Me and Roger Pearlman on Genesis 11:3

28 SEP 2019 À 11:23

Me to Roger

[Ce message a été supprimé car il contient un lien qui est contraire à nos Standards de la communauté.]

29 SEP 2019 À 05:41

Roger to me

what is the Hebrew word? Melabain (Brick). or book and verse.
but GBT not site of MIgdal tower of Bavel..
I am highly confident.
the furnace we have a tradition Nimrod cast Abraham into was a brick oven per our take and was in the plains of Shinar we have in Mesopotamia Ur

29 SEP 2019 À 15:34

Me to Roger

"in the plains of Shinar we have in Mesopotamia Ur"

In the Bible it does not say "in the plains of Shinar" but "found a plain in the land of Shinar".

If Shinar is, as is likely, Mesopotamia, the plain around Harran on Turkish Syrian border on the edge of which you have GbT, is a plain that can be found within the land of Shinar.

The plain where Woolley's Ur is, is however a plain which encompasses Mesopotamia on both sides that far south.

Nimrod casting Abraham into a furnace is not in the Bible.
Actually, Nimrod even meeting Abraham is also not in the Bible.

In the text versions I follow as to chronology, the Flood was 2957 BC and Abraham was born 2015 BC. Peleg must have been born 401 after the Flood, that is 2556 BC. Nimrod was around when Peleg was born, arguably no longer when Abraham was.

Or if, he was very old:

Sem - Ham 600 years lifespan
Arphaxad - Kush 338 / 565 years lifespan
Sale (or II Cainaan) - Nimrod ben Kush 433 / 360 years lifespan (460)

29 SEP 2019 À 19:50

Roger to me

TY, yes I stand corrected, as you said: a plain in the land/s of Shinar
Yes out of the text but a possible explicit reference where G-d saved Avraham from 'Ur Ksdim' book___ chapter and verse _:__ ?
Ur also being a flame
while not explicit in scripture there are traditions of same. Medrash Rabbah..

Yes we disagree (respectfully I hope) on the scriptural chronology.
Which based on the Sedr Olam understanding of the oldest Hebrew scrolls (dead sea?)
1656 anno mundi 'Mabul' global flood
1948 Abraham birth
1996 Peleg passing and start dispersion from Bavel
2006 Passing of Noach

subtract 3760 from the anno mundi to get the year BCE before Christian era.

30 SEP 2019 À 09:31

Me to Roger

As you said what you base your chronology on, here is my basis:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

As to respect, I hope it doesn't exclude arguing about who's right.

But as to locations - did you know that Urfa or Edessa very close to GbT has been identified by some Jewish traditions (those of the area, for instance) as well as Muslim ones as the Ur Kasdim?

However, these would agree with you on chronology, Abraham meeting Nimrod over there (and as Shish Kebab is popular there, they say Abraham invented it).

2 OCT 2019 À 06:20

Roger to me

[thumbs up, I recall]

3 OCT 2019 À 13:21

Me to Roger

"Melabain"

What is the root of that word? Is there any verb associated?

How similar or dissimilar is it to anything you would use to term "rammed earth"?

Specifically if the rammed earth was solidified by mixing with bitumen (whatever that is in Hebrew text) before the action of ramming it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammed_earth

And dito for "bake with fire".

I have also considered, while bricks and stones and mortar, unlike bitumen other than for isolation, is normally associated with building materials, could a battery of ceramic with asphalt covering (as they had in ancient times) have been considered as a "brick with bitumen for mortar" as the text does not specify this was how they built?

I missed on wishing the best for your 5780, but I do wish you the best for that time.

3 OCT 2019 À 17:44

Roger to me

melabane -brick
lavan is white
you may want to post the q on the FB Biblical etymology group, if unable advise and I will try
Thank you and a Shannah Tova for you also
Biblical Hebrew Etymology נפלאות שפת הקודש
4 208 membres

4 OCT 2019 À 11:31

Me to Roger

ok, one word out of the three is a bit meagre

4 OCT 2019 À 17:12

Roger to me

aside from Melabain are the other two words rammed earth?
rammed earth reminds me of making a sand castle at the beach using a pail..

4 OCT 2019 À 18:27

Me to Roger

I counted "rammed earth" as one, and the third was "burn". Meaning, if "ramming" the earth and "burning" ... bricks? ... could refer to same action.

Roger to me

ok looking at Gen 11:3

Me to Roger

:)

Roger to me

one thing I notice is how brick is similar to build milabane - boneh

[omitting some "diagram"]

Homer (morter) is similar to Hamor (male donkey)

Me to Roger

bitumen for donkeys sounds like a modern thing

Roger to me

per Rashi: bricks as not much stone in that plain by Bavel
that motive is same for both bricks and rammed earth

Rashi on in this translation 'burn them thoroughly' the doub;le language nsrapha lisrapha: in this manner they made bricks, they burn (bake?) them in a furnace.
nsrapha or lisrapha - anything close to how you would describe ramming of earth?

Chomer - morter and or plaster
Srapha is normally burning. for example perhaps by Joshua burning the city of Aiy poision burns one from the inside thus a Nachash is a 'serphant' related to the punishment for a bas Cohein who commits adultery. srapha.
Exodus 32:20 Moses burnt (srapha) the golden calf

Me to Roger

ok, would mean some fire or corrosive substance is used, clearly
"burn them with fire" - is fire specfically mentioned as a word in Hebrew?

Roger to me

I think the male donkey thing has to do w/ their attribute
Aish is fire so I do not see that in that verse.
Ur may be a flame as Ner - candle
Oore - Light (Aleph vav Reish)

Me to Roger

you do not see that in the verse either?
δεῦτε πλινθεύσωμεν πλίνθους καὶ ὀπτήσωμεν αὐτὰς πυρί

Roger to me

aish - fire is aleph Shin.
the word seraipha (burn..) has a shin (with the accent sounds like the s in sin.) so perhaps a subroot of seripha is fire/aish

5 OCT 2019 À 10:07

Me to Roger

but the actual noun "fire" does not appear?

so it could theoretically be a chemical process rather than fire?

because there are rammed earth houses that are made more solid by chemical processes of chalk ...

[I am talking of what in Swedish is called "stöphus"]

6 OCT 2019 À 05:10

Roger to me

while in Torah Discovery Chronology we assume furnace baked bricks, we conclude lead was added to make the bricks more durable and were the agent G-d used to confuse the speech.. via neurological damage to the participants.

6 OCT 2019 À 10:24

Me to Roger

But the words translated "bricks baked with fire" and "furnace baked bricks" in Hebrew really are to "burn bricks with burning"?

6 OCT 2019 À 21:11

Roger to me

the translation I am using has 'let us make bricks' (double usage of Lbane),
and burn them thoroughly (double usage of srapha) .
so maybe boneh - build and brick, roots related
while the srepha double is double bake them in fire?
the second translation I am looking at 'and burn them in fire'

7 OCT 2019 À 13:56

Me to Roger

You do not know the actual Hebrew?

Bc if so, the double usage of srapha could mean a chemical process. And it so happens, pisé houses in Sweden (have been a thing since 18th C.) come in two versions, one of which has chalk as "skeleton" for the rammed earth.

I'm still not sure we actually found bricks in the rammed earth houses, but if it is possible, things make sense.

At Babel (Genesis 11 is acc. to v. 8 arguably another locality than the Babylon Daniel was in), metallurgy had not yet been recovered after the Flood, and uncut stones are not a building material that is easy to use, and to cut it you need metal tools, iron or steel.

7 OCT 2019 À 17:07

Roger to me

the whole point was by the tower of Bavel they made 'bricks' because they did not use stones
we already had metal tech prior to the Mabul flood by Moach (Tubal cain) so at least some knew of about
for example the copper mace/septre by Otzi the iceman was likely produced at Ur
either way I did not say your alt. location and definition of burn and brick are not valid alt.
I just am not convinced to the extent to change from my current understanding.

7 OCT 2019 À 19:01

Me to Roger

Otzi is after Babel.

I do not deny Tubal-Cain had metallurgy before the Flood, but immediately after, it would have been hard to identify mines.

So, during Noah's lifetime and a bit later, no metallurgy.

Last up to and including Babel and a bit longer.
Göbekli Tepe is in the NNW edge of precisely a plain, in Mesopotamia.

It's dated to "9600 to 8600 BC" by carbon, and Ötzi is from "3300 BC" which is in Abraham's lifetime.
Obviously Abraham was rather born 2015 BC, but "3300 BC" is a carbon date rather close to Genesis 13 and 14.

Roger to me

I have Abraham birth 1948 anno mundi -3760 = 1812 before Christian era.
GBT founded shortly after the 1656 anno mundi Mabul (so early The ice ages that lasted 340 years 1657-1996 anno mundi) and UR founded 140 prior to the end of The ice ages.
So (if I am right) secular consensus does not even have the relative dating right.

7 OCT 2019 À 20:32

Me to Roger

I don't think that works, since carbon dates depend on rise of carbon 14 and this rise makes sure the dates, while too long, come in the right order, for instane c:a 40 years of Babel come out as c:a 1000 years of GT, but end obviously after beginning, in carbon dates as in actual fact.

Roger to me

how do you know what they test are from when GBT and or Ur were founded? rather than form something left at GBT about the end of The ice ages ie by when we started dispersing from Bavel at GBT in which case 10k-12k YA consensus calibrates to 1996 anno mundi and after the start of the dispersion from Ur say 2100 aligns w/ about 5k YA.
also how do you know whoever is controlling the carbon dating is not cherry picking what aligns w/ their narrative, and discarding what does not as 'contaminated' or the like.

8 OCT 2019 À 08:02

Me to Roger

"The third millennium BC is generally described as the Early Bronze Age of Mesopotamia, which ends approximately after the demise of the Third Dynasty of Ur in the 21st century BC."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur#Sumerian_occupation_of_the_4th_millennium

"Some of the floors in this, the oldest, layer are made of terrazzo (burnt lime); others are bedrock from which pedestals to hold the large pair of central pillars were carved in high relief.[25] Radiocarbon dating places the construction of these early circles in the range of 9600 to 8800 BCE. Carbon dating suggests that (for reasons unknown) the enclosures were backfilled during the Stone Age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#Plateau

"The site was deliberately backfilled sometime after 8000 BCE: the buildings were buried under debris, mostly flint gravel, stone tools, and animal bones."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#Layer_I

This gives the carbon dates, and this means GbT is clearly older than Ur.

Now, both are too much documented to receive the criticism levelled at dinosaurs that are carbon dated. I am not depending on an ideology that is claiming a dino carbon dated to 28 000 BP has been contaminated, I am just refusing to level such accusations back on uniformitarians for equally tactic reasons.

8 OCT 2019 À 17:10

Roger to me

OK initial consensus settlement at UR starting to 9600+2019= 11,019 YA is much closer to my understanding of starting 140 years prior to the approx. 1996 anno mundi end of the ice ages.

if some of the dinos that carbon date 30k YA died during 1656 anno mundi Mabul global flood epoch and others in the same strata date over 60k (off the scale) yet clearly died at the same flood event/s year, it shows how even after calibration for the gradual radiation build that began that year and did not level off for almost a thousand years, how large a +/- we must assign to any carbon dates over 3,000 years ago. Especially those from during and just after The ice ages.

8 OCT 2019 À 19:26

Me to Roger

What do you mean "in the same strata"?

Do you find any dinos next to each other that have both been carbon dated and one 30 000 years, one 60 000 years?

Or do you mean the places where they are found are both places with their stratum labelled same thing, like "Bajocian"? (Part of "Mid Jurassic")
And supposing this were so, why would Flood era inconsistencies mean later times than the Flood cannot be identified by carbon dates (with due deflation of timeline) either?

Roger to me

same strata laid down by the same epoch like a flood or .. not a long era (even if interpreted so by deep-time doctrine. so, same deep time epoch?

Me to Roger

you are aware that deep time epochs beyond most recent parts of quaternary are mainly identified by fossils, not by dating, and that therefore one Bajocian fossil find may be from the Flood, one from a pre-Flood dino hunt, one from a post-Flood mud slide, and they would still all be labelled Bajocian due to the fossils in it?

Roger to me

it shows the wide variation by (just before) about the start of The ice ages , so if one holds the end of The ice ages was just 340 years and not 25M or 200k years later it would be good cause to suspect during The ice ages a wide variation in carbon dating results can be expected from things that we can date that were even from the same year.

Me to Roger

I'd say if it dates 40 000 BP, it's Flood.

50 000 - 60 000 BP = pre-Flood.

30 000 BP = clearly post-Flood, in Noah's lifetime.
It so happens, GbT and Otzi are both after end of ice age.

Roger to me

that variation would gradualy decrease until we get to the 'modern' radiation levels about the Exodus I place 2448 anno mundi so 800 years rounded post flood 5780-2448 = 3332 YA
That is why any cherry picking by deep-time dogmatics w/o proper disclosure can really leave those who rely on them in the dark.

Me to Roger

I would tend to disagree.

I don't look at radiation levels, I don't know them, though with 10 times higher carbon 14 production (a bit less before, a bit more during GbT on my timeline), they would have been higher.

I go by successive C14 levels.

I see no particular reason why a high level of C14 production would mean a wide variation in atmospheres exact same time.

Roger to me

well two dead dinos near each other one may date 30K YA the other over 60k (if not enough isotopes.). when we know they are no more than 6k rounded years old (the age of the universe),.
we know lower entropy rates pre-flood as longer life spans and dinos that grew their whole life could get so big so long life, so low radiation / low entropy, thus if we carbon dated a dino that died one year prior to the flood of Noach it might date from 30k or even 60k + years ago even if it died the prior day.

Me to Roger

// well two dead dinos near each other one may date 30K YA the other over 60k (if not enough isotopes.). //

What exact place did this happen?

I don't even know any single dino dated to 60 000 BP or even to 40 000 BP.

You give me a source, I see you as guessing and am obviously not taking that guess (if such) on your authority.

Roger to me

so there were fewer isotopes to start, it takes a while for radiation levels to build to modern levels (1k rounded years) once the modern radiation penetration rate begins by the degradation to the atmosphere during the 1656 anno mundi Mabul year.

Me to Roger

// when we know they are no more than 6k rounded years old (the age of the universe),. //

Not the point, we agree either carbon date is inflated.

I don't know any object (offhand at least) carbon dated 60 000 BP, unless perhaps some pre-Flood men (Neanderthals or Denisovans or so ... wait, Homo Luzonensis)

I don't know any dino carbon dated to more than 38 000 - unless it was 32 000 or 28 000 years ago, and to me, they would be post-Flood. Unless nuked in pre-Flood times. I most definitely do NOT know any place where one dino is 30 000 BP and another 60 000 BP. So, IF you know one, you show, you give a source, you don't just talk about it.
Also, I don't agree on your explanation for old carbon dates, it's not about level of entropy, it's about how much C14 has built up in the atmosphere (very little pre-Flood).

Roger to me

by 60k + I mean it does not carbon date as not enough isotopes remain (if they were ever therein) to date

Me to Roger

1) if it's not a carbon date, it doesn't affect range of carbon dates;
2) by now 60 000 BP can be, though insecurely, dated with C14
Check

Roger to me

60k is a popular cap on how far things can carbon date in theory based on deep-time uniformitarian assumptions.
what rounded to the nearest 10k do you use based on such assumptions?

Me to Roger

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
A carbon date of 60 000 BP just means it is 0.7 pmC left.
0.07

Also, I don't agree on your explanation for old carbon dates, it's not about level of entropy, it's about how much C14 has built up in the atmosphere (very little pre-Flood).

Roger to me

yes, and thus it does relate to entropy as increase the radiation exposure increase the entropy.

Me to Roger

no, the entropy - i e half life of decay - remains the same

Roger to me

why would the longer life spans. then their gradual decline that kept halving during and for a while after The ice ages, not relate to radiation permeation and the effect of that on DNA..

no I am not talking about the isotope decay rate

Me to Roger

the decline in life spans is due to high radiation levels

Roger to me

I am talking about maturation rate and life spans of humans and animals
the decline in life spans is due to high radiation levels - yes we are in agreement

Me to Roger

on this one, yes

my point is, this does not affect that carbon levels in atmosphere have a rise, a very slow pre-Flood rise, corresponding to small C14 production, not like now, a very steep post-Flood to past Exodus rise then

Roger to me

now do you hold the radiation build began at creation and leveled off _ when?
or do you hold like RCCF framework where low radiation penetration until 1656 Mabul year at which time radiation penetration increased, and radiation saturation took about 1k rounded years. so not a uniform penetration re pre and post global flood.

Me to Roger

Build up from Creation or later is very slow to Flood, very steep from Flood to Babel, still steep past that to Abraham, a little less steep from Abraham to Moses and levelled out c. time of King David, unless even there was a rise past present level, so that timbers from King Solomon's temple date younger than they are.

Roger to me

I suspect a lot of our alt. view has to do with how many years ago we hold creation (I hold 5780) we agree the flood was 1656 anno mundi but I hold that was 5780-1656 where you hold 6.xk -1656. also how long The ice ages and start of the dispersion from Bavel were, I hold about 340 years and in 1996 anno mundi so 5780-1996 = the YA

how old do the original timbers in Holy Temple I carbon date?
I put start of construction at 5780-2928= 2852 YA

Me to Roger

I suspect that while they are dated c. 900 BC, they are more like from 1032 BC (Syncellus chronology, plus consentaneous with some aspects of Roman Martyrology).

As to how long ago, it affects speed of the buildup, like between Flood and Babel, I take production of C14 as nearly ten times the present, than 11-12 during Babel, then slowing down to 6 times present.

For you it might be like 25 times faster from Flood to Babel, at least I calculated that for other Masoretic timeliners, who were Protestants.

Then again, it depends on what carbon date or range of carbon dates you identify with the time of the Flood.

Roger to me

OK the 900 is not that far off my 2852-2019= 833 before Christian era.
I assumed the radiation was saturated to modern levels (that fluctuate) by about 5780-2448= 3332 YA when I place the Exodus by the approx. end of old kingdom Egypt, but am open to your understanding that it took another 500 +./- years so a bit past Holy Temple I 2448+480=2928 anno mundi start,

9 OCT 2019 À 10:16

Me to Roger

As I said, I don't do radiation levels, I do do carbon 14 levels.

By Exodus, unless Syncellus has the right chronology, level was below ours, so 1590 BC (birth of Moses 80 years before Exodus) just before the death of Sesostris III is dated to 1839 BC by historians or by calibrating carbon dates for wiggles, but the carbon date of his coffin seems to have been 1713 BC. = C14 level 98.523 pmC, as in a coffin 123 years old now.

However, if Syncellus is right, 1032 BC was not anointing of King David, but dedication of the Temple, while 1082 BC was anointing of King David. (Roman martyrology has anointing of King David at 1032 BC), and if the timbers carbon date to 900 BC, that's 132 years young. A level as high as 101.61 pmC.

If we go strictly by Roman martyrology, though, anointing of King David was 1032 BC, and therefore temple in 982 BC. If I recalled the carbon date 900 BC correctly, that would be a level of 100.997 pmC.

So, the carbon dates are still too old at Exodus (barring Syncellus), but they are about present date levels of carbon for King David and later.

So, between Exodus and
(I began a paragraph and then rebegan it without noticing it went down to bottom, sorry)

10 OCT 2019 À 05:51

Roger to me

[thumbs up]