Hammurabi's Code of Laws dictated(?) to him by Shamash or Marduk, (1792BC) came after a series of laws from other monarchs of ancient near east.
Consider there is the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (2050BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (1930BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (1870BC), finally Hammurabi's.
A similar distance in time found between us and the Revolutionary War.
No, it was dictated by Hammurabi himself.
canadian law is better than hammurabi's law because hammurabi's law is way more harsher than canadian laws today. of course, if our law was as harsh as hammurabi's today, there would be less crimes. in canadian law, the people who decide if you are going to jail/if you are guilty, have to ask questions to themselves like 'did the accused person of the crime do his actions on purpose','how old is this person...' and it goes on and on. when in hammurabi's law no questions asked you would be killed right away. in my opinion i would rather have the canadian law more than hammurabi's.
Hammurabi posted his laws in a public locations for everyone to see them.
Type your answer here... Which best describes Babylonian law under Hammurabi?
Briefly. The Hammurabi code of law is similar to the ten commandments or most people would say Exodus but the theme was to obey, if not punishment
i think he would be mad of he court system of the united states
Hammurabi's Code was basically an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, so I would assume you would be able to assault the person back.
later in 2oo9
If one did now follow Hammurabi's code during 1789 BCE, punishments like an eye for an eye would be put on them.
he said "an eye for an eye" For example: if u killed someones son by Hammurabi's law they would kill your son
Mesopotamia had several kings. Some examples would be Hammurabi, Sargon, and Nebuchadnezzar.
canadian law is better than hammurabi's law because hammurabi's law is way more harsher than canadian laws today. of course, if our law was as harsh as hammurabi's today, there would be less crimes. in canadian law, the people who decide if you are going to jail/if you are guilty, have to ask questions to themselves like 'did the accused person of the crime do his actions on purpose','how old is this person...' and it goes on and on. when in hammurabi's law no questions asked you would be killed right away. in my opinion i would rather have the canadian law more than hammurabi's.
Laws are laws and we dont have to justify them.
All historians agree that it would be his code of law.
Hammurabi posted his laws in a public locations for everyone to see them.
The only evidence that could exist for Paul having dictated letters to a secretary would be an original manuscript, so that we could examine the handwriting. Since no such manuscript exists, we can not know whether he wrote or dictated his letters. In any case, this would not matter. If the supposed secretary wrote the letters in the same words as used by Paul, then those letters are the work of Paul. Nor would the existence of a secretary suddenly validate the pseudo-Pauline letters. The reasons that scholars have recognised them as having been written much later than Paul and very much by different authors, has nothing to do with handwriting variations (which are unknown). The evidence for pseudo-Pauline epistles could not be explained away as a secretary taking minor liberties with the words Paul dictated.
code of hammurabi. (i think) it was a question in my civics exam, and this is what i out. Code of Hammurabi is not correct. The code of Hammurabi was the first written set of laws ever, not the laws that simplified roman law. That would be Justinian Law.
Type your answer here... Which best describes Babylonian law under Hammurabi?