Category Archives: General Life

Governments Going Too Far

You have probably heard about this story already– Oregon Seizes Children From Parents Who Have Low IQ– and you may already taken sides on this issue. You can read about it here:

While governments have a certain amount of rights guiding them concerning this issue there is a point where they can go too far.  I am not going to make this a Liberal thing for conservatives have been known to do the exact same thing here. They all think they get to decide for other people on different issues. That is not right. No laws were being broken here, the children were not in danger and no matter what opinion to the contrary any one holds, these people have the right to have and raise their own children.

We feel strongly that Christians should stand up for these parents because they are innocent people. Being mentally slow is not a biblical criteria to deprive anyone of having and raising their own family.  It i snot what the government thinks, it is not what some people think it is what God thinks that matters most and there are a host of verses that tell the believer how they should respond in this situation and those verses do not tell them to side with the government.  Obeying the government does not mean we ignore God’s words , commands or instructions. The government has to be held in account for their actions. If they are not then there is no telling how far they will go. One bad example is found in Ontario, Canada where the ruling administration has decided that it can pull children out of a home simply because the parents will not support the child’s misguided gender feelings.

That is evil at work not God’s government and we are to oppose evil not support it. The government does not have a divine right to go too far, even though they do. It was once said evil abounds if good men do nothing or something like that. Good people do need to stand up and oppose the government follow God’s leading when they do so. Not like the do in the emotional issues like abortion where they do picket lines and violent acts but with God leading the way. People like that couple need intelligent Christians to stand up for those parents’ rights and fight for them.

Christians have to lead the way to what is right not to blindly supporting the secular government who does not care about God, his people or his ways.


No It Is Not Tied To Money

Vicky Beeching on Eugene Peterson Controversy: ‘American Christians’ Opposition to LGBT Equality Tied to Money’

This is the sad view of at least one person who is a participating member of the LGBT community. Unfortunately for her her claim is not true. The opposition to LGBTQ equality in church or life is all about obeying God {or at least it should be}. Money i snot or should not be part of any protest/opposition against anti-biblical behavior.  It seems that most people supporting the LGBTQ movement have forgotten to learn the lessons of history as they strive to make LGBTQ preference seem normal, correct, good and not sin. What these people, governments and courts are doing is only hastening the destruction of society as we know it and propelling it down a path civilizations have never recovered from.

She also wrote, “I imagine Eugene Peterson is under immense pressure, but that’s not a reason to backtrack and throw LGBT people under the bus.”

No one is throwing the LGBTQ community under the bus. What they are trying to do is protect society from their sins and refusal to acknowledge that they are sinning. Opposition to the LGBTQ movement is based upon remaining holy and one cannot be holy if they continue to practice sin. One cannot be obeying God then pursuing a sinful desire, then calling that evil good,normal, healthy and whatever other positive adjective you want to use here. What LGBTQ people do not realize, or may not accept, is that humans cannot determine what is or isn’t sin. We cannot speak for God and claim we are the decision makers of his standards. That luxury remains clearly in God’s realm and only he decides what is holy and what is sinful. Man cannot do that. We do not make God in our image but must accept what he has said is right and wrong. There is no other alternative.

She also noted that LifeWay decided that their stores will continue selling Peterson’s books based on his retraction. “The moment Peterson’s pro-LGBT beliefs hit the internet, huge USA Christian bookstore chains started threatening to boycott selling his books,” she wrote in a preceding tweet.

Bookstores have the right of free choice and do not work for Ms. Beeching. They are free to offer or refuse to offer whatever book they chose. That is their right yet people like Ms. Beeching refuse to allow anyone who disagrees with them that right and freedom. They think everyone must go according to their views. That attitude is neither right nor democratic. It isn’t even Christian but sadly those members of the LGBTQ community who claim to be Christian only put that attitude on when it benefits them and no one else. As a side note, we are not fans of The Message or of Mr. Peterson, we find both out of step with God and biblical instruction so we are not defending him or his work but critiquing the claims made by Ms. Beeching concerning the opposition to the LGBTQ movement.

The LGBTQ cannot achieve equality in the church for it is sin and nothing else. They can be treated like humans though and not violate God’s word. They should not be allowed to marry but they should be allowed to make their partners beneficiaries of whatever government, insurance, and work programs they are a member. That is only fair. They should not demonstrate, force their views on others or  be a bully and intolerant towards those who disagree with them but they should never be denied employment unless unqualified), housing (unless they violate some laws, etc.),  And on it goes. Believers should treat the LGBTQ as they would like to be treated, that verse does not exclude the sinner from being treated graciously, etc.

BUT with that said, no believer or church can accept a practicing LGBTQ member as a brother or sister in the lord for they are not. They have not been redeemed by Jesus and still live captive in their sin. The opposition is not about money, it is about their soul and the LGBTQ community’s eternal destination.


Logical Fallacies

I am going to put up some information about logical fallacies here because so many people will run into atheists, unbelievers and alternative believers who label what believers say with these fallacies.

The believer must remember that logical fallacies have no divine or actual secular authority, were written by humans to dictate what could/can or could not/cannot be said in a discussion. If you want to boil it down to just the nuts and bolts, logical fallacies are a tool of evil to hide from the truth of scriptures and God.

Believers need to be aware of them so they know what is being said to them. If yo want to try and structure your arguments according to the logical fallacies you may find that to be impossible as there are so many of them which cover a lot of territory which in turn blocks the believer from presenting any argument at all.

I will be copying and pasting information so you can see what the logical fallacies are, their origin and hopefully other important details which will help you in your discussions with those who do not believe.
I. History & Origin of Logical Fallacies–

Aristotle was both the first formal logician—codifying the rules of correct reasoning—and the first informal logician—cataloging types of incorrect reasoning, namely, fallacies. He was both the first to name types of logical error, and the first to group them into categories. The result is his book On Sophistical Refutations.

However, Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, deserves credit for being the first philosopher to collect examples of bad reasoning, which is an important preliminary piece of field work before naming and cataloging. Plato’s “Euthydemus” preserves a collection of fallacious arguments in dialogue form, putting the perhaps exaggerated examples into the mouths of two sophists, that is, itinerant teachers of rhetoric. For this reason, fallacious arguments are sometimes called “sophisms” and bad reasoning “sophistry”. Aristotle refers to a few of these examples as instances of his named fallacies.

In the centuries since Plato and Aristotle, many great philosophers and logicians have contributed to fallacy studies, among them John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Arthur Schopenhauer. Last century, an Australian philosopher, logician, and computer scientist, Charles L. Hamblin, wrote the highly-influential book Fallacies, which is unfortunately hard to obtain nowadays.

The first half of Fallacies is a history of the general concept of logical fallacy and the development of particular named fallacies. However, the most influential part of the book was probably the first chapter, which criticized the “standard treatment” of fallacies―that is, their discussion in textbooks of the time―and his criticisms seem to have inspired much subsequent research. Of less lasting influence were Hamblin’s efforts, in the latter part of the book, to develop a formal treatment of dialectical argument as a basis for a theory of fallacies.
II. Definition Of A Logical Fallacy—Ibid

A “fallacy” is a mistake, and a “logical” fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as “fallacies”. However, The Fallacy Files is specifically concerned with logical errors, not factual ones.

A logical error is a mistake in an argument, that is, a mistake in an instance of reasoning formulated in language. As the term is used in logic, an “argument” is a group of statements one of which is called “the conclusion” and the rest are called “premisses”―by the way, I spell “premiss” with two esses instead of one, for reasons explained in the Glossary; in other words, this is not a spelling mistake.
III. List Of Logical Fallacies–

That link gives you what looks like a complete list of the so-called logical fallacies and you can see why trying to structure your arguments according to them are almost impossible especially when the unbeliever you are talking to applies them arbitrarily, whether they apply to the discussion or not.

Here is a short list taken from the following link–

And you can click on that link to get all the details you need.
1. Ad Hominem Argument: Also, “personal attack,” “poisoning the well.” The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., “He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says.” See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.
2. Appeal to Heaven: (also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one’s own standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g., “God ordered me to kill my children,” or “We need to take away your land, since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.”) A private individual who seriously asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history.
3. Appeal to Tradition: (also “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and correct simply because it has “always” been that way, because people have “always” thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well. A corrupted argument from ethos (that of past generations). (E.g., “In America, women have always been paid less, so let’s not mess with long-standing tradition.”).  The reverse of this is yet another fallacy, the “Appeal to Novelty,” e.g., “It’s NEW, and [therefore it must be] good, or improved!”
4. Begging the Question (also Circular Reasoning): Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words. E.g., “The witchcraft problem is the most urgent spiritual crisis in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very souls.” A corrupt argument from logos. See also “Big Lie technique.”
5. Lying with Statistics: Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. “College tuition costs have never been lower. When taken as a percentage of the national debt, getting a college education is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!”). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth,  Snow Job, and Red Herring.)
6. Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out purple five-dollar bills! Purple!”). (See also Red Herring.)
Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to have special knowledge of why God is doing certain things. E.g., “This week’s earthquake was sent to punish those people for their great wickedness.”
7. Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. E.g., “In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Sky-high taxes! Vote for me! I’ll cut your taxes!”
8. Shifting the Burden of Proof. (see also Argument from Ignorance)  A fallacy that challenges  opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., “Space-aliens are everywhere among us masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you prove it isn’t so! See?  You can’t!  That means  what I say is true.”
9. Straw Man (also “The Straw Person”): The fallacy of setting up a phony, ridiculous version of an opponent’s argument and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand. E.g., “Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!”
Or, “Pro-choicers hate babies!” Or, “Pro-lifers hate women and want them to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove!”
10 Testimonial (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority): A fallacy in which support for a standpoint or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who was probably well paid to make the endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internet-shouldn’t you?”). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the
 official taco sauce of the Winter Olympics!”)  This is a corrupted argument from ethos.
This list is only meant to give you an idea of the logical fallacies in use in discussions and is not meant to be exhaustive

IV. More Information On Logical Fallacies–

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric…

There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. It’s possible, for instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies…

Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.

Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion…

Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.

All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so “fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of deductive validity.

Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”…

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious. What is less clear is whether arguments containing false premises but which are otherwise fine should be called fallacious.

If a fallacy is an error of reasoning, then strictly speaking such arguments are not fallacious; their reasoning, their logic, is sound. However, many of the traditional fallacies are of just this kind. It’s therefore best to define fallacy in a way that includes them; this site will therefore use the word fallacy in a broad sense, including both formal and informal fallacies, and both logical and factual errors…

Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and of presumption.

Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as are ad hominems.

Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity, such as equivocation or the straw man fallacy, manipulate language in misleading ways.

Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on a false dilemma or circular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.

These categories have to be treated quite loosely. Some fallacies are difficult to place in any category; others belong in two or three. The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, for example, could be classified either as a fallacy of ambiguity (an attempt to switch definitions of “Scotsman”) or as a fallacy of presumption (it begs the question, reinterpreting the evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the evidence).


The Shroud of Turin

We are not advocating this relic or that it has anything to do with Christianity nor are we jumping on its bandwagon and saying that there is something mystical about this piece of cloth. We feel that the Roman Catholic Church has invented the ‘history’ of this shroud, as that organization is well known for having many false relics passed off as authentic.

Two main reasons come to mind as to why they would perpetuate this hoax. First, the officials know that their doctrines and practices are false and drive many people away from their churches so they needed something to keep ‘the faithful’ in their pews.

Second, they know that the secular world offers more fun, excitement than their church can so they invented this history to make their church seem more interesting and attractive, much like, as the legend goes, their earlier priests ‘Christianized’ pagan holidays in order to make their form of Christianity appear attractive to the unbelieving world.

What follows are a few excerpted articles on the shroud to give you an idea of what is involved with this piece of cloth.


The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud.

It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud.

Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.


New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display Saturday in a special TV appearance introduced by the Pope, dates the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages.

Pope Francis sent a special video message to the televised event in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, which coincided with Holy Saturday, when Catholics mark the period between Christ’s crucifixion on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter Sunday.

The Vatican, tiptoeing carefully, has never claimed that the 14-foot linen cloth was, as some believers claim, used to cover Christ after he was taken from the cross 2,000 years ago…

But Cesare Nosiglia, the Archbishop of Turin and “pontifical custodian of the shroud,” said the special display on Holy Saturday “means that it represents a very important testimony to the Passion and the resurrection of the Lord,”

Many experts have stood by a 1988 carbon-14 dating of scraps of the cloth carried out by labs in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona that dated it from 1260 to 1390, which, of course, would rule out its used during the time of Christ.

The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported. The cloth has been kept at the cathedral since 1578.


The folded Shroud was heavily damaged in a fire of 1532 and the burn marks remain prominent.

There is enough uncertainty about the Shroud’s origins to convince some that it is the actual burial shroud of Christ. The mystery is deepened by the claim that no artefact has ever been the subject of so much research. However, when the scope of this research is considered, it is obvious that many areas of its history and the iconography of its images have not been fully explored.

For example, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which examined the Shroud in 1978, when it was still owned by the Savoy family, did not have a single expert in the history of relic cults, techniques of ancient weaving or the iconography of medieval painting on its team. No one appears to have investigated the kinds of loom, ancient or medieval, on which a cloth of this size may have been woven. Nor has anyone closely examined the many early depictions and descriptions of the Shroud that illustrate features now lost…

Few researchers have grasped that the Shroud looked very different in the 16th and 17th centuries from the object we see today…

No one has found any significant evidence of the Shroud’s existence before 1355, when it appeared in a chapel at Lirey, in the diocese of Troyes, supposedly advertised there as the burial shroud of Christ. Such sudden appearances of cults were common in a Europe recovering from the trauma of the Black Death. They caused a great deal of frustration for a Church hierarchy anxious to preserve its own status.

The bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers, whose responsibility it was to monitor such claims in his diocese, investigated the shrine and reported that, not only were the images painted on the cloth, but that he had actually tracked down the painter. After this clerical onslaught, the Shroud was hidden away for more than 30 years. Yet the Church accepted that it was not a deliberate forgery and in January 1390 the (anti-)pope Clement VII allowed its renewed exposure in Lirey.

This suggests that the Shroud may have been credited with unrecorded miracles, thereby acquiring the spiritual status to make it worthy of veneration. Doubtless aware of the earlier claims by the Lirey clergy, Clement insisted that it was publicly announced before each exposition that this was NOT the burial shroud of Christ.

This new emphasis on the blood of Christ is a development of the 14th century and it is important to see whether the Shroud reflects this iconography. If one compares the Holkham head of Christ, taken from another crucifixion scene in the Bible, with the head on the Shroud, it is almost as if they came from the same template. Again one can see how the blood flowing along the arms of the man on the Shroud echo those of the crucified Christ in the Holkham Bible.

 It is important to note that on the Shroud they are not continuous, rather small individual blotches, and they could not have come from blood flowing down the arms of a body lying down. Note, too, the blood dripping from the lance that, in the negative image of the Shroud, appears to be reproduced outside the body image on its left side. In short, here, too, the artist is copying an iconography similar to that of the Holkham Bible.


The Shroud of Turin has long been a source of reverence and intrigue. Considered one of the most important Christian relics, many believe it to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, due to the faint image visible on its surface that appears to show a naked man bearing wounds consistent with crucifixion.

While some consider it a miracle, others search for a more scientific explanation for its existence, and researchers from the Politecnico di Torino have come up with a theory that they believe might provide some answers. They say that it’s possible that neutron emissions from an earthquake around the time of Jesus’ death could have created the image, as well as affected radiocarbon levels that suggested the shroud was a forgery from medieval times, reports LiveScience.

“Hypotheses and experimental confirmations that oxidative phenomena generated by earthquakes can provide 3D images on the linen clothes have recently been proposed by de Liso [34]. Moreover, a further effect of neutron irradiation could have provided a wrong radiocarbon dating due to an increment in C146nuclei in the linen fibres.”

The scientists linked the earthquake with Jesus’ death by citing Greek historian Thallos’ account of the day Christ died, the gospel of Matthew, and the narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, as well as with the work of Dante Alighieri, writing, “Moreover, if we assign the image imprinted on the Shroud to the Man who died during the Passover of 33 a.d., there are at least three documents in the literature attesting the occurrence of disastrous earthquakes during that event.”

Some are interpreting these findings as a testament to the Shroud’s authenticity, as it claims the medieval radiocarbon dating done by Oxford University in 1988 is erroneous.

However, other scientists doubt the results of the study, pointing out that radiocarbon dating from other seismically active areas like Japan has generally not been considered inaccurate. “People have been measuring materials of that age for decades now and nobody has ever encountered this,” Gordon Cook, a professor of environmental geochemistry at the University of Glasgow, told LiveScience


When you select an area of the Shroud to examine in the above Master Photograph, point and click directly on that specific part of the image. You will be shown two, side by side closeups of the area you have chosen. One as it normally appears to the eye, and the other of the same area as it appears on a photographic negative.

Remember, images on a negative are normally flipped left to right. With the exception of the facial image of the Shroud, the negative images included here have not been flipped left to right. This allows for easier visual comparison. The negative images have been enhanced digitally to increase contrast. Below each set of closeups is a small Reference Icon highlighting the area you are currently viewing. Click on the Reference Icon to return to the Master Photograph and choose another area to examine.

In June-July 2002, a major restoration of the Shroud of Turin was undertaken by its owners. All thirty of the patches sewn into the cloth in 1534 by the Poor Clare nuns to repair the damage caused by the 1532 fire were removed. This allows the first unrestricted view of the actual holes burned into the cloth by the fire. It appears that some of the most seriously charred areas surrounding the burn holes were also removed during the restoration, most likely to allow the Shroud to be properly resewn to the new backing cloth.

The original backing cloth (known as the Holland Cloth) that was added at the same time as the patches, was also removed and replaced with a new, lighter colored cloth, which can now be seen through the burn holes. Although the creases and wrinkles that had been previously evident on the Shroud are not visible in this photograph, I am assured by those who have seen the restored cloth that they are in fact, still there. These are critical because they can help determine how the cloth was folded over the centuries and constitute an important clue for historians.

By scrolling this page up and down, you can compare the cloth as it appeared for over 400 years with its new appearance today.


Is the Shroud real? Probably.

The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists.

This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory.

Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.

No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.


Skeptics believe that the shroud of Turin is just another religious relic invented to beef up the pilgrimage business or impress infidels. (Another equally famous painting, also claimed to have miraculously appeared on a cloth, cropped up in Mexico in the 16th century, “Our Lady of Guadalupe.”)  The case for the forged shroud is made most forcefully by Joe Nickell in his Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin, which was written in collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts. The author claims that historical, iconographic, pathological, physical, and chemical evidence points to its inauthenticity. The shroud is a 14th century painting, not a 2000-year-old cloth with Jesus’s image.

McCrone’s theory is that “a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Jesus.” The model was covered in red ochre, “a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages, and pressed his forehead, cheekbones and other parts of his head and body on to the linen to create the image that exists today. Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image’s wrists, feet and body to represent blood.”

McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in “two common artist’s pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder” (McCrone 1998). He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval  painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999).  For his work, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society’s Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000…

Dr. Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, claims that the part of the cloth tested and dated at around 1350 was not part of the original shroud. According to Rogers, the labs that dated the cloth to the 14th century tested a patch made to repair damage done by fire. How does he know this, since the patch was destroyed in the testing? According to shroud investigator Joe Nickell, Rogers “relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling” and the word of “pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a ‘rewoven area’ of repair.” According to Nickell, P.E. Damon’s 1989 article published in Nature claims that “textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams…

Dr. Rogers estimates the actual date of the shroud to be between about 1,000 BCE. and 1700 CE. Still, all the evidence points toward the medieval forgery hypothesis. As Nickell notes, “no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave” (1998: 35). “In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.”..

Of course, the cloth might be 3,000 or 2,000 years old, as Rogers speculates, but the image on the cloth could date from a much later period. No matter what date is correct for either the cloth or the image, the date cannot prove to any degree of reasonable probability that the cloth is the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that the image is somehow miraculous. To believe that will always be a matter of faith, not scientific proof…

In short, what we have here is speculation built on speculation. A possible physical event possibly causes a nuclear event that possibly causes an image of a body on a cloth wrapped around the body and possibly infuses the cloth with misleading amounts of carbon-14 isotopes. No mention is made of how this alleged nuclear event transformed body parts into paint, however. Nor is any mention made that if Carpinteri’s speculations were true, no carbon-14 dating is reliable because some earthquake at some point in time could have resulted in misleading amounts of carbon-14 isotopes.

By trying to connect his beliefs about earthquakes, rocks, and piezonuclear fission to the dating of the shroud of Turin, Carpinteri seems to be reaching out to a fragment of the faith-based community that still clings to whatever thread keeps hope alive that the shroud is miraculous and a physical connection to Jesus. Having been rejected by the scientific community, he now appeals to a group likely to cheer him on in whatever folly he proposes as long as it keeps hope alive.


Over the 117 years since a photographic negative of the linen unexpectedly revealed the image of a tortured body, ranks of physicists and chemists have weighed in on the fabric’s age and the image’s composition. Forensic pathologists, microbiologists, and botanists have analyzed its bloodstains, along with specks of dirt and pollen on its surface. Statisticians have combed through mountains of data.

The sum result is a standoff, with researchers unable to dismiss the shroud entirely as a forgery, or prove that it is authentic. “It is unlikely science will provide a full solution to the many riddles posed by the shroud,” Italian physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro, a leading expert on the phenomenon, told National Geographic. “A leap of faith over questions without clear answers is necessary—either the ‘faith’ of skeptics, or the faith of believers.”…

Scientific inquiry into the shroud began in 1898, with the startling image captured by Italian amateur photographer Secondo Pia. Under normal conditions, only the vague sepia blur of a human body appears on the fabric. But when Pia examined the reverse negative of his photographic plate in the darkroom, he discovered the detailed likeness of a bearded man with visible wounds on his body.

For seven decades, indirect analyses of the image were conducted by researchers, most aimed at determining whether it had been painted onto the linen or produced through contact with a human corpse. It wasn’t until 1969 that scientists were allowed to examine the fabric directly, with the task of advising on preservation techniques and future testing. This set the scene for the establishment of the U.S.-led Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which was granted an unprecedented five days of continuous access to the shroud itself in 1978…

In 1988, the Vatican authorized carbon-14 dating of the shroud. Small samples from a corner of its fabric were sent to labs at the University of Oxford’s Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (RAU), the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. All three found that the shroud material dated to the years between 1260 and 1390, more than a millennium after the life and death of the historical Jesus.

The labs assessed the reliability of their estimate at 95 percent. To make the case even more convincing, the dates closely coincided with the first documented appearance of the Shroud of Turin in 1353.

Since their release 27 years ago, the carbon-14 dating results have become the focal point of the shroud controversy, with a stream of critics taking aim at its methodology and conclusions.


In its quest to establish a religion to gain power and wealth, the Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony “relics” of its “Lord,” “Apostles” and “Saints.” Although true believers keep attempting to prove otherwise, through one implausible theory after another, the Shroud of Turin is counted among this group of frauds:

There were at least 26 “authentic” burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one…. The Shroud of Turin is one of the many relics manufactured for profit during the Middle Ages. Shortly after the Shroud emerged it was declared a fake by the bishop who discovered the artist. This is verified by recent scientific investigation which found paint in the image areas. The Shroud of Turin is also not consistent with Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial, which clearly refer to multiple cloths and a separate napkin over his face.

Mythicist Barbara G. Walker, author of Man Made God, likewise comments on the holy relic mill:

About the beginning of the 9th century, bones, teeth, hair, garments, and other relics of fictitious saints were conveniently “found” all over Europe and Asia and triumphantly installed in the reliquaries of every church, until all Catholic Europe was falling to its knees before what Calvin called its anthill of bones…. St. Luke was touted as one of the ancient world’s most prolific artists, to judge from the numerous portraits of the Virgin, painted by him, that appeared in many churches. Some still remain, despite ample proof that all such portraits were actually painted during the Middle Ages.

And Dr. George A. Wells states:

About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories. Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples: letters in Jesus’ own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on…

At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the “True Cross” that Calvin said the amount of wood would make “a full load for a good ship.” The list of absurdities and frauds goes on, and, as Pope Leo X was depicted as exclaiming, the Christ fable has been enormously profitable for the Church.

As concerns the so-called blood purportedly on the shroud, CSICOP says:

BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin’s stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The “blood” has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.”…

The conclusion here is that the pollen does not only grow in the “Holy Land” and that other arguments are metaphysical, not scientific.

In addition, where these researchers came up with the “eighth century” date one can only guess, but even if said date were correct, such would no more “prove” that the shroud was “authentic” in the sense that it was the “original burial cloth of Jesus,” than does the spurious argument used by other apologists that the remains of a first century boat found in the Sea of Galilee provide evidence that Jesus existed. The latter argument runs thus: “Here is a boat from the first century A.D. found in the Sea of Galilee. Jesus and his disciples would have ridden in a boat like this.” This line of argumentation is fallacious and unscientific….

However, the shroud’s appearance has been reproduced faithfully enough without any divine intervention, such as a supernatural flash of light. This latter idea posits a burst of ultraviolet light/energy from Christ’s flesh upon his resurrection, a notion refuted by the presence on the shroud of the beard and hair, unless they too possessed supernatural radiation.

In any event, a team of Italian scientists led by chemist Luigi Garlaschelli reproduced the shroud effect in 2009:

“The result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.”… [The] team used a linen woven with the same technique as the shroud and artificially aged by heating it in an oven and washing it with water. The cloth was then placed on a student, who wore a mask to reproduce the face, and rubbed with red ochre, a well known pigment at the time….


The Ipuwer Papyrus

What follows are excerpts from different websites detailing the only ancient papyrus describing the plagues that took place prior to the Exodus. We side with those who claim that this papyrus is a factual account written by an actual ancient Egyptian

It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period.

On the other hand, Miriam Lichtheim, following S. Luria, contends that

the ‘Admonitions of Ipuwer’ has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme “order versus chaos.”

M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, p.150

Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make.

Lacunae in the papyrus text are marked by […].


[. .] The door [keepers] say: “Let us go and plunder.”

The confectioners [. . .].

The washerman refuses to carry his load [. . .]

The bird [catchers] have drawn up in line of battle [. . . the inhabitants] of the Delta carry shields.

The brewers [. . .] sad.

A man regards his son as his enemy. Confusion [. . .] another. Come and conquer; judge [. . .] what was ordained for you in the time of Horus, in the age [of the Ennead . . .]. The virtuous man goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land [. . .] goes [. . .] the tribes of the desert have become Egyptians everywhere.

Indeed, the face is pale; [. . .] what the ancestors foretold has arrived at [fruition . . .] the land is full of confederates, and a man goes to plough with his shield.

Indeed, the meek say: [“He who is . . . of] face is as a well-born man.”

Indeed, [the face] is pale; the bowman is ready, wrongdoing is everywhere, and there is no man of yesterday.

Indeed, the plunderer [. . .] everywhere, and the servant takes what he finds.

Indeed, the Nile overflows, yet none plough for it. Everyone says: “We do not know what will happen throughout the land.”

Indeed, the women are barren and none conceive. Khnum fashions (men) no more because of the condition of the land.



Indeed, poor men have become owners of wealth, and he who could not make sandals for himself is now a possessor of riches.

Indeed, men’s slaves, their hearts are sad, and magistrates do not fraternize with their people when they shout.

Indeed, [hearts] are violent, pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere, death is not lacking, and the mummy-cloth speaks even before one comes near it.

Indeed, many dead are buried in the river; the stream is a sepulcher and the place of embalmment has become a stream.

Indeed, noblemen are in distress, while the poor man is full of joy. Every town says: “Let us suppress the powerful among us.”

Indeed, men are like ibises. Squalor is throughout the land, and there are none indeed whose clothes are white in these times.

Indeed, the land turns around as does a potter’s wheel; the robber is a possessor of riches and [the rich man is become] a plunderer.

Indeed, trusty servants are [. . .]; the poor man [complains]: “How terrible! What am I to do?”

Indeed, the river is blood, yet men drink of it. Men shrink from human beings and thirst after water.

Indeed, gates, columns and walls are burnt up, while the hall of the palace stands firm and endures.

Indeed, the ship of [the southerners] has broken up; towns are destroyed and Upper Egypt has become an empty waste.

Indeed, crocodiles [are glutted] with the fish they have taken, for men go to them of their own accord; it is the destruction of the land. Men say: “Do not walk here; behold, it is a net.” Behold, men tread [the water] like fishes, and the frightened man cannot distinguish it because of terror.

Indeed, men are few, and he who places his brother in the ground is everywhere. When the wise man speaks, [he flees without delay].

Indeed, the well-born man [. . .] through lack of recognition, and the child of his lady has become the son of his maidservant.
(Click on link to see full translation)


The date for the composition of The Ipuwer Papyrus is unknown. The papyrus itself (Papyrus Leiden I 344) is a copy made during New Kingdom of Egypt (c. 1550 BCE–c. 1069 BCE). It is in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, Netherlands. There is no agreement on the date of the original composition of the poem. Some scholars have suggested a date between 1850 BCE and 1600 BCE.

The renowned British Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner (1879-1963) translated the Ipuwer Papyrus into English in 1909. He believed that the text contained historical descriptions of current and past events.

Some biblical researchers have interpreted the document as an Egyptian account of the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus in the Torah. The Ipuwer Papyrus is often cited as proof for the Torah account by biblical scholars. However, most Egyptologists reject the association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event…

Comparison of the Ipuwer and Exodus Texts

Enmarch examines “the most extensively posited parallel,” which is the river becoming blood. He insists that it should not be taken “absolutely literally” as a description of an event but that both Ipuwer and Exodus are metaphorically describing what happens at times of catastrophic Nile floods when the river is carrying large quantities of red earth.

It has also been suggested that the mixing of bacteria with the red earth could conceivably affect the oxygen balance of the Nile’s waters, resulting in the killing off of the river’s fish.

Exodus 7:20-21: “[Moses] raised his staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.”

Ipuwer Papyrus (IP): Indeed the river is blood, yet men drink of it. Men [shrink] from human beings and thirst for water

Exod. 9:6: “All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died.”

IP: “Indeed, all animals, their hearts weep; cattle moan because of the state of the land.”

Exod. 9:23: “When Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, the LORD sent thunder and hail, and lightning flashed down to the ground. So the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt.”

IP: “Indeed, gates, columns, and [walls] are burnt up… Behold, the fire has gone up on high, and its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land.”

Exod. 9:25: “Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields—both people and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree.”

IP: “Indeed, trees are felled and branches are stripped off.”

Exod. 10:15: “[The locusts] covered all the ground until it was black. They devoured all that was left after the hail—everything growing in the fields and the fruit on the trees. Nothing green remained on tree or plant in all the land of Egypt.”

IP: “Neither fruit nor herbage can be found… everywhere barely has perished.”

Exod. 10:22: “So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered all Egypt for three days.”

IP: “[The land] is not bright because of it.”

Exod. 11:5: “Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.”

IP: “Indeed men are few, and he who places his brother in the ground is everywhere… Indeed [hearts] are violent, pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere, death is not lacking, and the mummy-cloth speaks even before one comes near it.”

Dr. James K Hoffmeier,professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois argues that the use of mythological language and images in a biblical narrative of the plagues of Egypt does not mean that a fictitious event is being described.

“In the end,” he writes, “those who consider the Exodus stories historicized myths, folklorist tales, or legends rest on assumptions about the nature of the literature that cannot be proven.”

There are remarkable similarities between the catastrophes described in the Ipuwer Papyrus and the biblical narrative of the Plagues of Egypt. Are these records of precisely the same events? This is unlikely since the probable date of the composition of the Papyrus, 1850 BCE and 1600 BCE, precedes the date of the Exodus by centuries.

The very earliest date for the Exodus proposed by the most conservative scholars is 1450 BCE. Scholars in the tradition of the celebrated biblical archaeologist William F. Albright (1891-1971) propose an alternative, “late” Exodus around 1200-1250 BCE.


In the spring of 1940, Immanuel Velikovsky (left) pondered what kind of natural catastrophe had turned the plain of Sodom and Gomorrah into the lake which Joshua and the Israelites came upon after the Exodus. He pondered the plagues described in the Book of Exodus, whether or not they were real and whether or not there was an Egyptian version of them.

In search of just such a document, he soon discovered in a reference book the mention of an Egyptian papyrus by a sage named Ipuwer declaring that the Nile River was blood. Locating and studying the English translation of the papyrus by Alan Gardiner, he was struck by the fact that the papyrus seemed to be a description of a great natural disaster. To Velikovsky, however, it appeared to be more than that. He believed he had found an Egyptian version of the plagues described by Moses in the Old Testament Book of Exodus.

“All the waters that were in the river were turned to blood,” Moses had written.  “The river is blood,” Ipuwer concurred.

Moses wrote that “the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.”  Ipuwer lamented, “Trees are destroyed” and “No fruit nor herbs are found…”

Finally, Moses wrote that “there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.”  As Ipuwer succinctly put it, “The land is not light.”

Verses common to both sources told of Egyptians searching frantically for water, the death (or loss) of fish and grain, massive destruction of trees and crops, plague upon the cattle, a great cry (or groaning) throughout the land, a consuming fire, darkness, and the escape of slaves. Moses did not specifically say that the pharaoh had perished in the Red Sea, but Ipuwer lamented the king’s disappearance at the hands of poor men under circumstances that had never happened before.

        Published in full for the first time in Gardiner’s The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden in 1909, the now famous Papyrus Ipuwer launched Velikovsky on a mission that would consume the rest of his life. In very short order he became, as he put it, “the prisoner of an idea.” That idea ~ all-encompassing and interdisciplinary ~ was the recent cataclysmic history of the earth and the solar system, and a reconstruction of the history of ancient Egypt. “I realized,” Velikovsky explained, “that the Exodus had occurred in the midst of a natural upheaval and that this catastrophe might prove to be the connecting link between the Israelite and Egyptian histories, if ancient Egyptian texts were found to contain references to a similar event. I found such references and before long had worked out a plan of reconstruction of ancient history from the Exodus to the conquest of the east by Alexander the Great.”


by Rabbi Mordechai Becher

In the early 19th Century a papyrus, dating from the end of the Middle Kingdom, was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The complete papyrus can be found in the book Admonitions of an Egyptian from a heiratic papyrus in Leiden. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian. Below are excerpts from the papyrus together with their parallels in the Book of Exodus.

(For a lengthier discussion of the papyrus and the historical background of the Exodus, see Jewish Action, Spring 1995, article by Brad Aaronson, entitled When Was the Exodus? )



2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.

2:10 The river is blood.

2:10 Men shrink from tasting – human beings, and thirst after water

3:10-13 That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin.

7:20 …all the waters of the river were turned to blood.

7:21 …there was blood thoughout all the land of Egypt …and the river stank.

7:24 And all the Egyptians dug around the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.

2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.

10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps… The entire palace is without its revenues. To it belong [by right] wheat and barley, geese and fish

6:3 Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.

5:12 Forsooth, that has perished which was yesterday seen. The land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of flax.

9:23-24 …and the fire ran along the ground… there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous.

9:25 …and the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the field.

9:31-32 …and the flax and the barley was smitten; for the barley was in season, and flax was ripe.

But the wheat and the rye were not smitten; for they were not grown up.

10:15 …there remained no green things in the trees, or in the herbs of the fields, through all the land of Egypt.

5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan…

9:2-3 Behold, cattle are left to stray, and there is none to gather them together.

9:3 …the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field… and there shall be a very grievous sickness.

9:19 …gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field…

9:21 And he that did not fear the word of the Lord left his servants and cattle in the field.

9:11 The land is without light 10:22 And there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.
4:3 (5:6) Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls.

6:12 Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets.

6:3 The prison is ruined.

2:13 He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.

3:14 It is groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations

12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the prison.

12:30 …there was not a house where there was not one dead.

12:30 …there was a great cry in Egypt.

7:1 Behold, the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land. 13:21 … by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.
3:2 Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze… are fastened on the neck of female slaves. 12:35-36 …and they requested from the Egyptians, silver and gold articles and clothing. And God made the Egyptians favour them and they granted their request. [The Israelites] thus drained Egypt of its wealth.

© 1995-2015 Ohr Somayach International – All rights reserved.

Articles may be distributed to another person intact without prior permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other publications, such as synagogue or school newsletters. Hardcopy or electronic. However, we ask that you contact us beforehand for permission in advance at and credit for the source as Ohr Somayach Institutions


Egyptian Pyramid Texts

The following introduction is taken from the Writings From The Ancient World series and more specifically The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts by James Allen, published by Society of Biblical Literature, pg. 1.

The actual Egyptian texts were taken from

and the following passages are only an example of what was written thousands of years ago. If you want to read them all or read what Mr. Allen has to say then I would suggest obtaining a copy of his book or go to that website.


At the end of the Old Kingdom, the walls of the inner chambers and corridors of ancient Egyptian pyramids were inscribed with a series of ritual and magical spells, known to modern scholarship as the Pyramid Texts. These inscriptions constitute the oldest body of Egyptian religious writings; usually literary in form and language, they are also the oldest representatives of Egyptian literature. In both respects, the Pyramid texts are primary sources for the history of ancient Egyptian thought and its relationship to that of the biblical world.

To date, (2005), Pyramid Texts have been found in the tombs of ten kings and queens at Saqqara, the necropolis of the Old Kingdom capital, Memphis:

Unis (Dynasty V, ca. 2353-2323 BC)

Teti (Dynasty VI ca. 2323-2291 BC)

Pepi I (Dynasty VI ca. 2289-2255 BC)

Ankhesenpepi II (wife of Pepi I)

Merenre (Dynasty VI ca. 2255-2246 BC)

Pepi II (Dynasty VI ca 2246-2152 BC)

Neith (wife of Pepi II)

Input (wife of Pepi II)

Wedjebetni (wife of Pepi II)

Ibi (Dyansty VIII ca. 2109-2107 BC)

After the end of the Old Kingdom, if not earlier, copies of Pyramid Texts were also inscribed on tombs, sarcophagi, coffins, canopic chests, papyri, stelae, and other funerary monuments of nonroyal Egypians, along with new or revised texts known as Coffin Texts. In the New Kingdom and later, some Pyramid Texts were incorporated into newer funerary compositions such as the Mouth–Opening Ritual and the Book of the Dead, and the texts continued to be used until the end of the pharaonic civilization.

Pyramid Texts:

Utterance 213

134: O Unas, you have not gone dead, you have gone alive to sit on the throne of Osiris. Your scepter is in your hand that you may give orders to the living, the handle of your lotus-shaped scepter in your hand. Give orders to those of the Mysterious Sites (the dead)!

135: Your arm is that of Atum, your shoulders are those of Atum, your belly is that of Atum, your back is that of Atum, your bottom is that of Atum, your two legs are those of Atum, your face is that of Anubis. The sites of Horus serve you, the sites of Seth serve you.

Utterance 216

150: I have come to you, Nephtys. I have come to the Evening Barge. I have come to you, True-is-she-over-the-Red, I have come to you, she-who-remembers-the-kas. Remember him, Unas!

151: Orion is encircled by the Duat, when the One-who-lives-in-the-Horizon purifies himself. Sothis is encircled by the Duat, when the One-who-lives-in-the-Horizon purifies himself. This Unas is encircled by the Duat, when the One-who-lives-in-the-Horizon purifies himself. He is content because of them, he is refreshed because of them, in the arms of His father, in the arms of Atum.

Utterance 220

194: The doors of the horizon open themselves, its bolts slide. He has come to you, Nt-(Red) Crown, he has come to you, Flame (nsr.t)-uraeus, he has come to you, Great One, he has come to you, Great of Magic, purified for you, in awe before you.

195: Be pleased with him, be pleased with his purification, be pleased with the words he says to you:
“How beautiful is your face when you are pleased, when you are new and young! A god has given you birth, the father of gods!”.
He has come to you, O Great of Magic! It is Horus who fought to protect his Eye, Great of Magic.

Utterance 221

196: O nt-crown, O jnw, o Great One! O Great of Magic, O Flame-uraeus!

197: Inspire fear before Unas as fear before you, inspire dread before Unas as dread before you, ;inspire awe before Unas as awe before you, inspire love before Unas as love before you! Let him rule at the head of the living, [let him be powerful] at the head of the spirits, let his knife be firm against his enemies!

198: O jnw, [you came forth from him, he came forth from you]. the Great Ikhet [has given you birth], Ikhet-utet has adorned you, the Ikhet-utet has given birth, the Great Ikhet [has adorned you] , for you are indeed Horus who fought to protect his Eye.

Utterance 224

218:To say the words: 
“Awake, Unas! Turn around, Unas! [courtyard circular procession?] You have gone to give orders to the places of Horus, you have gone to give orders to the places of Seth, you have gone to give orders to the places of Osiris.

219: A royal offering of all your insignia,

220: in all your places! Your lotus-shaped scepter is at the head of the living, your staff is at the head of the spirits, like Anubis Khentimentiu, like Andjti at the head of the western nomes.

221: How pleasant is your condition! You become a spirit, o Unas, among your brothers the gods. How changed, how changed (is your state)! (Therefore) protect your children! Beware of your border which is on Earth! Put on your body and come towards them!
(To say) four times:

Utterance 204

118: Let the hoers be in jubilation, the heart of Tssw-breast be exalted! They have swallowed the Eye of Horus, the healthy one, the one in Heliopolis. The finger of Unas, the small one, draws out that which is in the navel of Osiris.

119: Unas is not thirsty, he is not hungry, the heart of Unas is not faint (?), for the arms of the Desert God [also allusions to Libya and desert in tour of domain in Antechamber] keep away his hunger! Fill! Make the hearts full!

Utterance 209

125:To say the words: 
“Shu is flourishing. Unas has not taken away his meal! Unas is flourishing. Shu has not taken away his meal! The messengers of the East repeat: “This is your bread!”

Utterance 211

131: To say the words: 
“The abomination of Unas is hunger, he does not eat it. The abomination of Unas is thirst, he does not eat it. Unas it is, indeed, who gives bread to the Existing Ones, his nurse is the Milk-goddess. It is she who makes him live again, it is she, indeed, who gives Unas birth.

132: Unas is conceived at night, Unas is born at night, for he belongs to the Followers of Re who are before the Morning Star. Unas is conceived in the Watery Abyss, he is being born in the Watery abyss. He has come, he has brought your bread which he has found there!”

Utterance 212

133: To say the words: 
“The Eye of Horus trickles on the bush of the Dnw-plant. Khentimentiu comes to him indeed, he has brought him the food of Horus-who-is-at-the-head-of-his-houses. On what he lives, Unas lives on it. Of what he eats, Unas eats. Of what he drinks, Unas drinks. One joint (and one) cake, this is his offering.”

Utterance 37

30: O Unas, I make firm for you your two separated jawbones.
One psS-kf bread (?)

Utterance 38

Osiris Unas, I open for you your mouth!
The divine metal from the South and North (adze).

Utterance 45

35: Osiris Unas, take the white teeth of Horus which equip your mouth!
Five cloves of garlic.

Utterance 46

To say four times: 
An offering which the king gives for the ka of Unas.
Osiris Unas, take the Eye of Horus, your cake (which) you eat!
A cake of offering.

Utterance 77

52: O ointment, o ointment, arise, hurry! (You) who are on the brow of Horus, arise! First quality cedar oil. Hurry! (You who are) on Horus, you are placed on the brow of this Unas, so that he may feel sweet under you.

53: You grant him to have power over his body, you grant that his terror be in the eyes of all the spirits when they look at him, and of everyone who hears his name.

Utterance 78

54: Osiris Unas, I bring you the Eye of Horus which he takes, which is on your brow.
First quality Libyan oil.

Utterance 260

316:To say the words: 
“O Geb, Bull of Nut, Horus is Unas, the heir of his father.
Unas is he who went and came back, the fourth of these four gods who have brought the water, who have made a purification, .

Utterance 272

392:To say the words: 
“O height which has not (yet) been reached,
Gate of Nun, Unas comes to you!
Let this (gate) be opened for him!
“Is Unas the Little One there?”
“Unas is at the head of the servants of Re,
Unas is not at the head of the gods who create trouble!”

Utterance 276

417 : To say the words: 
“Your deed be against you, what you will do will be against you, (O) zkzk-serpent, he who is in his hole(?), (O) adversary!”

Utterance 312

501:To say the words: 
“May the bread fly up!
May the bread continue to fly up to the seven Houses of the Red Crown !”

Utterance 314

504:To say the words: 
“Back, you ox who should be slaughtered,
in whose horns should be the fingers of Aker!
Fall, glide away!”

Utterance 316

506: “O hmj, and sHd, Unas does not give you his magical power.
Unas will sit, his back towards She-the-Holy-One in Heliopolis.
Take Unas to the sky!”

Utterance 321

517:To say the words:
“O you, whose back is on his back,
bring to Unas the sfr.t of the offering-meal which is on the back of Osiris,
so that Unas may ascend (prj) on it to heaven,
so that Unas may serve as courtier/ guardian / protection (zA) to Re in the sky.”

Utterance. 244

249: This is here the (hard) [Eye of Horus. Place it in your hand] that you may be sure of victory and that he (Seth) may fear you!
Breaking of two red jars.

Utterance 248

262:To say the words: 
“Unas is a great one.
Unas came out between the thighs of the Divine Ennead.
Unas was conceived by Sekhmet;
It is Shesemtet [loincloth ornament] who gave birth to Unas
(as) to a star with sharp (spd) front (hA.t), with wide stride, which brings provender for the road of Re every day.
Unas has come to his throne which is over (tp.t) the Two Goddessess (who protect Upper and Lower Egypt), and Unas appears (xaj) as a star.”

Utterance 260

316:To say the words: 
“O Geb, Bull of Nut, Horus is Unas, the heir of his father.
Unas is he who went and came back, the fourth of these four gods who have brought the water, who have made a purification, …

Utterance 276

417 : To say the words: 
“Your deed be against you, what you will do will be against you, (O) zkzk-serpent, he who is in his hole(?), (O) adversary!”


The Code of Hammurabi V. The 10 Commandments

The code of Hammurabi was written somewhere between 1792-1750 BC. We cannot be sure exactly when Hammurabi penned his law code.  In comparison, Moses wrote the ten commandments somewhere around the 15th century BC.

The difference in years between the two does not mean that God copied form a secular human ruler. God had instituted his laws long before Hammurabi reigned with Adam. If he hadn’t, then God would not have been able to punish Cain for his murdering Abel. Adam and his family had to know God’s rules in order to know if their behavior was right or wrong.

You will notice that in the biblical record, Cain does not complain about not knowing it was wrong to kill. The secular world may have long surviving records, but that doesn’t mean that they were first. Noah and his family would have related God’s rules to their descendants—again, long before Hammurabi existed.

What follows will be the 10 commandments from Exodus 20, some brief words from Hammurabi himself, some examples of his laws and also a blurb from a website giving a little information on the king and his laws.

Part 1: The 10 Commandments


20 Then God spoke all these words, saying,

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of [a]slavery.

“You shall have no other gods [b]before Me.

“You shall not make for yourself [c]an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not [d]leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who [e]stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”…

22 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen that I have spoken [j]to you from heaven. 23 You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves. 24 You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.25 If you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it. 26 And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.’

Part Two: A Note of History


During the first two decades of his forty-two year reign (1792-1750B.C.), Hammurabi fortified several cities in northern Babylonia. In 1764, Babylon defeated the coalition of Elam, Subartu and Eshnunna. By 1762, Hammurabi claimed to have “established the foundations of Sumer and Akkad, a phrase borrowed from Sumerian royal hymns to express the ideal of pan-Babylonian rule. With the conquest of Mari in 1759, virtually all of Mesopotamia had come under Babylonian rule.

Hammurabi’s rigidly centralized system prospered from tribute and taxes, both used to compensate state dependents and to finance extensive state irrigation and building projects. However, these projects placed a heavy fiscal load on subject territories and created a mood of disenchantment with the state. Following Hammurabi’s death, distant provinces broke away immediately and the continued loss of revenues weakened the crown. In an attempt to slow down the tendency toward disintegration, the bureaucracy was expanded. In the end, Hammurabi’s successors became figureheads dependent on locally controlled goods and resources. The outcome was somewhat predictable: centralized institutions collapsed, autonomous local groups reasserted control, and the city-state pattern once again prevailed.

The Code of Hammurabi is the longest surviving text from the Old Babylonian period. Almost completely preserved, the code is far more significant in legal history than any of its forerunners, such as that of Ur-Nammu. 282 laws, carved in forty-nine columns on a basalt stele, address a variety of topics in civil, criminal, and commercial law. Like other Near Eastern codes. Hammurabi’s does not attempt to cover all possible legal situations. In its epilogue, Hammurabi describes the code as “laws of Justice” intended to clarify the rights of any “oppressed man.”

You will find complete versions of the Code of Hammurabi online at: The Avalon Project (Yale University Law School) and Exploring Ancient World Cultures (Evansville).

Part Three: Hammurabi


The following excerpts are taken from The Code Of Hammurabi, published by wildside Press LLC, 2009.

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the Lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in th eland, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. (pg. 7)

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in…and brought about the well-being of the oppressed. (pg. 9)

Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established,. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the men Bel gave to me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. (pg. 43)

The king who ruleth among the kings of cities am I. My are well considered: there Is no wisdom like unto mine. By the command of Shamash, the great judge of heaven and earth, let righteousness go forth in the land; by the order of Marduk, my lord, let no destruction befall my monument. (pg. 43)

Hammurabi is a ruler, who is a father to his subjects, who holds the words of Marduk in reverence, who has achieved conquest for Marduk over the north and south, who rejoices the heart of Marduk, his lord, who has bestowed benefits forever  and ever on his subjects, and has established order in the land. (pg. 44)

When he reads the record, let him pray with full heart to Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady,; and then shall the protecting deities and the gods, who frequent E-Sagil, graciously grant the desires daily presented before Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady. (pg. 44)

May he lament the loss of his life-power, and may the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunaki, altogether inflict a curse and evil upon the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra (the sun temple of Sippara), upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects and his troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that can not be altered, and may they come upon him forthwith. (pg. 45)

Part Four: The Laws


The following will only be excerpts form the complete code. If you want to read all the laws and compare them with God’s for his people (found in Exodus to Deuteronomy) then go to the following website:

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

4. If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall receive the fine that the action produces.

14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.

18. If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master.

19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.

20. If the slave that he caught run away from him, then shall he swear to the owners of the slave, and he is free of all blame.

21. If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.

22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.

48. If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.

49. If any one take money from a merchant, and give the merchant a field tillable for corn or sesame and order him to plant corn or sesame in the field, and to harvest the crop; if the cultivator plant corn or sesame in the field, at the harvest the corn or sesame that is in the field shall belong to the owner of the field and he shall pay corn as rent, for the money he received from the merchant, and the livelihood of the cultivator shall he give to the merchant

104. If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt form the merchant for the money that he gives the merchant.

105. If the agent is careless, and does not take a receipt for the money which he gave the merchant, he can not consider the unreceipted money as his own.

106. If the agent accept money from the merchant, but have a quarrel with the merchant (denying the receipt), then shall the merchant swear before God and witnesses that he has given this money to the agent, and the agent shall pay him three times the sum.

107. If the merchant cheat the agent, in that as the latter has returned to him all that had been given him, but the merchant denies the receipt of what had been returned to him, then shall this agent convict the merchant before God and the judges, and if he still deny receiving what the agent had given him shall pay six times the sum to the agent.

108. If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water.

109. If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

110. If a “sister of a god” open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.

111. If an inn-keeper furnish sixty ka of usakani-drink to . . . she shall receive fifty ka of corn at the harvest.

136. If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to another house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back: because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.

138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father’s house, and let her go.

139. If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.

140. If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.

141. If a man’s wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it, plunges into debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is judicially convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way, and he gives her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her, and if he take another wife, she shall remain as servant in her husband’s house.

142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: “You are not congenial to me,” the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father’s house.

154. If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).

155. If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).

156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for all that she brought out of her father’s house. She may marry the man of her heart.

157. If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father’s house.

159. If any one, who has brought chattels into his father-in-law’s house, and has paid the purchase-money, looks for another wife, and says to his father-in-law: “I do not want your daughter,” the girl’s father may keep all that he had brought.

160. If a man bring chattels into the house of his father-in-law, and pay the “purchase price” (for his wife): if then the father of the girl say: “I will not give you my daughter,” he shall give him back all that he brought with him.

161. If a man bring chattels into his father-in-law’s house and pay the “purchase price,” if then his friend slander him, and his father-in-law say to the young husband: “You shall not marry my daughter,” the he shall give back to him undiminished all that he had brought with him; but his wife shall not be married to the friend.

162. If a man marry a woman, and she bear sons to him; if then this woman die, then shall her father have no claim on her dowry; this belongs to her sons.

170. If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has borne: “My sons,” and he count them with the sons of his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and of the maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of the wife is to partition and choose.

171. If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the maid-servant: “My sons,” and then the father dies, then the sons of the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father), and the gift that her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry, or the purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so long as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she leaves shall belong to her children.

172. If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her gift, and she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband, equal to that of one child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of the house, the judge shall examine into the matter, and if the sons are at fault the woman shall not leave her husband’s house. If the woman desire to leave the house, she must leave to her sons the gift which her husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her father’s house. Then she may marry the man of her heart.

173. If this woman bear sons to her second husband, in the place to which she went, and then die, her earlier and later sons shall divide the dowry between them.

174. If she bear no sons to her second husband, the sons of her first husband shall have the dowry.

175. If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.

82. If a father devote his daughter as a wife of Mardi of Babylon (as in 181), and give her no present, nor a deed; if then her father die, then shall she receive one-third of her portion as a child of her father’s house from her brothers, but Marduk may leave her estate to whomsoever she wishes.

183. If a man give his daughter by a concubine a dowry, and a husband, and a deed; if then her father die, she shall receive no portion from the paternal estate.

184. If a man do not give a dowry to his daughter by a concubine, and no husband; if then her father die, her brother shall give her a dowry according to her father’s wealth and secure a husband for her.

185. If a man adopt a child and to his name as son, and rear him, this grown son can not be demanded back again.

186. If a man adopt a son, and if after he has taken him he injure his foster father and mother, then this adopted son shall return to his father’s house.

187. The son of a paramour in the palace service, or of a prostitute, can not be demanded back.

188. If an artizan has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his craft, he can not be demanded back.

189. If he has not taught him his craft, this adopted son may return to his father’s house.

190. If a man does not maintain a child that he has adopted as a son and reared with his other children, then his adopted son may return to his father’s house.

191. If a man, who had adopted a son and reared him, founded a household, and had children, wish to put this adopted son out, then this son shall not simply go his way. His adoptive father shall give him of his wealth one-third of a child’s portion, and then he may go. He shall not give him of the field, garden, and house.

192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: “You are not my father, or my mother,” his tongue shall be cut off.

193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father’s house, and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father’s house, then shall his eye be put out.

194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.

195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]

197. If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.

198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.

199. If he put out the eye of a man’s slave, or break the bone of a man’s slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [ A tooth for a tooth ]

201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.

202. If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public.

203. If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina.

204. If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money.

205. If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off.

206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, “I did not injure him wittingly,” and pay the physicians.

207. If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.

233. If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.

234. If a shipbuilder build a boat of sixty gur for a man, he shall pay him a fee of two shekels in money.

235. If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the boat owner.

237. If a man hire a sailor and his boat, and provide it with corn, clothing, oil and dates, and other things of the kind needed for fitting it: if the sailor is careless, the boat is wrecked, and its contents ruined, then the sailor shall compensate for the boat which was wrecked and all in it that he ruined.

238. If a sailor wreck any one’s ship, but saves it, he shall pay the half of its value in money.

239. If a man hire a sailor, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.

240. If a merchantman run against a ferryboat, and wreck it, the master of the ship that was wrecked shall seek justice before God; the master of the merchantman, which wrecked the ferryboat, must compensate the owner for the boat and all that he ruined.

249. If any one hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who hired it shall swear by God and be considered guiltless.

250. If while an ox is passing on the street (market) some one push it, and kill it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit (against the hirer).

251. If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.

252. If he kill a man’s slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

273. If any one hire a day laborer, he shall pay him from the New Year until the fifth month (April to August, when days are long and the work hard) six gerahs in money per day; from the sixth month to the end of the year he shall give him five gerahs per day.

274. If any one hire a skilled artizan, he shall pay as wages of the . . . five gerahs, as wages of the potter five gerahs, of a tailor five gerahs, of . . . gerahs, . . . of a ropemaker four gerahs, of . . .. gerahs, of a mason . . . gerahs per day.

275. If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in money per day.

276. If he hire a freight-boat, he shall pay two and one-half gerahs per day.

277. If any one hire a ship of sixty gur, he shall pay one-sixth of a shekel in money as its hire per day.

278. If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive the money which he had paid.

279. If any one buy a male or female slave, and a third party claim it, the seller is liable for the claim.

%d bloggers like this: