurtar of Isin (1900 BCE). The Sumerian account of the Flood consists of 300 lines and dated to 1600 BCE. This is before Moses who wrote Genesis in 1460 BCE.  Also written in Old Babylonian is the Atrahasis Flood Account written in Accadian and consisting of 1245 lines. It was also written about 1600-1500 BCE and predates Moses. So, comparing these four texts placing them next to each other would give us an idea who copied from who. The methodology is very simple.

The Sumerian account mentioned nothing of the boat. The Atrahasis Flood Account describes the boat consisting of reeds fastened to a wooden framework and thoroughly coated with pitch. Not strong enough for elephants to say the least. The Gilgamesh Epic suddenly says in Column XI that it was a huge wooden ship with six floors almost a veritable Titanic. It is noteworthy that the content about the boat and its features in the neo-Babylonian Niniveh copy surrounded by Jewish scribes included a midrashic elaboration of the boat never said before.

What about the birds sent out? Sumerian is tight-lipped and so is the Old Babylonian Atrahasis Flood Account. But the Gilgamesh Epic of Niniveh had much to imitate from Moses! GE Table XI line 146 “I sent forth a dove…” ú-še-i-ma summatu(TU mušen) which compare very well with Moses’ earlier 1460 BCE account. Also the second bird in GE Table XI line 149 “I sent forth a swallow…” …” ú-še-i-ma sinūntu(TU mušen) and the third bird in GE Table XI line 152 “I sent forth a raven…” …” ú-še-i-ma a-ra-bi compared to Moses in Genesis 8. Why is there a pop-up in the 650 BCE Babylonian account but nothing in the older account of these birds?

The conclusion so far that all these universities and their learned scholars failed to mention, is that the Gilgamesh Epic stands closer to the biblical account by Moses who chronologically is earlier than the Gilgamesh Epic.

It is very clear that Moses was utilized for the cuneiform works at Niniveh rather than the other way around as scholars even today are teaching young students at universities around the world.

Noah also brought an offering and this is described by Moses from the Book of Noah in extracts in Genesis 8:20-21. Also here one can make comparisons to allow for the skeptics not to be convinced by the above material.

The Sumerian account is CBS 10673 from Nippur dating to 1700 BCE with the Atrahasis III verso lines 34-35 dating to 1500 BCE. The Gilgamesh offering episode is in Gilgamesh Epic Tablet XI lines 158-160 and of course Moses’ account in Genesis 8:20-21.

About the offering the Sumerian (1600 BCE) said it was bulls and sheep. Atrahasis from 1500 said it was “food” [but A. Millard’s translation on page 99 is not in the original?]. The Hebrew Account by Moses said that they were “clean animals” but the Gilgamesh Epic said that the offering was wood and reeds.

About the reaction of God or the gods there is nothing in the Sumerian account since there is a gap in the text. In the Atrahasis account of 1500 BCE [still predating Moses] the gods [sniffed] the smell e-re-šu (line 34) and come to the smoke qūtrini (line 41). In the Hebrew account of Moses God “sniffed the fragrant smell…” wyrh……ryh hnyḥḥ”. In the Gilgamesh Epic the gods sniffed his clean smell. One may say here, they all described the original event accurately enough.

About the quality of the smell in line 211 of the Sumerian account there is nothing. In the Atrahasis lines 34-35, 41 it related nothing about the quality of the smell. In Genesis 8:20-21 Moses described the quality of the smell. Also in the Gilgamesh Epic in Tablet XI lines 158-160 there is a mention of the quality of the smell.

It is obvious that a Seventh-day Adventist scholar approaches the data with a more sober approach allowing the texts to speak for themselves, not jumping to haphazard conclusions as was done by prestigious universities and professors in both past and present.

Julius Wellhausen saw this predicament coming, namely that Moses would be older than these cuneiform texts and thus invented his Arabic scholarship over the Bible in order to cut Moses’ work into pieces so that chronology cannot be proven and Moses becomes someone in the post-exillic period post-dating the cuneiform library of Niniveh. The whole world believed him that Moses is “fake history” and the cuneiform accounts are “true history”. Adventists know better.


Dear God

We know in Whom we believe and we have confidence that Your word is secure and true. We are smiling with satisfaction for Your ability to show us the way in the day and age of skeptics. The same skeptics as in the days of Noah. In Jesus Name, Amen.