The shaky road of Biblical literalism

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're the person who views Moses and the other Levites as a fairly small group (certainly not the size they're described in the Bible), or rather, a cult, of people whose theology was deeply rooted in Egyptian theology, that left Egypt and came to Canaan, seemingly joining up with the Israelite tribes living here, somehow rising to prominence (with what? Egypt ritualistic knowledge?), subsequently beginning to write a certain text that was then redacted and edited and re-edited many many times over the next 1000 years or so. This text includes Israelite variants of every pop-cultural myth of the Middle-East area at the time, everything from Canaanite deity appropriation to Southern Kingdom political propaganda. You consider those mysterious authors to have been intelligent, yet you concede that their resulting text is really an error-stuffed mish-mash, with each author attempting to make his own views the most prominent and well-known.

Your disdainful summary of current scholarship needs a great deal of work.

How the resulting text shows their intelligent is quite beyond me. Then again, as you say, I don't understand scholarship.

Correct.

But that the Garden of Eden story may reflect Akkadian or Sumerian astronomical wisdom, no, that can't possibly be. Well.

Distorting my position is ignorant or unethical or both. I was addressing, not the legitimacy of the claim, but the quality and relevance of the evidence.

 

[Harel13]

Distorting my position is ignorant or unethical or both. I was addressing, not the legitimacy of the claim, but the quality and relevance of the evidence.

Ah. Well, that was unclear. I hope the OP at least got that.

 

[Harel13]

Your disdainful summary of current scholarship needs a great deal of work.

In its disdainfulness or in how and what I chose to summarize? For the latter, I was mostly recalling things you've actually stated or sourced here on-site and spiced it with some other things I've read up on.

 

[Onoma]

Creative interpretation overall; however here I think we've got an obvious flaw. The Hebrew Bible was written in...Hebrew, not English. So the fact that there was some Babylonian deity named "Sin" is irrelevant to the Hebrew word(s) that got translated centuries later into English as "sin."

That's a great refutation of something I never said ( In fact I clarified the difference )

 

[Onoma]

Seriously? And this is how you evaluate gan eden? That is laughable.

Is it as laughable as the explanation of the origin of Hebrew metrology that you could provide ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In its disdainfulness or in how and what I chose to summarize? For the latter, I was mostly recalling things you've actually stated or sourced here on-site and spiced it with some other things I've read up on.

Very well.

For what it's worth, I'm more than a little pleased that you're an active RF member. You add value.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it as laughable as the explanation of the origin of Hebrew metrology that you could provide ?

That's an interesting albeit somewhat garbled ad hominem. Keep trying.

 

[Onoma]

Having looked at the Hebrew verse, I must say, that that is an odd translation. The Hebrew word is Nahar which means river; the enemy is compared to a rushing river (as opposed to the Hebrew word for flood which is Mabul).

Why translate it as flood?

Mmm, great question, but first - I never said " mabul " is the word used in that verse ( Not once )

I gave the verse as an example of the preservation of a type of phrasing common to Mesopotamian texts

But, since you brought it up, let's look at the word " nahar ", coming from it's root:

נהר nahar {naw-har'} a primitive root; TWOT - 1316,1315; v AV - flow together 3, flow 2, lightened 1; 6 1) to shine, beam, light, burn 1a) (Qal) to beam, be radiant 2) to flow, stream 2a) (Qal) to flow, stream

Now given that the meaning of words in early Mesopotamian texts are derived from the context, when one examines the etymology of the words we find that the original notion of " abubu " ( Flood ) is

" flood of light "

You can see this explained on page 58 of the book " Essays in Modern Theology " ( See attached pic below )

But if you like, I can start a thread on " flood " terminologies and we can discuss it at great length, because I have plenty of material that backs up what I say

 

[Onoma]

But that the Garden of Eden story may reflect Akkadian or Sumerian astronomical wisdom, no, that can't possibly be. Well.

Actually it's rather easy to not only show evidence of, I will offer a rigorous proof, but that will require some math and a discussion of mathematical astronomy in the antiquities and how it was done

I could start by asking, are you familiar with the formula T_n = n ( n +1 )/ 2

?

 

[Left Coast]

That's a great refutation of something I never said ( In fact I clarified the difference )

I must have missed it. Why is it relevant to what the Torah says that there was some Babylonian deity named "Sin?"

 

[Kenny]

I have mapped the evolution of the Hebrew word for " flood " back through the languages, ( In the second attached pic below )

This brings me to the fact that we often have " sin " being described as the " falling short " ( of a mark ), yet " Sīn " was the principal deity in that time ( For example Sīn was the head of the pantheon in Ur, Babylon, under Chaldean rule when the Biblical Abraham was said to have originated )

It's not pronounced like the word we use to describe the concept of Biblical " sin ", yet it appears the same in text in English ( Sometimes even missing the diacritic mark that tells the reader how to pronounce it, which is actually phonetically - " su-en " )

Sīn was the moon, it's name was often written as the number 30 ( Because each month it sweeps a nominal arc of 30° )

In literature, when there was a " flood " ( An eclipse / new moon ) this was also referred to as the " fruit " ( Of Sīn )

So, in short, simply by a rather shallow examination of literature and tradition of the day, one can easily see sources for the accounts in the book of Genesis

IMV, you are applying a principle that isn't an all encompassing truth. You are applying what other languages and customs to the Hebrew language and custom. Although it may be true in some cases, it isn't true in all. In Puerto Rico, you can ask for a "bollo de pan" and you will get some bread. Say the same thing in Spanish in Cuba and you will start a fight for the insult.

Gen 12 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

Custom was much more than just what God said. In essence God is saying "leave you parents, their gods, their traditions and their customs and I will start a new nation. Monotheism was not custom of that day

So when God asked Moses to pen down some words and Gen says:
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

He isn't talking about sin... He is actually talking about the sun and the moon as we actually see it.

So I would not apply tradition and literature of the Hebrews to that of that time. It would be like applying the tradition and literature of the US to that of Saudi Arabia.

 

[Harel13]

I never said " mabul " is the word used in that verse ( Not once )

I know. I said that. I added it in for context.

נהר nahar {naw-har'} a primitive root; TWOT - 1316,1315; v AV - flow together 3, flow 2, lightened 1; 6 1) to shine, beam, light, burn 1a) (Qal) to beam, be radiant 2) to flow, stream 2a) (Qal) to flow, stream

I am unclear what the actual root is supposed to be, according to your source, but it seems that wherever you brought this from, that source is equating it to the Aramaic Nehora which means light, clarity or sight (which is related to light).

Now given that the meaning of words in early Mesopotamian texts are derived from the context, when one examines the etymology of the words we find that the original notion of " abubu " ( Flood ) is

" flood of light "

The infamous a-bu-bu...I say infamous because there's an essay out there, written in the 80's by one Yitzchak Rappaport (unfortunately, I still haven't managed to discover who he was, but his essay both appeared in the Beit Mikra Tanach studies journal and is referenced by the Hebrew Wikipedia entry on the flood (though I first saw the article in an original copy of that journal)) in which Rappaport explains that the whole hypothesis that the Epic of Gilgamesh's flood story is about a flood is actually a weak argument for a number of reasons. One of his reasons is because George Smith, the British scholar who first suggested the Epic was talking about an earlier version of the flood myth, did so because he had no idea what the word a-bu-bu meant. He saw something about a boat and godly wrath and figured a-bu-bu must mean flood or deluge, without actually knowing that. His reasoning was because he wished to find a precursor to the biblical mythology (people can cry "crazy conspiracy theorist!!!" all they want, but this was published in a serious Tanach journal). I was planning on translating the essay into English and posting it here, but haven't gotten around to doing it yet.

In fact, doing some of my own research on the matter, I found a book on Google Books called The Primeval Flood Catastrophe by Y.S. Chen. I haven't actually gone through all of it, but if you stop to think about it, using the word a-bu-bu as "flood" or deluge" in some of these examples arguably sounds a bit odd:

 

[Onoma]

I must have missed it.

Well then I will repost it and clarify

" It's not pronounced like the word we use to describe the concept of Biblical " sin ", yet it appears the same in text in English ( Sometimes even missing the diacritic mark that tells the reader how to pronounce it, which is actually phonetically - " su-en " ) "

That's what I said in the original post

What I meant, is that sin =/= Sīn

Yet, many times when the name of the moon god is used and written in English, it is written without the diacritical mark, this in turns leaves less educated readers assuming that a name like " Naram-Sin " or " Sin-Leqi-Unninni " refers to the Biblical concept of " sin " ( Which is an easy mistake to make if one is not familiar with the subjects )

Hope that helps

 

[Onoma]

I know. I said that. I added it in for context.

I am unclear what the actual root is supposed to be, according to your source, but it seems that wherever you brought this from, that source is equating it to the Aramaic Nehora which means light, clarity or sight (which is related to light).

The infamous a-bu-bu...I say infamous because there's an essay out there, written in the 80's by one Yitzchak Rappaport (unfortunately, I still haven't managed to discover who he was, but his essay both appeared in the Beit Mikra Tanach studies journal and is referenced by the Hebrew Wikipedia entry on the flood (though I first saw the article in an original copy of that journal)) in which Rappaport explains that the whole hypothesis that the Epic of Gilgamesh's flood story is about a flood is actually a weak argument for a number of reasons. One of his reasons is because George Smith, the British scholar who first suggested the Epic was talking about an earlier version of the flood myth, did so because he had no idea what the word a-bu-bu meant. He saw something about a boat and godly wrath and figured a-bu-bu must mean flood or deluge, without actually knowing that. His reasoning was because he wished to find a precursor to the biblical mythology (people can cry "crazy conspiracy theorist!!!" all they want, but this was published in a serious Tanach journal). I was planning on translating the essay into English and posting it here, but haven't gotten around to doing it yet.

In fact, doing some of my own research on the matter, I found a book on Google Books called The Primeval Flood Catastrophe by Y.S. Chen. I haven't actually gone through all of it, but if you stop to think about it, using the word a-bu-bu as "flood" or deluge" in some of these examples arguably sounds a bit odd:

View attachment 41809

View attachment 41810

OK, I will start a thread on flood terminologies in Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature and we can discuss it at great length

 

[Harel13]

Actually it's rather easy to not only show evidence of, I will offer a rigorous proof, but that will require some math and a discussion of mathematical astronomy in the antiquities and how it was done

I could start by asking, are you familiar with the formula T_n = n ( n +1 )/ 2

?

I'm not. I'm not good with math. Also, Jayhawker caught onto my sarcasm, as I knew he would. I believe you that you can make a good argument in favor of your view, as I've seen many scholars make various arguments for various interpretations of the Biblical text. Can't say I agree with those interpretations, though.

 

[Harel13]

OK, I will start a thread on flood terminologies in Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature and we can discuss it at great length

That would be nice, but I'm not that knowledgeable on flood myth variants. I can only take a shot at it. Rappaport's argument, at the very least, raises some red flags about the claim.

 

[Onoma]

That would be nice, but I'm not that knowledgeable on flood myth variants. I can only take a shot at it. Rappaport's argument, at the very least, raises some red flags about the claim.

It's all good, we can still discuss it

Flood terminologies in the antiquities

I think it would benefit us all to have a good knock-down dragout thread on the topic, one that actually uses an examination of literature and languages in the antiquities, as opposed to the usual attempts of " debunking " the flood story by attempting to give convoluted explanations of how it was physically impossible for _____ reasons, maybe they attempt to reason " there's no way they could have fed all those animals ! " and so-on

Every single one of those arguments centered around literalism are specious to begin with, so I tend to ignore them

 

[Left Coast]

Well then I will repost it and clarify

" It's not pronounced like the word we use to describe the concept of Biblical " sin ", yet it appears the same in text in English ( Sometimes even missing the diacritic mark that tells the reader how to pronounce it, which is actually phonetically - " su-en " ) "

That's what I said in the original post

What I meant, is that sin =/= Sīn

Yet, many times when the name of the moon god is used and written in English, it is written without the diacritical mark, this in turns leaves less educated readers assuming that a name like " Naram-Sin " or " Sin-Leqi-Unninni " refers to the Biblical concept of " sin " ( Which is an easy mistake to make if one is not familiar with the subjects )

Hope that helps

Ah okay, so you're saying they're actually not related, I see.

Then I'm confused by the next portion of your post:

In literature, when there was a " flood " ( An eclipse / new moon ) this was also referred to as the " fruit " ( Of Sīn )

So, in short, simply by a rather shallow examination of literature and tradition of the day, one can easily see sources for the accounts in the book of Genesis

~ Flood, fruit, garden, sin / Sīn ( The list grows quite remarkably )

Here you seem to be arguing that the god Sin is somehow a source for the Hebrew flood story, and related to the English word "sin."

What am I missing?

 

[Onoma]

Now, if you were looking for an explanation of how a " garden " is used in astronomy calculations, it's rather simple

This requires that one consider the polysemic nature of the symbol, which as a number, represents 3600

If someone had bothered to click on the diagram at the top right of the page on Mesopotamian metrology ( I linked ), they would have seen it explained as it related to keeping time ( Or you may recognize it from Newton's calculations ? )

1/3600 of the moon's orbit ( The linear path ) was equated with ~ 2 metric seconds on a pendulum of 360 grains in length

This in turn was counted off on the fingers, each " finger " ( A horn ) is taken to be approximately 1°, which is one arcminute ( which is 3600 arcseconds )

This is clearly explained on the bottom right of the page, where it speaks of the units of the " hand ", " finger " and " grain "

These units and the various methods employed, allowed one to count of the actual linear movement of the moon through space on the hands, as like the diagram says " they considered time to be something tangible one could hold in their hand "

One could easily say this is irrelevant, but they would be ignoring the fact that the system by which they keep time in Judaism is based on the fundamental Mesopotamian unit of the " grain ", pronounced " shay "

-----------------
" The duration of a part or chelek equals the earlier Babylonian barleycorn, the smallest Babylonian time unit, which was 1/72 of a time degree. The time degree was the principal Babylonian unit of time, corresponding to the time required for one degree of motion of Sun across the meridian = 1/360 of a solar day = 1440 minutes per day/360 time degrees per day = 4 minutes per time degree. Thus 4 minutes divided by 72 = 1/18 of a minute = 1 chelek. The time degree also very nearly equals the difference in duration between the solar day and sidereal day, which in the present era amounts to about 3 minutes and 55.9 seconds. The Babylonian finger was 6 barleycorns = 1/12 of a time degree = 1/3 of a minute = 20 seconds of time. The cubit was 180 barleycorns = 5/2 time degrees = 10 minutes of time. The hour itself, corresponding to 15 time degrees, was a Seleucid time unit that was probably obtained from Egypt. The Babylonian beru or double hour, corresponded to 30 time degrees. The mean synodic month in Babylonian time units was 29 days, 6 double hours, 11 time degrees, and 1 barleycorn "
--------------------

Sumerian: še [BARLEY] (28315x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Ebla, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, 1st millennium, unknown) wr. še "barley; grain; a unit of length; a unit of area; a unit of volume; a unit of weight" Akk. uţţatu; û; uţţatu


Granted, that's a rather simplistic overview, but we can get into a discussion on the minutiae of Mesopotamian and Egyptian mathematics used by priests if you like, I'm fully prepared to discuss that as well

 

[BilliardsBall]

Quite often I see the things in the Hebrew Bible presented as 100% literal word for word accounts of events that actually happened / existed

~ The Garden of Eden and the serpent
~ The flood and the ark
~ The firmament

etc
[/snip]?

Have you spent a lot of time on secular/liberal sites or instead, comparing liberal and conservative sites/sources.

For example, today I read a "King David didn't exist" article. Yet archaeology was invented only in the 1800s, really. So the "writers of 300 BC" did VERY well in getting their details right from kingly lines of descent to housing, structures, weapons, etc. from 700 years before their time!

Now I agree with you about adding literary tradition to exegesis. But I don't think the "New Moon" rained on the land forty days until every living thing had drowned.