You are here
Home > Uncategorized > Is the Biblical Hammurabi and Amraphel of Genesis 14 one and the same?

Is the Biblical Hammurabi and Amraphel of Genesis 14 one and the same?

In Genesis 14, it talks of King Amraphel, well from my bible and other studies scholars say that this Amraphel is King Hammurabi, the one whom wrote the codes of law, but my question is did Abraham kill Amraphel, why I ask is because according to Amraphel a.k.a Hammurabi, that the king didnt die by the sword, but that he was sick and died of sickness, and that his son reign in his stead, but what is the real truth, I mean Im not doubting GOD, but why is GOD being doubted here, unless Abraham didn’t kill Amraphel, that would be the only explanation, but what are your thoughts?

On the Companion Bible: I’m aware of that margin note made by Bullinger on Gen.14, where he says Amraphel was Hammurabi. Bullinger put the Companion Bible together back in the late 1800’s, so it must be remembered that he was going on the Assyriologist’s knowledge of his day. Bulllinger was not an Assyriologist.
On page 15 of the Companion Bible, in Gen.10:2, Bullinger has another error with the descendents of ‘Gomer’. He says those of Gomer were the Cimmerians; the group which the Greek historian Herodotus wrote of. That was another link which Bullinger evidently got from the Assyriologists of his day. The Cimmerians are linked to part of a name he gave in the margin, i.e. ‘Gimirra’, but linking ‘Gimirra’ with Gomer is supposition.
A later translation of the Assyrian tablets by Leroy Waterman in 1930 establishes the link that the ‘Gimirra’ were members of the ‘house of Israel'(ten tribes), not Gomer of the time just after Noah’s flood. The ‘Gimirra’ of the Tablets are linked to the Cimmerians which Herodotus wrote of, but not associated with Gomer of Gen.10. Bullinger has very little comment on the lost tribes of Israel within The Companion Bible, which he evidently did not grasp from I Kings 11 forward. Otherwise, he would have seen the error of linking Gomer to the later group of Cimmerians who migrated from Assyria to Asia Minor much later.
Also, Bullinger was partial to the “secret rapture” doctrinal interpretation of I Thess.4:17, as shown in his margin notes. Though he was an excellent scholar, and left us a great work with the Companion Bible, he was not perfect, as no man is. That’s why each one of us are to study God’s Word for ourselves, asking God’s Holy Spirit to help us understand. The Word was written under the guidance of The Holy Spirit. And that’s the only way It can be properly understood, by The Holy Spirit. The deeper understanding of God’s Word by His Spirit of Truth helps reveal man’s inconsistancies.

2 thoughts on “Is the Biblical Hammurabi and Amraphel of Genesis 14 one and the same?

  1. Abraham would not have had to kill Amraphel in order to get Lot and his goods back, and both statements or ideas can be true: Amraphel being Hammurabi, and Abraham getting Lot back. A very good explanation of Hammurabi being Amraphel is in this Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, by Theo. G. Pinches, and comments by A. H. Sayce. You can read it here: In the SP 158, (p. 58-63), on line 18, in the “Legend of Chedolaomer”, it states that Chedolaomer stole the ordinances and took them to Elam. The famous statue of Hammurabi and his code of laws was found in Elam, at Susa, or Shushan, showing a very direct association of Chedolaomer with Hammurabi, and it explains how the statue of Hammurabi and his code of laws or ordinances got to Shushan. To further support this, Theo. G. Pinches also published a copy of the Hammurabi letters found by Father Scheil in the Museum of Constantinople. (See page 69 and 70 in the article quoted above). In this letter, Hammurabi (spelled Ha-am-ur-ri-bi-ma) is rewarding Sin-iddina (king of Larsa after Arioch), for his help in fighiting off Chedolaomer. This then, proves that Chedolaomer turned on his alliance with Amraphel, and attacked Babylon, and took the ordinaces of Hammurabi back to Elam, or Shushan. The Bible calls Chedolaomer the king of Elam. Therefore, with the these two letters, and the Bible, we can prove that the Amraphel of Shinar in Genesis 14 is Hammurabi, king of Babylon, in history. Hammurabi was the contemporary king with Chedolaomer, and he had the ordinances that were discovered in modern times in Elam, at Susa. The Bible is proven correct.

  2. In my comment above, I also wanted to say that this proves that Abraham was contemporary with Hammurabi. Some critics have said that Moses got his laws from Hammurabi, and that Hammurabi was the real author of the laws of Moses. However, with the discussion above, we can see that Hammurabi could have gotten the laws from Abraham, who would have known God’s laws. See Genesis 18:19 ”
    For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”” Therefore, Hammurabi could easily have gotten his code of laws from Abraham, when Abraham came to retrieve Lot. Another thing I failed to mention in the article of the Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute about this topic, is that in the SP II, 987, lines 24-27 on page 54 and 56 in the article, there is a mention of Chedolaomer, king of Elam taking over Babylon, and then after a while he got killed. Then the son of Arioch took over Babylon, and he got killed. Then it says a high priest came, and did not do any destruction, but took away the great ones and the spoil. This sounds like Melchiesedek also went with Abraham to get Lot, and they retrieved Lot and the goods without any destruction to Babylon. This also supports the idea in the question, that Amraphel could have died of a sickness, and not in battle, because when Abraham and Melchiezedek got Lot and the goods, there was no destruction–it must have been a peaceful transfer. This also gives us insight as to why Melchiezedek showed up after Abraham returned–it looks like he went with Abraham, as the King of Salem. Here is the link to the article again.

Leave a Reply