Flood terminologies in the antiquities

[Terry Sampson]

Unfortunately, Terry, I can't go there

Sure ya could, we're just playin'. But suit yourself; you can hold the bettin' money.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Somebody go wake @Polymath257 and see if he wants to play.

 

[Onoma]

Anyhoo, I want to continue on the same thread, so first by posting in full size the attachment that I feel some readers may have skipped over

One reason that we find " floods " being common in phrasing in literature dealing with astronomy / omen, is that it is a poetic representation of the phases of the moon being thought of as slowly rising floodwaters that at the height of the flood ( the crest ) was new moon ( when the " waters " covered the moon completely )

This in turn is specifically intertwined with the water clocks they used that timed the movements of the heavens ( This in itself is a discussion that deserves it's own thread, if you are a fan of math and science history )

The reason I have re-posted the picture, is to bring the conversation to the fact that it is that through classical religious symbolism, we find perhaps what is the most consistent theme through theological art and literature dating back to the early Sumerians, and specifically associated with Jesus Christ


This is the pomegranate

The pomegranate was known in Mesopotamian literature as the " fruit " of Sīn ( The moon god )

Specifically, this is a name applied to the god Sīn during new moon ( A flood )

So, I'll introduce this topic into the thread ( Also quite a extensive history as far as theological significance ) by posting a picture you may already be familiar with, and from this relatively recent artwork, we can actually work backwards through time to examine the consistency for ourselves, simply by a thorough examination of the Bible , classical theological literature, art and tradition

 

[Polymath257]

Somebody go wake @Polymath257 and see if he wants to play.

This discussion is mostly beyond my expertise, so I'll sit back and watch. it is fascinating, though.

Just a note about rainbows: if there are water droplets and light, you will get a rainbow. So, for example, you will see them at waterfalls. You can see them while watering your yard with a hose if you make a spray. Preventing them from forming would take either hiding the sun or never forming water droplets, both of which are unrealistic during the time frame when humans are on the planet.

 

[Terry Sampson]

mostly beyond my expertise

"Mostly", yes; but the portion that I personally am most interested in consists of:

• My Post #4.
  • A technical question which may not be appropriate in this thread: How is one to understand Genesis 9:11-17?
    • 11 And I will establish My covenant with you, and never again will all flesh be cut off by the flood waters, and there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth."
      12 And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant, which I am placing between Me and between you, and between every living soul that is with you, for everlasting generations.
      13 My rainbow I have placed in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Myself and the earth.
      14 And it shall come to pass, when I cause clouds to come upon the earth, that the rainbow will appear in the cloud.
      15 And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and between you and between every living creature among all flesh, and the water will no longer become a flood to destroy all flesh.
      16 And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and between every living creature among all flesh, which is on the earth."
      17 And God said to Noah: "This is the sign of the covenant that I have set up, between Myself and between all flesh that is on the earth."
    Was the appearance of the rainbow, following the flood survived by Noah and the inhabitants of the ark, the first in history or was it not the first but affirmed as the sign of the covenant between God and Noah?
    
    (By analogy, I compare the rainbow to a wedding ring. Restating my question in terms of that analogy, I'm asking: Did a ring pre-exist the wedding and become a "wedding ring" as a consequence of the wedding vows? Or was there no ring before the wedding, but a wedding ring first appeared in the wedding?)
    
    The reason for my question is because I think there are people who believe that the rainbow after the flood was the first rainbow in the history of the world.
• Rise's Post #31.
  • I don't see any logic in concluding that rainbows existed prior to the flood exactly as they do today.
    Otherwise there would be no way to differentiate God's post flood rainbow from the prior situation (Being either no rainbow, or different types of rainbows).
    Which would then make it meaningless as a sign of His covenant because you could never look up in the sky and say "ah, there it is, that one is God's rainbow, the sign of His promise to us, the one that never existed before He established His new Covenant with mankind".
    Even the language of Him "placing" the rainbow implies something new which wasn't there before.
    
    Without that, you'd be basically saying that God just pointed to something that already existed and said "I'm giving that a new meaning".
    But the problem with that is that we don't see modeled anywhere in Scripture with regards to memorials, or signs, or convenants.
    There's always something new which is created, or a new observance or ritual that is instituted, or a sacrifice that is performed, to commemorate or mark something new of significance.
    It's never merely just re-purposing something that already exists, as it exists, without any alteration, and claiming it has a new meaning now. Even unhewn stone altars people erected as a memorial involved moving and stacking stones together in a way that they otherwise were not prior to your intervention. They didn't just point to a stone on the ground and proclaim "this stone now represents something new", without even doing so much as moving it or changing it's orientation.
    
    It could be as simple as assembling unhewn rocks into the shape of an altar or as complex as building the tabernacle. It could be a one time or short term ritual performed, or a new yearly feast observance instituted. Or a sacrifice performed.
    
    Covenants in the Bible are always seen to be established by some kind of new action, new creation, and/or sacrifice. Without exception. It is never established merely by pointing to something that already exists. The later would be inappropriate as a representation of the covenant because it does not as accurately represent what a covenant is. A covenant is both the creation of something new, and the creation of something that is suppose to last and not be broken.
    
    I would also ask:
    What is your motivation for needing to conclude that the rainbow must have existed prior to the flood? Is it because you can't imagine how scientifically that could happen? Well, there are possibilities. Creation scientists have proposed some ways that could have happened.
    
    There is Biblical support for the idea that rain as we know it didn't even exist prior to the flood, but waters misted up from underground rivers or aquifers. With those shattered by the flood, the water being dumped on the surface, the creation of vast oceans and vast dry places instead of a more even distribution of water, and temperate differentials being introduced across the globe that weren't there previously, you could create conditions that allow for cloud and rain formation where likely it did not exist before. Or, at the very least, rain happening in a manner which had never existed before.
    
    There's also the possibility that the nature of the atmosphere was different prior to the flood. We do know that prehistoric atmosphere levels were twice as dense as they are today. There's a lot of potential ways that atmosphere could have been different than it is today which perhaps could have also had an effect on the creation of rainbows in the sky. A situation that wouldn't have been altered until the flood's catastrophic altering of the world's climate and ecology.
    
    Some speculate things like water or ice canopies over the earth which were destroyed with the flood, but others don't believe this is a viable explanation. And I don't think you need to rely on explanations like that in order to have rainbows appear only after the flood.
    
    I think the reason God could point to the rainbow as a sign of His new covenant with mankind is precisely because it had never existed before.
    And furthermore, and more importantly perhaps, I think the reason God could point to this sign as assurance that He would never flood the earth again is because the rainbow's existance was proof that the conditions of the earth were not such that you could ever have a worldwide flood anymore.
    
    The reason why? Because if the flood was caused by runaway subduction of the crust shattering into today's tectonic plates, thereby releasing all the water trapped under the crust (which then shot up high into the atmosphere and fell down as rain over the whole world), permanently altering the climate and landscape in a way that could never be reversed by natural processes, then it would be impossible for a worldwide flood to ever happen again because the method of what caused the original flood had already been spent and used up.
    And the rainbow was the result of that new altering landscape and climate. So as long as that rainbow exists then it means that the conditions will never exist on earth to again cause a worldwide flood.
    
    That is precisely why people falsely conclude today that a worldwide flood could never have happened in the past: Because they are trying to figure out how a world wide flood could happen under the environmental conditions as they currently exist. They are ignoring the fact that the Bible tells us the conditions were different prior to the flood. You didn't have mountain peaks as high as today, or valleys as low as today (the oceans). You didn't have most of the world's water trapped in oceans that are exposed to the air. You had most of the world's water trapped under the crust under high pressure, which somehow burst causing a tectonic rift to ripple around the earth's crust, breaking apart the landmass and throwing all that water up into the air. Most of which then settled onto the surface permanently after raining down.
• Exchemist's Post #33.
  
  • Yes, obviously that would be scientifically illiterate, since we know perfectly well how rainbows arise through refraction.
    As with the Creation and Garden of Eden stories, the Flood story clearly needs to be seen allegorically.
    
    I must say I have always rather struggled with this, though I suppose the theme of renewing humanity could be seen as a foretelling of the later renewal in the NT. Perhaps the authors, knowing the flood myth was part of the culture of the area already (cf. Gilgamesh), decided it could not be ignored, so the best way to accommodate it was to re-purpose it with a monotheistic Jewish moral lesson about the power of God ind his covenant with the descendants of Noah.
    
    Any other theories?
• My Post #37.
  • I propose "a game" of trivial pursuit. D'ya wanna play?
    
    Given the generally accepted "scientific understanding" of the essential nature and requirements of rainbows, what would conditions on earth have to have been like in order to sustain the pre-Flood plant and animal lifeforms of Noah's "day" AND no rainbow anywhere until after God "placed" one in the sky after the Flood?
• Exchemist's Post #38.
  
  • It seems to me no rainbow would have to mean either never any rain, or else no visible light from the sun. (If the sun's light had a different spectral composition, you would still get a rainbow, but the colours would be different.) None of these makes any sense.
    
    Or, anticipating Dad's probable gambit in this scenario, the laws of physics would have had to be different, such that no refraction and reflection occurred. Which would screw up the rest of physics and biochemistry making the earth and life impossible, most likely.
    
    But you know this........
• My Post #40.
  • "Know this", more or less, but I'm kinda curious how far some folks will go in order to maintain a worldview.

Rise's Post #31 supports my hypothesis that "some folks will go pretty far". I haven't asked whether the "far" opinion includes a flat earth or a globular earth.

 

[exchemist]

Your belief is false.
Creation scientists - creation.com

Well, no, but that's because I understand "creation scientist" to mean a practitioner of "creation science", which is this: Creation science - Wikipedia

But sure, if you mean merely a scientist who believes in biblical literalism, rather than one with an actual theory to explain scientifically how the bible accounts can be literal, then no doubt you can dredge up a handful of cranks.

 

[Rise]

Well, no, but that's because I understand "creation scientist" to mean a practitioner of "creation science", which is this: Creation science - Wikipedia

Your claim is both false and a logical fallacy.

It's false because by definition someone would have to be considered a "practitioner" of "creation science" if they are a practicing scientist who applies a belief in Biblical creation to their search for scientific truth. Which includes many people in the list I gave you. Because their creation or even Biblical literalist worldview informs their interpretation of scientific data to give them different conclusions than non-creation scientists who start from an a priori worldview assuming non-spiritual materialism must be true (ie. religious atheism).

It's also a logical fallacy because you are engaging in circular reasoning. If you start the argument by defining "creation science" as "pseudoscience" (as the article does), then you have a priori excluded scientific conclusions drawn from the creation worldview to be considered legitimate science - regardless of what the merits of their data, arguments, and conclusions may be.
Your conclusion and premise are the same thing, making it circular reasoning.

But sure, if you mean merely a scientist who believes in biblical literalism, rather than one with an actual theory to explain scientifically how the bible accounts can be literal,

The two are often one in the same. You'll no doubt find out many on the list I gave you who fit the later category.
One example being Jason Lisle.

PHD scientists do indeed do exactly what you say: Putting forth actual theories to explain scientifically how Bible accounts can be literal.

Therefore, creation scientists do exist.

So your claim that creation scientists don't exist was false.

Logically you can't believe the former is true but not also engage in the later. You don't actually believe in Biblical literalism if that assumption doesn't influence how you interpret the data you're looking at.
Just like you don't really believe in atheistic materialism if that isn't the lense through which you try to interpret the data you're seeing.
But you just take for granted that it's right to view data through the lense of atheistic materialism without questioning if your assumptions are actually proveably true or just your opinion.

then no doubt you can dredge up a handful of cranks.

There are two implications to your statement which are both based in logical fallacies:

1. An appeal to authority. You try to dismiss their numbers as being smaller. But the number of people who believe in a given idea has nothing to do with establishing whether or not that idea is true.

2. Ad Hominem. Trying to dismiss them as "cranks" before you even know who they are or what they are arguing, without any attempt to understand or disprove their arguments on the merits.

 

[Polymath257]

There is Biblical support for the idea that rain as we know it didn't even exist prior to the flood, but waters misted up from underground rivers or aquifers.

Water misting up from the ground would have also produced rainbows. Like I said, you can see them in waterfalls.

There's also the possibility that the nature of the atmosphere was different prior to the flood. We do know that prehistoric atmosphere levels were twice as dense as they are today. There's a lot of potential ways that atmosphere could have been different than it is today which perhaps could have also had an effect on the creation of rainbows in the sky. A situation that wouldn't have been altered until the flood's catastrophic altering of the world's climate and ecology.

Nope. The nature of the atmosphere isn't relevant as long as it lets light in.

Some speculate things like water or ice canopies over the earth which were destroyed with the flood, but others don't believe this is a viable explanation. And I don't think you need to rely on explanations like that in order to have rainbows appear only after the flood.

Vapor and ice canopies have their own problems. They are not gravitationally stable and would produce too much pressure. And, if they are big enough, they would not let in light.

So, yes, there were rainbows going back billions of years. The Biblical flood is most likely to be an allegory or a legend that grew.

One of the things I like about the current thread is the possibility of other meanings of the word 'flood' and the effect that has on interpretations of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Biblical story.

 

[Polymath257]

Where we generally credit the Greeks with being the first to formulate axioms in written form, we ignore the underlying design of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian systems of metrology and the unique methods of calculation,

I am looking forward to an elaboration of this.

Hmmm, I'd have to disagree for the simple reason that Mesopotamian and Egyptian systems of metrology are actually designed for the purpose of rigorous dimensional analysis and are not just randomly named or conjured up from thin air or mythologies, but I intend to cover that as the thread goes on

And this.

 

[Polymath257]

This in turn is specifically intertwined with the water clocks they used that timed the movements of the heavens ( This in itself is a discussion that deserves it's own thread, if you are a fan of math and science history )

Yes, please.

 

[Onoma]

Yay !

I'm glad the mention of mathematics has brought some anticipation, usually people start dry heaving when I mention math

 

[Polymath257]

Yay !

I'm glad the mention of mathematics has brought some anticipation, usually people start dry heaving when I mention math

I'm a mathematician and also interested in history. In general, the history of math and science (broadly defined here) is something I find fascinating. I'm more familiar with the Hellenistic views and later, so information about previous Egyptian and Mesopotamian views are particularly sought.

I know the basics of the Moscow and Rhind papyri, as well as some of the material concerning Pythagorean triples in Mesopotamian writings. Anything in addition would be helpful.

 

[Onoma]

I'm a mathematician and also interested in history. In general, the history of math and science (broadly defined here) is something I find fascinating. I'm more familiar with the Hellenistic views and later, so information about previous Egyptian and Mesopotamian views are particularly sought.

I know the basics of the Moscow and Rhind papyri, as well as some of the material concerning Pythagorean triples in Mesopotamian writings. Anything in addition would be helpful.

Awesome !

I don't intend to get to the mathematics quite yet, ( It's going to be rather extensive ) but if you want to skip ahead, I would suggest checking out " regula falsi " ( The method of false position ) which is the main method I use in my presentations regarding mathematics in the antiquities and mathematical astronomy

Also, any work by the suggested authors in the opening post - Oppert, Friberg, Neugebauer, etc ( If you're not already familiar )

 

[Polymath257]

Awesome !

I don't intend to get to the mathematics quite yet, ( It's going to be rather extensive ) but if you want to skip ahead, I would suggest checking out " regula falsi " ( The method of false position ) which is the main method I use in my presentations regarding mathematics in the antiquities and mathematical astronomy

Also, any work by the suggested authors in the opening post - Oppert, Friberg, Neugebauer, etc ( If you're not already familiar )

I have taught a history of math class (using Katz's book), and covered the method of false position. I have not read Neugebauer, except for one article in the Math Monthly (as I recall), but I know he was the one that dealt with the Pythagorean triples in the Mesopotamian texts.

Another time period I would like to know more about is the Early to Middle Islamic, especially the mathematics from the Bayt al Hiksma.

 

[Onoma]

I have taught a history of math class (using Katz's book), and covered the method of false position. I have not read Neugebauer, except for one article in the Math Monthly (as I recall), but I know he was the one that dealt with the Pythagorean triples in the Mesopotamian texts.

Another time period I would like to know more about is the Early to Middle Islamic, especially the mathematics from the Bayt al Hiksma.

Yes, the triples are interesting ( The Plimpton 322 tablet, for example ) I'm going to be covering their use in astronomy ( Combined with a local horizontal coordinate system )

 

[Onoma]

OK, now I want to turn to Egyptian for a little bit, and examine some some things that I feel give fairly strong evidence that the Hebrew writings are based on Egyptian / Mesopotamian conventions ( I emphasize that my conjectures are based on a joint etymology )

The most obvious place to start, imo, are two distinct Egyptian hieroglyphs for " water/s ", as these are symbols associated with divinity and divine office.

They are some of the oldest known Egyptian language hieroglyphs

So, in speech, this is the " n " sound ( Phonetic ) and is commonly used as the preposition " in "

Egyptian "in" is used at the beginning of a text and translates as: Behold!, or Lo!, and is an emphatic, drawing the reader to " look / see / understand / pay attention " and is the same meaning you would find in a Hebrew phrase like " Ha-Satan " ( Behold! Satan ), which is the definite article in Hebrew and refers to a singular person ( As opposed to the word " satan " without the definite article " ha ", which refers simply to any accuser ) The difference, ( Ha-satan VS satan ) is emphatic, it's like when you put emphasis on the English " The " in a sentence like " This is THE best one I have "

The hieroglyph is tripled in the form for " waters "

The " n " phonogram for " water " was replaced by the " deshret ", which itself was first used as the hieroglyph of the red crown of lower Egypt

The Red Crown would later be combined with the White Crown of upper Egypt to form the Double Crown, symbolizing the rule over what was known as " The Two Lands "
-------------------------

The " Red Land " which comprised the deserts and foreign lands surrounding Egypt ( Ruled by Seth ) was considered a region of lawlessness and chaos ( The color red itself was oft associated with Seth's anger, but as the thread continues, we'll see that red text in Egyptian mathematical papyrii are known as " auxiliary numbers ", and red words and phrases in the context of Egyptian " magic " ( A sacerdotal duty ) are considered " acts of creation " when read by a priest ) The color red itself, as I intend on showing, was of rather intriguing importance to Mesopotamian astronomy texts ( Red eclipses, red skies, etc ), but that in itself could also span a thread, so, in time ..

---------------------------

The other main use, and most pertinent to the discussion, was the use of the deshret ( crown ) as a determinant in literature, for divinity, ( Divine rule, god/s )

This makes it identical in use to several other known determinants for divinity in ancient literature

In cuneiform - " An "
In Hieroglyphics - " n "
In Biblical Greek - " horn " ( A titlo - used over all nomen sacrum )

These are non-phonetic as determinants, they are not read aloud when reading the name of a " god " or deified object / place

They serve the exact same purpose as a trademark symbol™ ( I covered this briefly in my thread on the " Little horn " Vs " a little horn " )

( The cuneiform sign by itself was originally an ideogram for the Sumerian word an - generally, "sky" or "heaven")

Now when we start to look at the Hebrew terms, " water ", " flood " and " heaven ", we'll find some rather curious things - Genesis 6:17

" And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Starting with " flood "

( continued in next post )

 

[Polymath257]

Awesome !
Also, any work by the suggested authors in the opening post - Oppert, Friberg, Neugebauer, etc ( If you're not already familiar )

I wasn't previously aware of Friberg's work. It seems *very* interesting! Thanks for the reference!

 

[Onoma]

I wasn't previously aware of Friberg's work. It seems *very* interesting! Thanks for the reference!

My pleasure

I forgot to mention, another topic you may want to dig into is the historical use of triangular figurates in Computus ( the calculation of the date of Easter ), and generally the use of figurates in the antiquities ( If you are not already familiar ), it's something else that is going to be rather central to the discussion when we get to the math

 

[Onoma]

( Continued )

We can see a consistent construction to the Hebrew words used, in this case, drawing the reader to the question

" ? "

Now, I'm aware of all the various rabbinical writings about " water " and the " womb " and " birth " as well as the various musings on the letters " shin " and " mem " and although I do feel each of them has it's place in these discussions, they tend to be rather " esoteric ", for lack of a better word, ( I would say there are various levels of Pardes involved ) and so I generally tend to keep them on the " side table " so-to-speak ( Not saying I'm not willing to discuss them )

That said, .....the period of the synodic month ( As defined in the synodic month average common to Mesopotamian astronomy - cf the Babylonian Zig Zag function as an example if you want to skip ahead ), is what's used to predict new moon ( a flood )

The specific word is " molad ", a Hebrew word meaning "birth" that also generically refers to the time at which the New Moon is " born ", but this concept of relating " births " to a synodic period is not solely constrained to the moon in the antiquities ( We'll get to it )

Last, I offer that the original Sumerian and Akkadian terms do indeed have the exact same meaning and connotation, this is also discussed in the Babylonian Talmud

So, given that rather general overview, I feel that both semiotically as well as contextually, historically, and literarily, these terms don't support the normal literal interpretation of " floods " at all, but I am also well prepared to discuss this at great length using a comprehensive discussion of religious literature invoking the relationship ( generally ) between " water " and " divinity ", as well as some linguistic analysis of other languages and scripts and or mythologies

 

[Onoma]

I think this is a good place to start addressing time and time-keeping and how these relate to the themes of divinity and divine office, floods and water, births and so-on

To do this, we need to take a look at what the Mesopotamians called what we refer to as " the firmament "

Sumerian: ĝešhe " firmament, vault of the sky " Akkadian: šupuk šamê

It's often claimed that the Bible takes it's reference to the " firmament " from earlier Mesopotamian and Egyptian beliefs, ( Perfectly reasonable assumption ) and that this worldview from the antiquities is drawn from the " fact " that they thought the earth was flat, and carried on a turtle and so on, and generally, I find that the people that make these claims have never bothered to properly vet them ( I suspect confirmation bias ), so I will start to gradually address these academic fallacies as well

We've all been bombarded by images like this:

I have noticed there seems to be a common belief that our ancestors were essentially uneducated savages, and held these silly beliefs, more or less, because they were incapable of anything we would consider science, or even scientific philosophy, people readily regurgitate that Eratosthenes was the first to show earth was not flat, meters are a recent metrological convention, the list of claims is long

Unfortunately, like the " flood ", this is another academic poo that keeps getting kicked down the road

First, what ĝešhe / šupuk šamê ( firmament, vault of the sky ) actually refer to is simply a local horizontal coordinate system, which has not only been in use since at least 3,500 BC ( Likely earlier ) but is still in use today

This is called a " Local horizontal coordinate system " because it is used to make measurements through observation, locally, to where the observer is, on the surface of the earth

This is used on conjunction with conventions like the " celestial sphere " ( the heavens ) and the nominal division of the earth's surface, when considered as a nominal sphere ( Iow, regions of longitude and latitude ), and allows things like prediction of eclipse paths as seen from earth's surface, like a Saros cycle, well-known to have been highly detailed in Chaldean texts ( as an example )

Mesopotamians and Egyptians used these conventions to record / track and predict the various movements of the heavens, like where and when an eclipse would happen in respect to the zodiac, what were the angles, distances, arcs, time intervals, locations of gods ( planets and stars ) in relation to the horizon and each other, and so on, using arcseconds and arcminutes ( Just like we still do )

Not only that, but with a good look at the actual units of measurement and the methods they used in combination with these conventions like the local horizontal coordinate system, we'll see that most of what people claim as far as the origins of what we consider modern units of measurement, are directly traceable to the antiquities

Where most would claim something like " the cubit is the length from the elbow to the tip of the finger ", this is true for general use, but the reality is that for anything associated with divinity and divine office, like astronomy, or being able to align a temple so that on a certain day of the year the sun shines into the inner sanctuary ( Like Karnak in Egypt ), there are distinct and specific " royal " units, like a " Royal Cubit " that were used, and these " royal " units have concrete origins

Where you would most folks generally think of a cubit as a unit of length used for general stoneworking, the ancients used various cubits for things like visible angles and the distances of celestial bodies

In addition to that, their systems of metrology in the antiquities don't actually work when you try to apply them under the assumption that the entire earth is flat, so while most folks are busy arguing with flat earthers and breaking out lasers, all they really needed to do was hit the books, because it turns out " They thought the earth is flat ! " is false to begin with ( Why I refer to it as an academic poo getting kicked down the road )

Yet,.... their metrology does work with a flat surface when you take into account this horizontal coordinate system

So, the problem, again, comes to general exegesis, and what exactly is meant by " the earth " and " flat " when we take mathematical astronomy into account, but then historical literature on top of it

The reason it's known as the " base " of the heavens, is because it's base is a flat plane

When we use the local horizontal coordinate system, we use a flat plane as the base, and when we write down coordinates of something in the sky using this coordinate system, we use the exact same mathematical conventions in modern times as they did in 3,500 BC, angles, distances, and arcseconds / arcminutes

What we call a " degree ", they called a " finger " or a " horn ", and this seems to have been made the standard under Naram-Sin's rule for pretty much all of Mesopotamia, with his reformation of metrology in 2150 BC being fundamentally based on what was called the " Royal Gur "

The Royal Gur ( šarru kurru) was a theoretical cuboid of water approximately 6 meters × 6 meters × 0.5 meters from which all other units could be derived

The smallest unit - šusi , was 6 " fingers ", square

1 Finger / horn = 1° = 1 arcminute = 3600 arcseconds

1/3600 of the moon's orbit was equated with 1 finger / 1°, in turn being approximately 2 metric seconds as measured on a pendulum of 360 " grains " in length, with the " grain " measure then being equated to a measure for a water clock ( Sometimes in literature given as grain measures converted to weights of gold or silver which then determine various volumes used for the water clock tables )

One of the things you may notice when we really start to dig into the underlying complexity of the Mesopotamian systems of measurement, is that we'll seem to be using units of measurements in various calculations with methods that are forbidden in modern dimensional analysis, and this sometimes trips people up who have an education in modern dimensional analysis, but not the complex and multivariable systems of metrology in the ancient world, or the methods of calculation they used, which actually did allow for things we don't find in modern systems

When it comes to the Egyptians, they had the " Royal cubit ",which was 28 " fingers or " digits "

( Egyptian metrology is fiendishly complex and deserves it's own thread, but like much of the material I plan on presenting, it will take some time - 9 years of notes and study )

These are the main modern approximate measures using fingers and " hand measures " in astronomy which come from the ancient conventions ( Ancient metrology used these conventions to a far higher degree of complexity, as we'll see )

These are used for approximate measurements, and this brings me to the point that there is a distinct difference, when it comes to metrology ( Measurement ), between the actual characteristics of something and the measurement value we assign using units ( Precision depends on the units you choose ), and this is something that ancient astronomer priests were well familiar with

We often use nominalized conventions because they greatly simplify things for us

For example, we know the earth doesn't actually take exactly 24 hours for one rotation, yet we use this because it simplifies keeping time

We know the earth is not what we consider a sphere, yet we use this concept daily for navigation

We know the earth is not actually flat, yet we use this convention of a flat plane for mathematical astronomy

It's really just that simple

What's not simple, is the " grain " unit that seems to be another of the fundamental units to their systems, and it is this same unit that is the basis for the modern Hebrew unit of time, the " chelek "

With that, I'll end this post, have some things I have to take care of, but I wanted to start to address the concept of the " firmament " and how it relates to " floods "