The Hittites Arrive

Today at 01:13 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #1

THE HITTITES ARRIVE

Noah was about the 9th generation from Adam and Eve. Noah's 4th son Ham was the father of Canaan. Heth was a decendant of Canaan. The Bible refers to the Hittites as the "sons of Heth", they were of course a Hamitic race.

What I wonder is, why do so many people seem to have a problem with recorded history?

Click to expand...

The problem with your version of recorded history is that you leave out too much necessary information from your thesis.  In logic it's called "non-sequitor".

For starters, where is the verse that refers to the Hittites as "sons of Heth"?

Second, look at your timeline.  The Hittites arrive at 2,000 BC.  When was the Flood, John?  Now, if all the Hittites are supposed to be descendents of Noah, calculate how many of them there could be in the number of generations and the number that could be in Babylon that they replaced.  Not enough time to get that many people.

Third, that the Hittites are a Semitic people does not, by itself, justify the conclusion that they were descendants of Ham.  What do Hittite records say? Do they claim to be descended from Ham?

You see, this isn't confirmation of your hypothesis: the existence of Noah and his family.  You don't have any independent data for your hypothesis. 

Today at 02:44 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #3

This is not a thesis, it is history. If you open up a secular history book and a good Bible commentary they both are saying the same thing. At least when it comes to history. 

They do not say the same thing. You are saying that the Hittites are descended from Heth. None of the secular histories say that.  Hittites themselves didn't say that.

Genesis 23:10
    Now Ephron dwelt among the sons of Heth; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the presence of the sons of Heth, all who entered at the gate of his city, saying,

This is what you are basing your thesis on?  John, Ephron is an outsider.  He is dwelling "among the sons of Heth" but is not himself a son of Heth.  He is identified as a Hittite to distinguish him from the children of Heth. For instance, in verse 7 "And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth."  They are not called Hittites.  The sons of Heth offer them their sepulchres to bury Sarah, but Abraham says in verse 8 "If it be your mind that I should bury my dead out of my sight; hear me, and intreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar that he may give me the cave of Mach-pelah, which he hath, which is in the end of his field;"

See, Abraham is going to a stranger who owns land there.  An outsider, a foreigner.


The flood was around 2300 BC.

How many people were you expecting there to be?  



Well, I can not read their records.

No, but you can do some simple calculations and figure out how many people can come from one couple in 300 years. Do you end up with thousands?

So I have to take the word of those who translated them. According to the Hittite record: The record is in the "The Table of Nations - Noah's descendants" They decended from Noah.


http://www.mazzaroth.com/TableOfNations/TableOfNations2.htm

John, these are not Hittite records.  Instead, it is a compilation of Noah's descendents solely from Biblical hints.  That's circular reasoning.  You said you had outside evidence from secular history.  So what do the Hittite records say?

From your website:
"&nbsp; Heth (Heb. <I>heth</I>) is the putative head of the Hittites, an unknown people mentioned in the Old Testament sporadically, until the amazing recovery of Hittite civilization by modern Archaeology. &nbsp; A missionary William Wright and Professor A. H. Sayce reconstructed the outlines of the history of the ancient Hittite empire first. &nbsp; Then in 1906-1907 and 1911-1912, Professor Hugo Winckler of Berlin discovered about ten thousand clay tablets at Boghazkeui, the site of ancient Hattushash, an important Hittite capital. &nbsp; This revealed them as a people with an extended empire."

Notice the word "putative".&nbsp; Look up the word in a dictionary.&nbsp; Yes, they found 10,000 clay tablets, but nowhere does it say that any of them say Heth was the founder of their people.&nbsp; That's what you need, John, to support your thesis.

Why do you believe some story about a skull that someone makes up. But you disregard recorded histroy?

I don't disregard recorded history.&nbsp; But there is a huge difference between the statements "The Hittites existed and were a large empire" and "The Hittites were descended from Heth".&nbsp;&nbsp;I accept that the evidence for the first statement is strong. But the Biblical and other evidence&nbsp;is against&nbsp;the second statement.&nbsp;&nbsp;The two statements are not connected. To say the second is true because the first is true is a non-sequitor.