Dating the Pentateuch

[Mental flatliner]

The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Second Edition - http://www.amazon.com/The-Uruk-World-Sy ... rld+system

I don't know this book
I don't see anything that would advance your theories.

Do you think you'd see more if you read the book?

Sometimes it helps to be informed on a topic before commenting.

(I know! Try hitting the "add to cart" button. I think that's how I got it.)

[spin]

The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Second Edition - http://www.amazon.com/The-Uruk-World-Sy ... rld+system

I don't know this book
I don't see anything that would advance your theories.

Do you think you'd see more if you read the book?

Sometimes it helps to be informed on a topic before commenting.

That has certainly never stopped you.

(I know! Try hitting the "add to cart" button. I think that's how I got it.)

Now that you have it, why not open it?

[Mental flatliner]

(I know! Try hitting the "add to cart" button. I think that's how I got it.)

Now that you have it, why not open it?

Once again, I caught you pretending knowledge you don't have, and these pathetic responses are all you have left.

I own the book and have read it twice. I can explain it in detail whenever you're ready. The analysis of the evidence begins by naming Uruk, Babel, Agade, and Susa as the core of the empire in it's infancy, as stated in Geneis 10:10.

The book then outlines the evidence of it's spread to Nineveh, Nimrud, Calah and Brak (as stated in Genesis 10:11-12) and then it's cursory influence over cities along the Euphrates in Syria, such as Carchemish.

It's nothing short of miraculous that a Bronze Age writer could have known about this empire, buried under the sands for 6000 years. It's even more miraculous that the writer could correlate this evidence from 50 or more cities and villages with apparently modern skill and name the cities in the correct order in Genesis. In fact, the author also didn't mention a wrong name, such as Jerusalem, Memphis, or Thebes. The author of Genesis confined himself to the facts.

But the author did let an anachronism slip in Genesis 11. He said the city of Babel was built with bricks using bitumen for morter. Bitumen is tar, a waterproofing agent. It was a totally needless ingredient in the deserts between the rivers. This indicates that the author of Genesis 11 was ONLY aware of the architectural strategies originating from Uruk (where cities were built in swamps and waterproofing was essential). The author was not aware of later 3rd millenium architecture of the Babylonians.

[spin]

(I know! Try hitting the "add to cart" button. I think that's how I got it.)

Now that you have it, why not open it?

Once again, I caught you pretending knowledge you don't have, and these pathetic responses are all you have left.

As you have shown no sign of having read the book, you will continue to appear as ignorant as you first started on the topic of dating Genesis. Totally.

I own the book and have read it twice. I can explain it in detail whenever you're ready. The analysis of the evidence begins by naming Uruk, Babel, Agade, and Susa as the core of the empire in it's infancy, as stated in Geneis 10:10.

The book then outlines the evidence of it's spread to Nineveh, Nimrud, Calah and Brak (as stated in Genesis 10:11-12[which says nothing about Brak]) and then it's cursory influence over cities along the Euphrates in Syria, such as Carchemish.

You still haven't responded meaningfully to the geographical indications found in the chapter. All the above is just you advocating naive literalism and saying you know nothing more.

It's nothing short of miraculous that a Bronze Age writer could have known about this empire, buried under the sands for 6000 years.

Does one need to note the gullibility involved in the saying of the above?

It's even more miraculous that the writer could correlate this evidence from 50 or more cities and villages with apparently modern skill and name the cities in the correct order in Genesis.

This claim is juyst banally wrongheaded.

In fact, the author also didn't mention a wrong name, such as Jerusalem, Memphis, or Thebes. The author of Genesis confined himself to the facts.

Mostly from the 8th century BCE in Gen 10.

But the author did let an anachronism slip in Genesis 11. He said the city of Babel was built with bricks using bitumen for morter. Bitumen is tar, a waterproofing agent. It was a totally needless ingredient in the deserts between the rivers. This indicates that the author of Genesis 11 was ONLY aware of the architectural strategies originating from Uruk (where cities were built in swamps and waterproofing was essential). The author was not aware of later 3rd millenium architecture of the Babylonians.

Still failed to grasp a city (Babylon) not built (before 2300BCE) when you claim Genesis was written (3500BCE) being included in the text. Your position is just plain cretinous.

[Mental flatliner]

As you have shown no sign of having read the book.

You mean except for giving a synopsis from memory?

If you want me to read your posts in entirety, you're going to have to reserve the stupidity for the end of your post, not the beginning. I always quit at the first obvious error. I don't waste my time with rest, thinking it equally erroneous.

[spin]

As you have shown no sign of having read the book.

You mean except for giving a synopsis from memory?

If you want me to read your posts in entirety, you're going to have to reserve the stupidity for the end of your post, not the beginning. I always quit at the first obvious error. I don't waste my time with rest, thinking it equally erroneous.

When you want to talk meaningfully about your claims, you'll get a response.

[Mental flatliner]

As you have shown no sign of having read the book.

You mean except for giving a synopsis from memory?

If you want me to read your posts in entirety, you're going to have to reserve the stupidity for the end of your post, not the beginning. I always quit at the first obvious error. I don't waste my time with rest, thinking it equally erroneous.

When you want to talk meaningfully about your claims, you'll get a response.

Great.

Let's discuss it.

First, maybe you can tell me why these two elements exist in Genesis 10 and 11:

1--The authors of these chapters were able to identify that an empire existed, they named the cities where the empire originated, and they named the expansion of the empire in the correct direction, including the correct territories.

2--The authors failed to include "anachronisms". The did not make the error of mis-identifying the names of the cities, they did not make the error of including Palestinian, Egyptian or Mycenean cities, and they did not slip up and give details that belong in other centuries.

This indicates that the authors had knowledge of an empire that collapsed in 3500 BC and was not rediscovred until the late 20th century, 5500 years later. How do you suppose they did that?

[spin]

As you have shown no sign of having read the book.

You mean except for giving a synopsis from memory?

If you want me to read your posts in entirety, you're going to have to reserve the stupidity for the end of your post, not the beginning. I always quit at the first obvious error. I don't waste my time with rest, thinking it equally erroneous.

When you want to talk meaningfully about your claims, you'll get a response.

Great.

Let's discuss it.

First, maybe you can tell me why these two elements exist in Genesis 10 and 11:

1--The authors of these chapters were able to identify that an empire existed, they named the cities where the empire originated, and they named the expansion of the empire in the correct direction, including the correct territories.

This is stated in such a way as to have no clarity. Please express yourself with more attention to what you are talking about, with examples.

2--The authors failed to include "anachronisms". The did not make the error of mis-identifying the names of the cities, they did not make the error of including Palestinian, Egyptian or Mycenean cities, and they did not slip up and give details that belong in other centuries.

I have pointed out the internal evidence quite clearly supplies early first millennium references. I have listed them earlier and I have shown you that we are not dealing with people but places, contrary to an earlier attempt at naive literalism of yours. Most of the names I pointed to have a terminus a quo of the start of the Late Assyrian period. You still haven't dealt with that.

This indicates that the authors had knowledge of an empire that collapsed in 3500 BC and was not rediscovred until the late 20th century, 5500 years later. How do you suppose they did that?

I have said you are flat out absurdly and hilariously wrong. Babylon falsifies your claim. Trying to hide behind the fact that we use a Greek form of the name will not change the reference. We are dealing with the Mesopotamian city called Bab-ili and rendered in English from the Hebrew as Babel in Gen 10, but as Babylon elsewhere, though the Hebrew name is the same. Babylon/Bab-ili/Babel was founded by Sargon circa 2300BCE. Bang goes your theory.

[semiopen]

Once again, I caught you pretending knowledge you don't have, and these pathetic responses are all you have left.

I own the book and have read it twice. I can explain it in detail whenever you're ready. The analysis of the evidence begins by naming Uruk, Babel, Agade, and Susa as the core of the empire in it's infancy, as stated in Geneis 10:10.

The book then outlines the evidence of it's spread to Nineveh, Nimrud, Calah and Brak (as stated in Genesis 10:11-12) and then it's cursory influence over cities along the Euphrates in Syria, such as Carchemish.

It's nothing short of miraculous that a Bronze Age writer could have known about this empire, buried under the sands for 6000 years. It's even more miraculous that the writer could correlate this evidence from 50 or more cities and villages with apparently modern skill and name the cities in the correct order in Genesis. In fact, the author also didn't mention a wrong name, such as Jerusalem, Memphis, or Thebes. The author of Genesis confined himself to the facts.

But the author did let an anachronism slip in Genesis 11. He said the city of Babel was built with bricks using bitumen for morter. Bitumen is tar, a waterproofing agent. It was a totally needless ingredient in the deserts between the rivers. This indicates that the author of Genesis 11 was ONLY aware of the architectural strategies originating from Uruk (where cities were built in swamps and waterproofing was essential). The author was not aware of later 3rd millenium architecture of the Babylonians.

It's nothing short of miraculous that a Bronze Age writer could have known about this empire, buried under the sands for 6000 years.

You seem to be mixing up 6000 years from 4000 BCE to the present with the writing of Genesis which probably was written considerably earlier.

But as the Wolf says in Pulp Fiction -

let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlrgjgOHrw

There are a few possibilities for the various city/place names appearing in Genesis.

Nimrod

Since 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.[5]

I think this possibility has already been brought up. Personally, I find it quite reasonable

[Mental flatliner]

Since 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.[5]

I think this possibility has already been brought up. Personally, I find it quite reasonable

I think you're misunderstanding my point, which was far more specific.

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:
http://www.simplysharing.com/sumerians.htm