Your doing a good job of not making yourself clear. What specific things about those shitty cities?Mental flatliner wrote:I think you're misunderstanding my point, which was far more specific.semiopen wrote:I think this possibility has already been brought up. Personally, I find it quite reasonableSince Accad (Babylonian Akkad), was destroyed and lost with the destruction of its Empire in the period 2200-2154 BCE (long chronology), the stories mentioning Nimrod seem to recall the late Early Bronze Age. The association with Erech (Babylonian Uruk), a city that lost its prime importance around 2,000 BCE as a result of struggles between Isin, Larsa and Elam, also attests the early provenance of the stories of Nimrod. According to some modern-day theorists, their placement in the Bible suggests a Babylonian origin — possibly inserted during the Babylonian captivity.
Parts of Genesis 10 and 11 preserve events specifically datable to the period 4000-3500 BC, the dates given by Guillermo Algaze in his book for the Uruk empire.
You're making far more general points (and you're confusing Babylonian and Sumerian). Akkad, Babel and Uruk were all Sumerian in origin, and in the words of the Babylonian Hamurrabi, "We have adopted the Blackheads [Sumerians] as our own."
The Sumerian city-states were taking turns for supremecy of southern Iraq for a full 2000 years (4000-2000 BC) in cites spread from Akkad to the Persian Gulf. All of these cities were originally built by the Sumerians.
When the Sumerian culture collapsed in 2000 BC, Babylonian civilization simply overlaid the area and assumed the cities as their own. Ever since that time we've even made the mistake of thinking "Chaldean" means "Babylonian, when in reality the Babylonians used the word to refer to Sumerians (the people of the Kaldu were the people of the Sea--the big swampy area in southern Iraq the Sumerians called home).
This is what Sumeria looked like throughout its history:
First you introduce that book without making any specific statements about it, now suddenly you are throwing out 4000 BCE... I have my doubts about this date but it's pointless anyway because the issue would be when those places were no longer known, not to mention other issues.
Your disgraceful performance on the Genesis 1 issue, which turned into the Genesis 1-11 joke, is not exactly a distant memory.
Now you make a sudden and pointless reference to the Chaldeans, mentioning a mistake that I'm not clear who has ever made -
Sometimes it refers to who knows what crap -Abraham, is considered a Chaldean of sorts in the bible, but that appears to be an anachronism.The Chaldeans were people who lived in southern Babylonia which would be the southern part of Iraq today. Sometimes the term Chaldeans is used to refer to Babylonians in general, but normally it refers to a specific semi-nomadic tribe that lived in the southern part of Babylon. The land of the Chaldeans was the southern portion of Babylon or Mesopotamia. It was generally thought to be an area about 400 miles long and 100 miles wide alongside of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Anytime I've asked about specific technical details in your theories you always sidestep or ignore.
For example, I've challenged your assertion about Genesis 1 being in written in Cuneiform prior to 3000 BCE. I've probably made at least 10 specific inquiries. The issue is that Cuneiform went through a development period, and you specifically avoid discussing how Genesis 1 could have been written in a period for which there are absolutely no equivalent examples.
Jemdet_Nasr_periodThe transition from proto-writing to the earliest fully developed writing systems took place in the late 4th to early 3rd millennium BC in the Fertile Crescent. The Kish tablet, dated to 3500 BC, reflects the stage of "proto-cuneiform", when what would become the cuneiform script of Sumer was still in the proto-writing stage. By the end of the 4th millennium BC, this symbol system had evolved into a method of keeping accounts, using a round-shaped stylus impressed into soft clay at different angles for recording numbers. This was gradually augmented with pictographic writing using a sharp stylus to indicate what was being counted. The transitional stage to a writing system proper takes place in the Jemdet Nasr period (31st to 30th centuries BC).
This proves that you are either totally ignorant of Cuneiform or lying.Apart from the distinctive pottery, the period is known as one of the formative stages in the development of the cuneiform script. The oldest clay tablets come from Uruk and date to the late fourth millennium BCE, slightly earlier than the Jemdet Nasr period. By the time of the Jemdet Nasr period, the script had already undergone a number of significant changes. The script originally consisted of pictographs but by the time of the Jemdet Nasr period it was already adopting simpler and more abstract designs. It is also during this period that the script acquired its iconic wedge-shaped appearance. While the language in which these tablets were written cannot be identified with certainty, it is thought to have been Sumerian. The texts deal without exception with administrative matters such as the rationing of foodstuffs or listing objects and animals. Literary genres like hymns and king lists, which become very popular later in Mesopotamian history, are absent.
Yet you have the chutzpah to make the outrageous claim that Genesis 1 was written before this period. Moreover, assuming ignorance, you were informed of these issues and stood by your pitiful claim. You have been exposed as having absolutely no credibility.
Regarding the Genesis 10-11 issues: These have been known for a long time. Your statement -
is just a very weak literalist argument.Parts of Genesis 10 and 11 preserve events specifically datable to the period 4000-3500 BC
Is the Book of Genesis Plagiarized from Sumerian and Akkadian (Mesopotamian) Sources? - http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2 ... n-sources/
Heiser gives this link http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabb ... aghdad.pdf where he recommends the article by Victor Hurwitz who has the virtue of not being Christian. Hurwitz is on pages 2-10.This is a common claim by Zecharia Sitchin and those who adore him, like his webmaster Erik Parker, and Jason Martell. As I have blogged here before (here and here), this idea was common fare toward the end of the 19th century, due primarily to two historical forces: (1) the novelty of the decipherment of cuneiform material, certain items of which sounded like Genesis stories; and (2) anti-Semitism being rife within higher-critical biblical scholarship. Today, in the 21st century (and one could say since the mid 20th century), scholars of Akkadian and Sumerian do NOT hold this view. They just know better since they have a much more accurate grasp of Akkadian and Sumerian, as well as Semitic linguistics.
He highlights some stuff like
Have to admit I'm pleased that I made the same comment to mommy after looking at his links.In light of all this and more, it is impossible to accept today in a simplistic manner the claims of Smith or Delitzsch that the biblical authors took the Babylonian Story of Creation, that is, Enu¯ ma Eliš, and simply applied it to YHWH, God of Israel. The specific parallels are fewer than originally thought, and even the best ones are not entirely certain