|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/12/2005 : 07:39:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Big Papa Smurf: Actually we're attempting to establish whether or not the timeframe of the biblical event of the tower of Babel can be shown to be inaccurate by the evidence that currently exists. So at the moment I am calling into question c14 dates circa 4000-5000 years ago. Although I would really like to get Cuneiformist back here and see if we can come up with a more complete site of king-years or king-lists. That would probably be a lot simpler than the whole radiocarbon thing.
hi, Hippy. Don't worry-- I'm still here. It's just that my understanding of C14 was passed about three pages ago, so I haven't added much to the discussion since then.
As for "complete site of king-years or king-lists," I'm not sure what you mean.
An edition of the so-called Sumerian King List (SKL) is available on-line at this link, as I've noted already. However, I must stress that no one takes this seriously as a historical document. Sure, there are kings listed whose existence can be confirmed by other sources. But on the whole, no one tries to work the chronology by using the SKL.
Also, as I noted above, we have a solid chain of kings that we can trace backwards from the fall of Babylon-- an event that happened in the middle of the second millennium-- for about 520 years. There is then a small gap the length of which is unclear (but it had to have been less then a century) before we have another sold chain of kings that stretches back another hundred years or so (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but we've talked about it in this thread!).
A list of actual year names from various third and second millennium dynasties is available here, though it's not entirely useful for our purposes since there's lots of overlap that you have to be aware of. (Thus, just adding all the numbers of years together will give you a much larger number than is correct.)
In any case, I think there are several key points that I'd like to make:
A) If there really was a Tower of Babel (ToB), then before the ToB, there was only one language.
B) Any point when we can talk about more than one language is a point after the ToB and its destruction by Yahweh.
C) That period when we first have writing makes it already clear that more than one language is or has existed.
D) Ergo, if there really was a ToB, it happened before the advent of writing.
E) Most (albeit secular or non-Biblical literalist) scholars place the development of writing-- first found in Uruk levels IV and III-- to ca. 3200 BC.
So this is where we're at. Other more speculative questions might be to ask how a complex state-run project like building a tower to the sky could be accomplished without writing (how did leaders keep track of the payment for their workers? Or for their acquisition of materials? Or for engineering computations? Etc.)
Hippy, I hope this was helpful. Let me know how this fits into your discussion and where we go next. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2005 : 15:54:20 [Permalink]
|
Speaking of engineering...
How high was the tower supposed to have been? And, according to the Bible, at what stage - how high was the structure when God saw it fit to smite it's builders?
I was thinking about the engineering problems in building the Ark (impossible with bronze age level of technology), similar problems would have to be resolved in order to build a tower that would "reach the heavens". |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2005 : 17:04:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Speaking of engineering...
How high was the tower supposed to have been? And, according to the Bible, at what stage - how high was the structure when God saw it fit to smite it's builders?
I was thinking about the engineering problems in building the Ark (impossible with bronze age level of technology), similar problems would have to be resolved in order to build a tower that would "reach the heavens".
All we're told in Gen 11 is:quote:
5But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. [NIV]
So we aren't told exactly how high it was, but we do know that they didn't finish. But if there were such a thing, and it has any significant height to it at all else we'd expect it to show up in the archaeological record. For instance, here's a photo of the ziggurat at Ur:
Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you how big this is. But from the looks of it (plus some other photos), I'd say that the ruins were about 50 feet high. A complete structure must have been perhaps 150 feet high or so. If the ToB got much higher than that, it would be completely obvious among the ruins of Babylon. Alas, there's nothing there to suggest that a tower any higher than usual was contructed there...
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2005 : 23:42:31 [Permalink]
|
But why would god confuse them if their intention was to "reach the heavens" by building a tower? Wouldn't have god simply laughed and said "Let them try?"
Why is hippy wasting time verifying dates when god acted to stop the construction of a tower whose sole purpose was impossible? (And of course predicated on the erroneous belief that the sky was a solid firmament.) Shouldn't that be an itsy bitsy clue that the story is folklore and nothing more?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/12/2005 23:45:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2005 : 01:04:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave: When I deal with matters of disproving a faith I usually don't concern myself with what is likely, but with what is possible.
Obviously, we're laboring under different standards. I'm not out to disprove anyone's faith.quote:
Hence, I am not going to discount the possibility that no scientist has dealt with this issue.
Well... see below.quote:
Nor will I discount the much less likely possibility that some senior scientists are covering up the problem from the rest of the scientific body.
If you think this is at all possible, you're laboring under the impression that there's a scientific hierarchy which does not, in fact, exist. Remember the "cold fusion" fiasco? Within weeks of the original press conference, a bunch of kids at an MIT frat house had reproduced their experiment. "Publish or perish" is the sterotypical war-cry of a research scientist. People who hide data go broke (or worse).quote:
I recently found out that the library I'm in has a whole bunch of Radiocarbon journals, and they have sections on calibration, so I'm going to go over them and see if they have anything that pertains to the subject.
Excellent.quote:
And by the way, I found that quote I was looking for:
"Carpentry" Gaspar J. Lewis 1984 p.2 "The roots absorb water which passes upward through the sapwood to the leaves where it is combined with carbon dioxide from the air. Sunlight causes these materials to change into food which is then carried down and distributed toward the center of the trunk through the medullary rays."
"Toward," and not "to." This matches everything I can find on the medullary rays within trees which create heartwood - the center of the tree is dead and only functions as support. The medullary rays are made of living cells, which also die.
The amount any such tree would date "younger" than it should would depend on how many living cells layers it has. For example, if all of the cells in the outermost ring were the ones alive, a tree would date at most a year younger than it should. At a stretch, if the outermost ten rings were all alive, a tree might date ten or eleven years younger than it should.
There appears to be no evidence that carbon compounds are transported into the heartwood of any tree on any sort of regular basis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2005 : 13:45:08 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist:
Hi, good to see you again. Yes, I've already determined that the SKL is not a good tool for chronologies. About those king years:
quote:
though it's not entirely useful for our purposes since there's lots of overlap that you have to be aware of. (Thus, just adding all the numbers of years together will give you a much larger number than is correct.)
I'm wondering how archeologists determined that a certain solid line of kings reigned for 'x' number of years. How did they know which king-years were overlaps?
Next, there are a couple of considerations to take in about your ABCDE conclusion:
1) The 'earliest development of writing' may be part of pre-flood cultures that had many languages.
2) The language spoken and written by the builders of ToB may have been part of the 'earliest development of writing' and the other languages were developed shortly after the ToB; thus appearing that all the languages were contemporary.
I do not yet have enough information to form an opinion that I'd stand by; so I'll research what this 'earlest development of writing' consists of. I'll probably also end up asking how scholars arrived at the date 3200 BC in the first place.
Humbert:
In the Bible the heaven quite often refers to the sky as well (birds of the heavens). I'll do a word-search tonight if the word used in the passage had any specific meaning.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 02/14/2005 13:46:17 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2005 : 14:34:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist:
Hi, good to see you again. Yes, I've already determined that the SKL is not a good tool for chronologies. About those king years:
quote:
though it's not entirely useful for our purposes since there's lots of overlap that you have to be aware of. (Thus, just adding all the numbers of years together will give you a much larger number than is correct.)
I'm wondering how archeologists determined that a certain solid line of kings reigned for 'x' number of years. How did they know which king-years were overlaps?
Good question, Hippy. The answer is somewhat complex, but I'll do my best.
Kings-- even kings who ultimately ruled vast geographical expanses-- always started off small. As an example, we can look at the end of the Ur Dynasty founded by the king Ur-Nammu and its eventual fall to the Isin Dynasty founded by Ishbi-Erra about a hundred years later. Now, the beginning of Ur-Nammu's reign (indeed, the whole region of southern Mesopotamia at this time!) is not well understood. We know he ruled at least Ur and likely a larger territory for 18 years. Certainly by the time his son, Shulgi, took over, the whole of southern Mesopotamia was ruled from Ur.
Shulgi was rather dynamic and solidified control of the region, creating a system of centralized resource collection and redistribution. He ruled for 48 years. So 48+18=66, so far so good.
The next two rulers each enjoyed 9 year reigns. There are questions about their relationships to Shulgi aren't clear (the first, Amar-Sin, was his son, but was the second, Shu-Sin, Shulgi's son or grandson?). Either way, the empire is intact, so add 18 years for (18+66=) 84 years.
The last king, Ibbi-Sin, is where we run into trouble. We have 24 year names for him. However, most of those are attested only in Ur. Outside of Ur, the various other major cities-- e.g. Nippur, Umma, Girsu, etc.-- stop using Ibbi-Sin's year names. Instead, they at differing times adopt the year names of a king named Ishbi-Erra, from the city of Isin.
So here's how we eliminate overlap: we go to our Isin archives, and see that it stops using Ibbi-Sin's year names around his fourth year (I don't have the specifics off hand), and start using Ishbi-Erra's. That is, in the city of Isin, Ishbi-Erra 1 = Ibbi-Sin 4. As Ishbi-Erra's power grew, other cities fell to him and begin using his year names (e.g. Nippur switched after Ibbi-Sin 8).
The whole point of this is to show that while in Ur, Ibbi-Sin ruled for 24 years, we don't use all 24 year, we only use 4 (or whatever it is). Then we count using Ishbi-Erra's.
Then, once Isin's power waned and Larsa grew in strength, we use the year names from there.
So there is a strategy and logic behind how we do this, and there's lots of data out there to reconstruct the chronology. These people may not be Biblical literalists (in fact, it's impossible to be a serious Assyriologist while holding onto a literal interpetation of the Bible), but they're always willing (sometimes too willing) to revise their view in light of superior intepretations. And as yet, the views on chronology have remained largely stable over the last 30 years or so... |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 12:47:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The last king, Ibbi-Sin, is where we run into trouble. We have 24 year names for him.
quote:
The whole point of this is to show that while in Ur, Ibbi-Sin ruled for 24 years, we don't use all 24 year, we only use 4 (or whatever it is). Then we count using Ishbi-Erra's.
How do you know that all 24 year names for Ibbi-sin are consecutive? How do you know that there aren't multiple year-names for the same year?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 13:37:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
How do you know that all 24 year names for Ibbi-sin are consecutive? How do you know that there aren't multiple year-names for the same year?
That wouldn't make sense. Year names are an administrative tool to track time. If there were multiple year names, there'd have been no way to track, say, contracts, or merchant accounts. Imagine if this year were 2005 AND 1973 AND 1922!
Actually, that's not true. There were multiple year names. Sort of. A year might be called "Year X" but early on (or so it seems), you might also see it named "Year after the Year X-1." Much like calling "2005" "Year after 2004."
There's a whole discussion now about when exactly kings decreed a new year. (In fact, I'm trying to get a paper together to present on this very topic later in the summer. We'll see if it happens...). But rest assured that even if we're talking about 4000 years ago, logic still had a place in society, and keeping track of time was a process that invoked logic. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2005 : 17:07:06 [Permalink]
|
Hello,
Sorry for the long delay.
Cuneiformist:
Here's a selection of years with multiple names that I found at the website (http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/yearnames/HTML/T6K2.htm) of year-names you provided.
20a mu {d}nin-hur-sag e2-nu-tur e2-a-na ba-an-ku4
Year Nin-hursag of Enutur (Tell 'Ubaid) was brought into her temple (Or 54 302)
20b mu dumu ur2i{ki}-ma lu2 {gisz}gid2-sze3 ka ba-ab-keszda2
Year the citizens of Ur were drafted as spearmen (RlA 2 137 37)
21a mu {d}nin-urta ensi2 gal {d}en-lil2-la2-ke4 esz-bar kin ba-an-du11-ga a-sza3 ni3-ka9 {d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-ra si bi2-in-sa2-sa2-a Year in which Ninurta, the great governor of Enlil, having pronounced an ominous decision, (Szulgi) put in order the accounts for (the temples of) Enlil and Ninlil (Or 54 302)
21b mu {d}nin-urta ensi2 gal {d}en-lil2-la2-ke4 e2-{d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 esz-bar kin ba-an-du11-ga {d}szul-gi lugal ur2i{ki}-ma-ke4 gan2 ni3-ka9 sza3 e2 {d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 si bi2-sa2-a Year in which after Ninurta, the great governor of Enlil, had pronounced an ominous decision in the temple of Enlil and Ninlil, Szulgi, the king of Ur, put in order the field accounts in the temples of Enlil and Ninlil (RlA 2 137 39)
21c mu bad3-an{ki} / der{ki} ba-hul
Year Der was destroyed
22a mu us2-sa {d}nin-urta ensi2 gal {d}en-lil2-la2-ke4 e2-{d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 esz-bar kin ba-an-du11-ga {d}szul-gi lugal ur2i{ki}-ma-ke4 gan2 ni3-ka9 sza3 e2 {d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 si bi2-sa2-a
Year after the year in which Ninurta, the great governor of Enlil, after having pronounced an ominous decision in the temple of Enlil and Ninlil, Szulgi, the king of Ur, put in order the field accounts in the temples of Enlil and Ninlil
22b mu us2-sa bad3-an{ki} / der{ki} ba-hul
Year after the year Der was destroyed (Or 54 302)
23* mu us2-sa ni3-ka9-ak al-la-ka mu us2-sa-bi
Second year after the year the accounts of the pickax were made (Lagasz) (BM 23455)
23 mu {d}szul-gi lugal-e a2 mah {d}en-lil2 sum-ma-ni...
Year the divine Szulgi, the king, was given supreme power by Enlil ... (Or 54 302)
How do we know which years have one name and which years have multiple names if the two names don't have anything to do with each other, like in 20a and 20b?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 03/23/2005 17:11:28 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 11:18:33 [Permalink]
|
Hello everyone,
Sorry for the long delay.
Cuneiformist:
Here's a selection of years with multiple names that I found at the website (http://cdli.ucla.edu/dl/yearnames/HTML/T6K2.htm) of year-names you provided.
20a mu {d}nin-hur-sag e2-nu-tur e2-a-na ba-an-ku4
Year Nin-hursag of Enutur (Tell 'Ubaid) was brought into her temple (Or 54 302)
20b mu dumu ur2i{ki}-ma lu2 {gisz}gid2-sze3 ka ba-ab-keszda2
Year the citizens of Ur were drafted as spearmen (RlA 2 137 37)
21a mu {d}nin-urta ensi2 gal {d}en-lil2-la2-ke4 esz-bar kin ba-an-du11-ga a-sza3 ni3-ka9 {d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-ra si bi2-in-sa2-sa2-a Year in which Ninurta, the great governor of Enlil, having pronounced an ominous decision, (Szulgi) put in order the accounts for (the temples of) Enlil and Ninlil (Or 54 302)
21b mu {d}nin-urta ensi2 gal {d}en-lil2-la2-ke4 e2-{d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 esz-bar kin ba-an-du11-ga {d}szul-gi lugal ur2i{ki}-ma-ke4 gan2 ni3-ka9 sza3 e2 {d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 si bi2-sa2-a Year in which after Ninurta, the great governor of Enlil, had pronounced an ominous decision in the temple of Enlil and Ninlil, Szulgi, the king of Ur, put in order the field accounts in the temples of Enlil and Ninlil (RlA 2 137 39)
21c mu bad3-an{ki} / der{ki} ba-hul
Year Der was destroyed
22a mu us2-sa {d}nin-urta ensi2 gal {d}en-lil2-la2-ke4 e2-{d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 esz-bar kin ba-an-du11-ga {d}szul-gi lugal ur2i{ki}-ma-ke4 gan2 ni3-ka9 sza3 e2 {d}en-lil2 {d}nin-lil2-la2-ke4 si bi2-sa2-a
Year after the year in which Ninurta, the great governor of Enlil, after having pronounced an ominous decision in the temple of Enlil and Ninlil, Szulgi, the king of Ur, put in order the field accounts in the temples of Enlil and Ninlil
22b mu us2-sa bad3-an{ki} / der{ki} ba-hul
Year after the year Der was destroyed (Or 54 302)
23* mu us2-sa ni3-ka9-ak al-la-ka mu us2-sa-bi
Second year after the year the accounts of the pickax were made (Lagasz) (BM 23455)
23 mu {d}szul-gi lugal-e a2 mah {d}en-lil2 sum-ma-ni...
Year the divine Szulgi, the king, was given supreme power by Enlil ... (Or 54 302)
How do we know which years have one name and which years have multiple names if the two names don't have anything to do with each other, like in 20a and 20b?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 21:10:38 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, I've followed this thread with interest but haven't participated since I lack the expertise to reply to your ever more technical queries.
I think pretty much everyone here, with the exception of Cuneiformist(and I haven't seen any posts from him recently so he may not be monitoring the forum at the moment) may be having the same difficulty.
I wonder if you'd mind broadening the scope of the thread a bit. Why limit it to just the Tower of Babel? The Bible contains many inaccuracies and contradictions. Why not open the discussion up to all of these?
This may also have the side benefit of keeping the thread current so that when Cuneiformist does return, this thread shows up in his recent threads. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 21:20:23 [Permalink]
|
| Cuneiformist is currently out of service-provider. (He has one, but they haven't bother connecting him yet) The short times he has access from elsewhere, there are other things that has higher priorities. He'll be back eventually. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/12/2005 21:20:43 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 13:39:09 [Permalink]
|
Hi, Hippy. Sorry for the delay.
Anyow, they key to answering your questions re year names comes in the little parenthetical references after certain entries. For instance, after:
quote:
20a mu {d}nin-hur-sag e2-nu-tur e2-a-na ba-an-ku4
Year Nin-hursag of Enutur (Tell 'Ubaid) was brought into her temple (Or 54 302)
20b mu dumu ur2i{ki}-ma lu2 {gisz}gid2-sze3 ka ba-ab-keszda2
Year the citizens of Ur were drafted as spearmen (RlA 2 137 37)
We're told to look at Or 54 302 and RlA 2 137 37. That might not make much sense to the layperson, but those are abbreviations for journals or other resources (a list of many are at the same site you pulled the year names from). If you check there, you're likely to see how these problems are reconciled.
I had a look at the RlA (=Reallexikon der Assyriologie), where the discussion is on Datenlisten (the word means what it looks like-- date lists), where various lists of year names are published and discussed. I skimmed through it, but it's in German so to really get into the nuts and bolts it would take me a bit more time. But it seems to be a problem that, while perhaps complex in its resolution, isn't particularly controversial.
Let me know if you want some serious details.
In any case, I'm not sure where you can go with this. Assyriologists have been dealing with the problem of chronology for over a century and all the material that can contribute has been studied in significant detail. The dates you see in basic books on ancient Mesopotamia (e.g. Oppenheim's Ancient Mespotamia, or van de Mieroop's History of the Ancient Near East) are going to be more or less correct to +/- a century or so. It's still quite a bit, but it makes it difficult to reconcile this with a true literalist interpetation of the Tower of Babel episode, for instance.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
