Was Genesis originally written in cuneiform?
Question:
I had come across a document about Genesis being in Cuneiform. It is an interesting hypothesis. The idea is that if Genesis was written in cuneiform, it might be one of the oldest written accounts. This means that when atheists like to say ancient mythology influenced the Bible, it would be refuted.
Would you read it and tell me your thoughts? The only reason I supported this document was that it supported the idea that Genesis could have been written far earlier and that atheists perpetuating their narratives wouldn't have a foothold.
Thank you for your time.
Answer:
Genesis was written in Hebrew. One piece of evidence of this is that the names of people in Genesis have meanings in Hebrew, such as Isaac, which means "laughter," Esau, which means "hairy," and Jacob, which means "heel catcher." Cuneiform is a writing system used in ancient Mesopotamia. There is no connection between the ancient Hebrew letters and cuneiform.
The paper you refer to mentions ancient cuneiform tablets found in the region of Ur. The tablets are documents of purchases, but the writer of the paper makes a major jump in reasoning to speculate that the early chapters of Genesis could have been written in cuneiform. He doesn't have Genesis in cuneiform. He is starting with the possibility that it could have been written in cuneiform. He then speculates that the imagined document was misinterpreted early on, leading to a misunderstanding of the length of creation and the ages of people before the flood.
His speculation fails because other parts of the Bible (Exodus and Deuteronomy) state that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, which is why the Israelites were to rest on the seventh day of the week. His speculation denies that the Bible is the word of God (II Timothy 3:16-17). He claims that it is the work of men who misinterpret words. Yet, all of this is based on his imagination.
He admits scholars reject his ideas but asserts that they are all deluded into believing the same things. When a lone voice makes claims without proof, complaining that the knowledgeable are deluded, the more reasonable view is that he is the one in the wrong.
I would conclude that the author is not credible.
