Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

Either Heun et al said all domestic einkorn wheat came from a very small area around Karacadag or they didn't say that. What is hard to translate?

No one doubts this is one place where wheat was domesticated.

Your research is not complete, in the Kharsag valley they even have ancient foundations and have sort of mapped out a ancient village from that time period.

What do you have to say about Gobekli Tepe?, it goes back much further, and shows semi nomadic peoples and a village a few miles away.


#1 What you are not doing is showing a connection to these ancient people, and Israelites who evolved from Canaaites around 1200 BCE. You have a 8000 year gap of silence with not a shred of evdience.

#2 As to where modern scholarships have evidence, that Israelites were influenced with previous Mesopotamian mythology that often matches word for word in many places.

You have to address these 2 arguements in full if you want your hypothesis to have a shred of credibility or merit.

 

[gnostic]

Rafts are a general term for vehicles that float on their own.

Raft has no multiple decks, no walls, no roof. The deck is normally flat. What keep it afloat are bundle of reeds, logs, barrels or drums, and the deck is built on top of these.

They resemble barge in many ways, except that barge can be enclosed with walls and roof, raft don't.

Perhaps you are confusing raft with barge.

 

[Ivan-Michael]

That has to be the worst translation I have ever heard. :slap:


I have never seen somthing so far away from the reality of history and scholarships.

Thank you oh great knower of fantasy.
BTW I am not translating the damned books, they are damned and cursed, the whole ethos of the books and they way they are taught are designed to keep us in inferno, in fantasy, stepping on everyone, believing that ideas, concepts and notions are real.
Any one who claims that there is an entity out there, a Mysterious God or a YHVH that talks to some characters in a book and does not have solid evidence to that effect is an idiot who lives in fantasy.
Biblical scholarship = A joke, when based on fantasy.

 

[Thief]

Thank you oh great knower of fantasy.
BTW I am not translating the damned books, they are damned and cursed, the whole ethos of the books and they way they are taught are designed to keep us in inferno, in fantasy, stepping on everyone, believing that ideas, concepts and notions are real.
Any one who claims that there is an entity out there, a Mysterious God or a YHVH that talks to some characters in a book and does not have solid evidence to that effect is an idiot who lives in fantasy.
Biblical scholarship = A joke, when based on fantasy.

ok....so you regard the entire effort as fantasy.
Many people do.

And you saw words of wisdom is the text you consider to be..'damned'?

 

[outhouse]

Biblical scholarship = A joke, when based on fantasy.

Do you know anything about modern scholarships at all?


You do understand the credible one's are not apologist?

 

[outhouse]

, they are damned and cursed,

Im sorry, I don't believe that.

 

[greentwiga]

Raft has no multiple decks, no walls, no roof. The deck is normally flat. What keep it afloat are bundle of reeds, logs, barrels or drums, and the deck is built on top of these.

They resemble barge in many ways, except that barge can be enclosed with walls and roof, raft don't.

Perhaps you are confusing raft with barge.

One, the Writers wrote long before the English definitions of barge and rafts were written, so there is nothing limiting ark to one definition or the other. Therefore even if rafts can't have structures, arks could.

Two, barges are defined as flat bottomed boats I.e. hollow, not self floating such as rafts.

Three. The only requirement for rafts is that the structure floats without the hollow space that boats need. There is no requirement that rafts don't have structures built on top. Even the raft of Tom Sawyer has a structure on it. If the raft is big enough, it could have a multilevel structure on top. Dictionary.com has a multilevel structure on top of one of its rafts.

 

[outhouse]

One, the Writers wrote long before the English definitions of barge and rafts were written, so there is nothing limiting ark to one definition or the other. Therefore even if rafts can't have structures, arks could.

Two, barges are defined as flat bottomed boats I.e. hollow, not self floating such as rafts.

Three. The only requirement for rafts is that the structure floats without the hollow space that boats need. There is no requirement that rafts don't have structures built on top. Even the raft of Tom Sawyer has a structure on it. If the raft is big enough, it could have a multilevel structure on top. Dictionary.com has a multilevel structure on top of one of its rafts.

You might have forgotten they give detailed instructions of how to build the boat as well as dimensions, as well as a volume of cargo that would sink any raft.

Does the Israelite version resemble a raft?

 

[greentwiga]

Have you read the large volume of cargo that the Sumerians carried on these rafts? I only claim the animals were the regional ones. The Sumerian version of the flood has them building a raft with 7 stories, not three. It doesn't have to be square to be a raft.

 

[outhouse]

Have you read the large volume of cargo that the Sumerians carried on these rafts? I only claim the animals were the regional ones. The Sumerian version of the flood has them building a raft with 7 stories, not three. It doesn't have to be square to be a raft.

Does the Israelite version resemble a raft?

Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God gives Noah detailed instructions for building the ark: it is to be of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward", and an entrance on the side.[

 

[greentwiga]

Does the Israelite version resemble a raft?

Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God gives Noah detailed instructions for building the ark: it is to be of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward", and an entrance on the side.[

Very good. Did you read how the word, wood, is also translated as stalks? Thus, Berdi Stalks could be the ancient gopher wood. Boats were caulked in the seams with tar, but rafts of reeds were coated inside and out with tar and pitch. Wood boats can't be made longer than 300 feet and float in a storm. They fill with water. Reed rafts can be made 450 feet (300 cubits) because they can bend and have nothing to fill with water. The only other floating ark was Moses' and made of reeds also. As I said, they can have structures on top that are hollow, because the structure is not used to make it float. So for the structure to have a roof on top and a door in the side is no problem.

 

[greentwiga]

No one doubts this is one place where wheat was domesticated.

Your research is not complete, in the Kharsag valley they even have ancient foundations and have sort of mapped out a ancient village from that time period.

What do you have to say about Gobekli Tepe?, it goes back much further, and shows semi nomadic peoples and a village a few miles away.


#1 What you are not doing is showing a connection to these ancient people, and Israelites who evolved from Canaaites around 1200 BCE. You have a 8000 year gap of silence with not a shred of evdience.

#2 As to where modern scholarships have evidence, that Israelites were influenced with previous Mesopotamian mythology that often matches word for word in many places.

You have to address these 2 arguements in full if you want your hypothesis to have a shred of credibility or merit.

I have no problem with more ancient villages. They were centered around wheat gathering. I don't try to say much about the time between the domestication of wheat and Sumer, because the Bible says the time passed but has little to say about it.

One problem that I have with Israelites evolving from Canaanites is the problem of J1 and J2 haplotypes. If they evolved from Canaanites, they should have been dominantly J1 like the Canaanites (or if you argue that they were northern Semitics also, then J2 dominantly.) Saying that Abraham came from SE Turkey the center of the J2 haplotype and that he moved to Canaan where the Canaanites were J1 haplotype explains why J1 and J2 haplotypes are the main two haplotypes among jews.

Ane, no, the Jewish stories have a few points of similarities, but not "often word for word in many places." Take for example the story of the creation of man. The very different Sumerian creation story has man coming from the "ti" of a goddess. ti can be translated "life" or "rib", but that is the only real similarity to Adam and Eve.

 

[outhouse]

Very good. Did you read how the word, wood, is also translated as stalks? Thus, Berdi Stalks could be the ancient gopher wood. Boats were caulked in the seams with tar, but rafts of reeds were coated inside and out with tar and pitch. Wood boats can't be made longer than 300 feet and float in a storm. They fill with water. Reed rafts can be made 450 feet (300 cubits) because they can bend and have nothing to fill with water. The only other floating ark was Moses' and made of reeds also. As I said, they can have structures on top that are hollow, because the structure is not used to make it float. So for the structure to have a roof on top and a door in the side is no problem.

Yet the descriptions in Genesis do make a reed boat a impossibility.

You also did not source the gopher wood showing how many scholars quote some kind of wood verses only 1 translating it as reed, as shown below.

Gopher wood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Greek Septuagint (3rd–1st centuries BC) translated it as xylon tetragonon, "squared timber".[2] Similarly, the Latin Vulgate (5th century AD) rendered it as lignis levigatis (lævigatis, in the Clementine Vulgate), "smoothed (possibly planed) wood".

The Jewish Encyclopedia believes it was most likely a translation of the Babylonian "gushure i÷ erini" (cedar-beams), or the Assyrian "giparu" (reed).[3] The Aramaic Targum Onkelos, considered by many Jews to be an official translation of the Hebrew scripture renders this word as קדרוס (qadros) i.e., cedar. The Syriac Pe****ta translates this word as ܥܪܩܐ (‘arqa), box wood.[4]

Many modern English translations tend to favor cypress (although otherwise the word for "cypress" in Biblical Hebrew is berosh). This was espoused (among others) by Adam Clarke, a Methodist theologian famous for his commentary on the Bible: Clarke cited the resemblance between Greek word for cypress, kuparisson and the Hebrew word gophar.

Other suggestions include pine, cedar, fir, teak, sandalwood, ebony, wicker, juniper, acacia, boxwood, slimed bulrushes and resinous wood, and even American trees such as Cladrastis kentukea (American yellowwood), although the latter did not exist in the region the ark was supposedly built.[citation needed]

Others, noting the physical similarity between the Hebrew letters g and k, suggest that the word may actually be kopher, the Hebrew word meaning "pitch"; thus kopher wood would be pitched wood. Recent suggestions have included a lamination process (to strengthen the Ark), or a now-lost type of tree, but there is no consensus

The authors clearly describe a wood boat, a boat that should remain in mythology and theology, as it is not a practical boat that could exist outside literature.

The proper translation is probably that of "squared timber".

 

[outhouse]

If it was reed, it was a mistranslation as noted below.

GOPHER-WOOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Others think that "gofer" can best be explained from the Assyro-Babylonian literature. Cheyne, starting from the assumption that the Hebrew narrative of the Deluge is a mere translation from some similar Babylonian document, supposes that the passage under discussion read in the original "gushure iṣ erini" (cedar-beams). He thinks that first the word "erini" was overlooked by the Hebrew translator, who afterward mistook "gushure" for a tree-name, and accordingly wrote ; next a scribe, whose eye was caught by at the end of the verse, miswrote (Stade's "Zeitschrift," 1898, p. 163; comp. Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl." s.v.). F. Hommel holds the Hebrew to be the Assyrian "giparu" (reed).

The Hebrew symbols did not come through in the quote above but are visible by looking directly at the link provided

 

[Ivan-Michael]

Do you know anything about modern scholarships at all?


You do understand the credible one's are not apologist?

The books are 'damned and cursed' because like the story in the Greek mythology, we are fed with the lotus flower that keep us in fantasy, that is the entire purpose of the conventional teachings of the bible.
'Scholars' up to date have not looked at it for what it is, books of a HOUSE, legal books of the HOUSE, and a script to be enacted on the 'world's stage', today, not 3000 years ago, today. If you can't see that, well...!
The 'scholars' can't see or will not tell you even if they knew ( if they were for real, their books would not be published and they'll lose their grants, commission etc.).
The fantasy must never be broken because if it did their strangle hold on our faculties will evaporate and we'll be capable of seeing the nakedness of the emperor.
Bibliography was invented by the Venetians and we base our 'knowledge' on quotes written by agents of the HOUSE.
Our imprint was done at a very young age, I admit, it is extremely difficult to undo the burning of our discs, passing through fire to the MOLECH.
Molech simply mean the ruler, it is not another mysterious evil entity from a different dimension.
Those who wrote the books and those who added and modified stories and concepts within the books were clever, so clever in fact that no one is capable of seeing, they've created a magical barrier.
We are fed with incorrect 'history', we don't have the means to verify, the source is questionable.
Who was John Calvin? Rabeinu Gershon, Yaakov the innocent (allegedly the grand child of Rashi), sounds like a Pope's title.
Who was Rashi?

Modern scholars, I'm yet to see one who does not think according to the narrative.
I would be very happy to find one scholar who'd be capable to see their next move on the world stage.
Time is short, the drying of the 'land' is happening now, the concept of Noah, the emperor, ends in 2016, what comes next?

 

[greentwiga]

Yet the descriptions in Genesis do make a reed boat a impossibility.

You also did not source the gopher wood showing how many scholars quote some kind of wood verses only 1 translating it as reed, as shown below.





The authors clearly describe a wood boat, a boat that should remain in mythology and theology, as it is not a practical boat that could exist outside literature.

The proper translation is probably that of "squared timber".

Let's see. You quote the Jewish encyclopedia that says gpr (giparu) meaning reed is a possibility, and another possibility is slimed bulrushes. How is that clearly wood? I never claimed my translation was common, but that it is a possible translation.

I also claimed that most people used wood because they didn't know about giant reed boats. Most that you quote were written before archaeologists began to discover evidence of ocean going reed boats.

You and I do agree that giant wood boats are impossible.

 

[outhouse]

Let's see. You quote the Jewish encyclopedia that says gpr (giparu) meaning reed is a possibility, and another possibility is slimed bulrushes. How is that clearly wood? I never claimed my translation was common, but that it is a possible translation.

I also claimed that most people used wood because they didn't know about giant reed boats. Most that you quote were written before archaeologists began to discover evidence of ocean going reed boats.

You and I do agree that giant wood boats are impossible.

Do you think there was ever a Israelite on a boat in a global flood?

Do you think there was a Israelite on a river flood?


You lack details because it seems you might be trying to rationalize what many claim is mythology.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

You and I do agree that giant wood boats are impossible.

You mean like Noah's ark?

 

[CG Didymus]

You mean like Noah's ark?

Russell Crowe is going to prove all you doubters wrong. He's going to show you all how it was done. I've got front row seats for opening night at the theater. I assume the movie will be in 3d cinemax.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Russell Crowe is going to prove all you doubters wrong. He's going to show you all how it was done. I've got front row seats for opening night at the theater. I assume the movie will be in 3d cinemax.

You mean IMAX? Lol, " 3D cinemax".