Babel

Creation vs. Evolution Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica Interesting Videos, MegalithHunter, I just provide an Alternative Timeline · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere Babel (and excursus: Can't Take a Screenshot from Here, But ...)

Were We WRONG About the Tower of Babel?
Answers in Genesis, 31 March 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8WdNQeF5wk

0:15 That spot is wrong direction from the Ark (miqqedem = from the East) and too late in carbon dates, which are inflated, but less and less so the further on we go, and therefore in the right direction.

Göbekli Tepe is a much better fit. Time and space.

You even have the plain (just south of GT) inside the two rivers rather than around them, and it fits the general direction of Nineveh for Nimrod's Empire (and Nineveh has a Neolithic stage which fits with GT).

Cosmic Treason

Gobekli tepe is not a tower. It’s early afterwards but it’s not Babel

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Cosmic Treason It is not a tower in the architectonic sense, but wouold fit another type of "tower the top of which will reach into heaven" - a description that fits a three step rocket.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9:55 Shinar means "between two rivers" - and at Göbekli Tepe the plain is actually between them, at Classic Babylon, it's around them.

10:24 Fifty - fiftytwo miles South of Baghdad - Shinar is inside the plain.

The Harran plain which has Göbekli Tepe on North edge is inside Shinar, as the text says.

Cosmic Treason

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it doesn’t fit the other details, nor does it make common sense. You’re trying to claim the latest secular thing like every domesticated conservative ever. Just don’t

@Hans-Georg Lundahl where are the other three cities of the plain then

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Cosmic Treason "it doesn’t fit the other details,"

Which other details doesn't it fit?

"nor does it make common sense."

I think you are wrong.

"You’re trying to claim the latest secular thing like every domesticated conservative ever."

I am rather claiming that late secular things are starting to line up in a very horrible way with those early secular things Nimrod was doing.

"where are the other three cities of the plain then"

On my blog "Creation vs. Evolution" (I have other ones, but this is where I do creation science), from the date "mardi 10 mars 2020" (yes the settings are in French even if the blog is in English), I have a post that is called "Lining up Cities"

I give this line up, first two 1:1 and then 5 suggestions for 5 cities:

Göbekli Tepe - Babel 1:1
Qermez Dere - Nineveh 1:1

Çayönü, Nevali Çori, Jerf el Ahmar, Müreybet, Abu Hureyra
Arach, Achad, Chalanne, Chale, Resen
5:5

Next question?

Or is it my turn?

Stevie E.

I've been saying that for years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stevie E. Me too.

Ernest Camps

The trouble with these directions is, that sometimes in the Bible "coming from north" is actually coming from east or even E-SE. That is because sometimes the general direction & specific direction are confused.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps Can you give an example other than the one in Genesis 11? The supposed one, that is?

Ernest Camps

The trouble with these directions is, that sometimes in the Bible "coming from north" is actually coming from east or even E-SE. That is because sometimes the general direction & specific direction are confused.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps Can you give an example other than the one in Genesis 11? The supposed one, that is?

Ernest Camps

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Exekiel 26
"7For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north , with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people."
(Ruins of ) Babylon itself is about directly east from Jerusalem.
But the actual path he took to attack was from N - NE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps "the actual path he took to attack was from N - NE."

So, a non-example. The "from the North" refers to God bringing him onto Tyrus, which actually was from the North.

@Ernest Camps
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E Göbekli Tepe
31°46′44″N 35°13′32″E Jerusalem

If GT was the original Babel, that makes the king of Babel king of the North, because 5 + degrees N/S with degrees being really 1/360 of the Earth circumference is bigger distance than 3 + degrees E/W where it's only 1/360 of the relevant parallels.

37.332°N 42.187°E Cizre, with Mount Judi
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E Göbekli Tepe

If the landing place was on Mt Judi (Westernmost part of mountains of Armenia), then Judi -> Tepe is nearly totally "from the East" - less than a degree difference N/S, 3 + degrees E/W.

Duncan Feyd

The word they are translating as "rivers" can also means "seas". Mt. Kailash makes far more sense....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Duncan Feyd I don't think so, as it is certainly east of Armenia, not west of it.

Ernest Camps

@Hans-Georg Lundahl This is about main cardinal points - not about the position of the tower, but about the ultimate direction of the invasion. If we count Tyros being the location, then the direction is actually a bit towards north, not from north.

We are talking about different things, or otherwise that would be an argument from silence - the text clearly says about Babylon. Not the other.

Anyway, Im not arguing against that location at this point. But the manner how the text puts main cardinal directions, as in modern understanding, is sometimes wrong in general .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps The prophet was foreseeing something somewhat paradoxical.

Nebuchadnezzar was not going to march straight from where he resided in Babylon to Tyrus, but took a detour and took Tyrus, as you admitted yourself, from the North.

So, "from the North" means "from the North" in Ezechiel, and therefore "from the East" means "from the East" in Genesis 11.

"the text clearly says about Babylon."

Nebuchadnezzar is clearly king of Babylon, and as clearly, he is not coming straight from Babylon. Unless the word was used by Ezechiel for the integrality of his Empire.

If Ezechiel had spoken of the entire displacement of Nebuchadnezzar, it would have been "toward" the North, but in the context of the attack on Tyrus, it is "from the North" ...

Ernest Camps

@Hans-Georg Lundahl As I said, argument from silence it is then.
"
I will bring...
king of Babylon...
from the north...
"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps Exactly nowhere does it say that "from Babylon" equals "from the North" ...

@Ernest Camps If you are absolutely addicted to getting the arrivals at a place where Shinar is within a plain and not a plain within Sinar, at South of Baghad rather than North of Syro-Turk frontier, consider "they" as meaning an élite and consider them as having went away to Indo-China or India or at least Persia in the meantime, before going back west to what's classically known as Babylon. That would at least allow it without violating the obvious sense of the text here and in Ezechiel. But allowing it won't guarantee it. It remains compatible with my solution too.

@Ernest Camps And by the way, take a look in wikipedia what "argument from silence" actually means, I was not committing one!

Ernest Camps

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'll just guess semantics will be news to you as well.

Btw. Ive multiple times said that this point was not about the location you suggest.
The timeline is at a completely different span.

But judging from your behavior there is not a lot to defend that position either.

Ps. you could try to be coherent, and make one post/reply at time. I can see like 20 of yours in the comments section, which becomes basically flooding.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps "semantics will be news to you as well."

It's absolutely not.

"that this point was not about the location you suggest"

My semantics on miqqedem are about it. Dito for the plain being inside and not all around Shinar.

"The timeline is at a completely different span."

Between what? You sound formal, but you are imprecise. Between when people removed and whe God drew Nebuchadnezzar? Or between when people came to Etemenanki verses Göbekli Tepe?

"I can see like 20 of yours in the comments section,"

This may be news to you, but all previous ones are also still there. If you meant the thread.

If you meant the original video, there is more than one time stamp I took issue with, for or against, and each is a separate discussion. Conflating them to one doesn't add coherence, but strip me of discussions.

Haggis McBaggis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Gobekli Tepe was an ancient rocket launching pad?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Haggis McBaggis Was - and wasn't.

God put the project on hold to make sure it could work, which Nimrod's technology wouldn't have. Nimrod is to Wernher von Braun as da Vinci is to the Wright brothers, Wilbur and Orville.

Ernest Camps

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
From that, and your name, I take you are not a native english speaker.

"My semantics on miqqedem are about it."
Nah, its about understanding the actual sentence(s).

"Between what? You sound formal, but you are imprecise."
Really? Between the tower and the siege of Tyros. Man.... Whatever followed doesnt make any sense. Please double check what you are writing.

"I can see like 20 of yours in the comments section, ... Conflating them to one doesn't add coherence,"
What part of flooding you do not understand.
Just make a short list of them, or point to some source. With 1500 comments your points are probably said multiple times anyway. And most of them just go by unread...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps "its about understanding the actual sentence"

Wherein I am arguably no less good than you, at least in writing, or when you accent isn't too heavy.

"Between the tower and the siege of Tyros."

Ah, thank you. Yes, siege of Tyrus is from when Nebuchadnezzar started arriving there from the North, possibly from his setting out, if he decided it or finalised his mustering of the armies in Assyria, which he ruled as well as Babylonia, and Babel on the other hand was from where they had lived before. Or rather gathered internationally before - in Noah's lifetime, landing place, in Nimrod's project, where he wanted the tower to take off or rise up in a more architectonic way, whichever it was.

Either way, for each time scale, the direction is to be understood as a modern would understand that direction in the translation.

"Whatever followed doesnt make any sense."

See, my English is not worse than yours ...

"What part of flooding you do not understand."

More like, I don't priorise your complaint over my normal working procedure.

"Just make a short list of them,"

That would reduce the discussions under the video from potentially twenty to one. I think dialogue is more entertaining for my readers ...

"With 1500 comments your points are probably said multiple times anyway."

I didn't make that many. And if in twenty comments under a video I double the point, it is probably because the video itself did so to start with - in such cases I try to reply to time-stamp 2 or 3 dealing with one and same subject under my comment to time stamp 1, so as to make my coherence better than the video's.

"And most of them just go by unread..."

Not any longer when I have transferred them in order, with dialogues, to a blog post. Which I have.

"or point to some source."

What precise kind of source? One ...

a) In my comments? What's the point of a source beyond the Bible for understanding it better than you do?
or ...
b) Giving my comments? Well, here is the post where my initial comments and some dialogue after some of them is visible to readers of my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Babel
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/04/babel.html

[Creation vs. Evolution : Lining up Cities
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/03/lining-up-cities.html]

4:13 Intentionally defying God is you reading things in.

It's not in the text.

Was there a sin that needed correction? Yes.

Was it direct defiance? Maybe in a few.

According to Josephus, it was actually more like mistrust of God in most, those who were Nimrod's dupes. They thought they needed to get up to a heaven which apparently didn't get flooded.

5:31 ESV and DR differ on the need to have the actual remains of a tower.

Douay Rheims has: And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

In other words, it is totally possible the project was left incompleted.

It is true that banu, as a perfect (I don't know Hebrew, I trust it is a perfect from the marking) might lend itself to pluperfect translation, but the LXX has ᾠκοδόμησαν and the whole verse translates as:

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men built.

One reason to deny they had already completed it is in verse 8: and they ceased to build the city.

J010011113

Douay Rheims? Well, I think I see the problem.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J010011113 It seems my previous reply disappeared ... would you be precise about what you think it is?

See also:

Can't Take a Screenshot from Here, But ...

6:31 "and he wasn't going to let them do that"

The text in verse 6 has no "if" ... it is more like a promise they eventually would succeed.

Cape Canaveral, Baikonur - the prophecied success.

And one where the know-how needed more improvement from Nimrod to Wernher von Braun, than aeroplanes needed from Leonardo to Wilbur and Orville.

11:04 It's the same name - doesn't prove it's the same locality.

Ulysses' Ithaca was Santa Mavra, not Thiaki. Still, Thiaki is "Ithaca" in Modern Greek. The famous "tea party" in 1776 or sth was in Massachusetts, but the city was called for one in England.

Manhattan is in a York that's newer than the one Romans called Eboracum ...

Stevie E.

Check out Goebekli Tepe

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stevie E. Yeah, exactly my point.

Babel's locations:
1) Göbekli Tepe
2) a bit further East and still in Turkey
3) when Sargon of Akkad conquered that, he relocated Babel to Akkad.

13:14 In a Septuagint, Peleg's birth is after Noah's death.

LXX with the "second Cainan" 529 years after Noah's death, that's in the chronology of Syncellus.
LXX without the "second Cainan" (and there are also Luke 3 manuscripts without him) 401 years after the Flood. That's what I conclude for the chronology of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day.

The Babel project lasted 40 years out of the 51 years between Noah's death and Peleg's birth. In carbon dates, this stretches out to 1000 years, since the earliest layers are from when the atmosphere had even less carbon 14 and therefore even more extra years than in the latest layers.

2607 BC or close on carbon dates 9600 BC
2556 BC or close on carbon dates 8600 BC.

As carbon 14 levels rise, extra years sink.

13:50 Noah didn't outlive Peleg, he died before he was born. LXX, pals, LXX!

14:13 LXX, Genesis 11:16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.

Joe Fisher

NAILED IT BROTHER!! Check out Barry Setterfield or Associate of Biblical research. They have been uncovering this research

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Joe Fisher I am not sure if Barry Setterfield is giving similar calibrations for carbon dates.

Last time I heard of him, his solution was "speed of light slowed down and decay rates along with it" - which would imply calibrations for potassium-argon or uranium-lead as well. I would for my point argue, the original level of daughter elements lead or argon would mainly be independent of time, except very inflated argon dates indicate lava cooled very rapidly (under lots of water, which was replaced by very cool water very quickly) - which means the Flood, in my Biblical chronology that is 2242 after Creation, 2957 BC, see Roman martyrology for Christmas Day, it would be 1658 after creration in Ussher.

Joe Fisher

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I will check that out… I’m still learning on the way here, but I believe we can agree that the KJV timeline wasn’t a thing in the days of Jesus… not even till the second century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Joe Fisher I would say both timelines existed.

Josephus for time from Flood to Abraham first gives a total corresponding to Vulgate, Masoretic, Douay Rheims, King James, 292 years, and then motivates this by a detailed account of how old the patriarchs were, which lands at closer to the LXX total. Probably because he had learned a different text for Genesis 11 by heart when he was a boy.

That one I would obviously agree with Setterfield on.

Ernest Camps

YT "Were The Pyramids Built Before The Flood?" Tackles with this, and provides us the motive why that is.

Joe Fisher

@Ernest Camps good video… watched it a few times

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps Is it the same content as same title on NathanH83's channel?

Ernest Camps

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Indeed it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps Thank you!

I commented on it, on Nathan's channel.

Ernest Camps

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Not sure where, to check it out. But this particular video's comments are over 16500, so its has became impossible to get a hold of things there.

Ernest Camps

@Joe Fisher Yup me too, and linked it to numerous peoples. I actually did a graph of genealogies over 2 decades ago, before I saw Kent Hovind's one, and I noticed the inconsistencies with those ages right away. Yet I didnt bother a lot with them at that time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Camps I collected the comments I made 5 years ago onto a blog post.

Blog "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere"
Post "... Pyramids, Flood, Babel, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls"
Link: https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/06/pyramids-flood-babel-lxx-dead-sea.html

15:46 I hope at least he knows swagman, billabong, jumbuck and a few more from that song!

16:47 I think the number I had for language families from wikipedia was between 200 and 300 language families ...

dooglitas

The number of basic language families is not easy to determine. Different sources list different numbers of families. The problem is that there are over 7000 languages and a large percentage of them have not been studied well enough (or at all) to accurately determine what languages they are related to. Often finding the connections between languages can be a very daunting task. For a long time, Armenian was thought to be a dialect of Persian/Farsi language because of the heavy historical influence Persian had on Armenian. But it is now universally recognized that Armenian is a separate language and is its own independent subgroup of the Indo-European language group. Of the largest and most well-studied language families, there are not that many. Cross-influences between languages can often obscure the original roots of a language, as with Armenian. Another one is the Basque language, which was long thought to be unrelated to any other language or family. Recent studies have strongly suggested that Basque is likely part of the Caucasian branch of languages, even though the speakers are separated by a great distance. There are certain syntactical and grammatical similarities between Basque and the Georgian language (Kartveli). Many linguists now refer to the Caucasian language family by the name Ibero-Caucasian, to include Basque.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dooglitas "For a long time, Armenian was thought to be a dialect of Persian/Farsi language because of the heavy historical influence Persian had on Armenian. But it is now universally recognized that Armenian is a separate language and is its own independent subgroup of the Indo-European language group."

One reason why Indo-European as a family itself is moot, unlike Italic and Celtic OR Italo-Celtic, Greek, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and a few more. Family like ressemblances can be provoked by mutual (or perhaps even one sided) loans.

dooglitas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Indo-European is not moot. I don't understand your comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dooglitas What you said about two languages being thought genetically related in a way they weren't due to loans is a reason to consider the Indo-European so called family moot.

Argue against that if you can.

dooglitas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Indo-European language family is the most well-studied of all language families. It is a well established and accepted family. No linguist would consider it 'moot." There is more to analyzing the similarities of language than just looking at the vocabulary. Syntax and grammatical structures are very important.

The field of linguistics has made great advances in the past 200 years. The Indo-European language family is well established. The languages that belong to is are pretty well established at this point.

In my example of the Armenian language, the issue was not whether it was a member of the Indo-European group. That was already well-estabished. Persian/Farsi is also a member of the Indo-European family.

The Indo-European language family is so well studied, that linguists have even been able to reconstruct the original language from which all Indo-European languages descended. They call it Proto-Indo-European.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dooglitas "The Indo-European language family is the most well-studied of all language families."

The Indo-European language GROUP is probably the most well-studied of all language GROUPS.

Groups are of two kinds. Romance is a real time documented family. Balkan languages are a real time documented Sprachbund.

The founder of Balkan linguistics was Trubetskoy, who considered Indo-European belonged with the Balkan model, not the Romance model.

"Syntax and grammatical structures are very important."

Romanian shares endings for definite article with Bulgarian, not with Italian.

Greek shares "I want that I come" with Serbian, not with Ancient Greek that has "I want to come"

Finnish shares four to five of the six personal endings with Indo-European, and isn't such.

"Armenian language"

I know. I also do not doubt that the Armenian family qualifies into the Indo-European group whichever type it be.

"that linguists have even been able to reconstruct the original language from which all Indo-European languages descended"

Schleicher's Proto-Indo-European or Szemerenyi's? Or Jounu Pyysala's?

You are aware that reconstructing a proto-language from Romance languages would miss such features of Latin as have disappeared from all of them, like the Latin future, the vocative, the distinction of dative and ablative?

In other words, a reconstructed proto-language is a moot thing in and of itself.

@dooglitas These texts are supposed to mean the same thing in Proto-Indo-European:
Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam.
h₂áu̯ei̯ h₁i̯osméi̯ h₂u̯l̥h₁náh₂ né h₁ést, só h₁éḱu̯oms derḱt. só gʷr̥hₓúm u̯óǵʰom u̯eǵʰed; só méǵh₂m̥ bʰórom; só dʰǵʰémonm̥ h₂ṓḱu bʰered

dooglitas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You mention Romance languages as if it is some kind of model. This is irrelevant. All the languages you mention are Indo-European. So all the things you said are irrelevant. Yes, there are subgroups withing the Indo-European family. But ultimately they all descend from a common root, which is called Proto-Indo-European (whichever model of the reconstructed language is also irrelevant).

You state: "You are aware that reconstructing a proto-language from Romance languages would miss such features of Latin as have disappeared from all of them, like the Latin future, the vocative, the distinction of dative and ablative?" I am not aware that the Proto-European reconstruction is based on Latin. It is reconstructed looking at many languages and groups, not just Latin.

You state: "Finnish shares four to five of the six personal endings with Indo-European, and isn't such." I don't know what personal endings you are referring to, but it is irrelevant. The basic structure of Finnish is completely alien to the Indo-European languages. Its long historical and geographical association with Indo-European languages has undoubtedly influenced its current form, but at root it is an agglutinative language, simlar to Hungarian and Turkic languages. Indo-European languages are not agglutinative languages.

You state: "Romanian shares endings for definite article with Bulgarian, not with Italian." This is irrelevant. Bulgarian, Itallian, and Romanian are all Indo-European languages.

You state: "You state: "Greek shares "I want that I come" with Serbian, not with Ancient Greek that has "I want to come." This ONLY applies to MODERN Greek. Ancient Greek did use the form "I want to come." Modern Greek has no infinitive. In Classical and Koine Greek, the infinitive was quite prominent. But at any rate, your statement is irrelevant to the subject. Greek and Serbian are both Indo-European languages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dooglitas "This is irrelevant."

I'll ignore further occurrences of this type of talking down to me. You show a thing is irrelevant, fine. You ask me to trust your judgement on it, not fine.

If it reoccurs in next comment, I'll block you.

This out of the way, to your arguments.

"All the languages you mention are Indo-European."

I never disagreed on that. I am simply asking you to consider whether the unity between Celtic and Slavic has more to do with the Romance model or the Balkan model.

"I am not aware that the Proto-European reconstruction is based on Latin."

Tracing Celtic and Slavic to hypothetic Proto-Indo-European is based on tracing Portuguese and Romanian to actual Latin.

"It is reconstructed looking at many languages and groups, not just Latin."

So? It's still a reconstruction, not a fact. Or rather a series of different reconstructions (I cited two in the other comment), and not a fact.

I use Latin vs recontructed Proto-Romance as a model for showing the weakness of reconstruction - even when they are well done, they cannot reach the actual proto-language.

"The basic structure of Finnish is completely alien to the Indo-European languages. ... at root it is an agglutinative language, ... Indo-European languages are not agglutinative languages."

Except the ones that are that. For instance, all weak past forms (English pasts in -ed) are agglutinated. In Swedish, a past in the passive has agglutination of -s on top of the (often agglutinated) past ending. Or in Romanian, the definite article is agglutinated onto the synthetic case/number ending of a noun, and in Swedish, you get number, definite article, genitive agglutinated in that order. Romanian shares its agglutination of definite article with Bulgarian, both probably influenced by Turkish.

"The basic structure of Finnish is completely alien to the Indo-European languages."

The basic structure of Germanic is completely alien to that of Slavic (except Bulgarian), yet both are deemed Indo-European. Any "basic structure" common to all of Indo-European must be less defined than that of Germanic or of Slavic, so less contradictory to agglutinative structure.

"Bulgarian, Itallian, and Romanian are all Indo-European languages."

Are you trying to impress me by reifying the concept Indo-European languages?

Bulgarian belongs to the Slavic very obvious actual language family.

Bulgarian and Romanian belong to the Balkanic Sprachbund.

So, the case I made for basic grammar being shared not only within families, but across families due to Sprachbund is proven. That's very relevant to the question whether Indo-European is a family or a Sprachbund.

"This ONLY applies to MODERN Greek. Ancient Greek did use the form "I want to come." Modern Greek has no infinitive."

Lack of infinitive is part of the basic grammar of Modern Greek. This is not inherited from the language family (itself being in the same as parent language koiné), but borrowed across language families in the Balkanic Sprachbund. Hence, yes, basic grammar does get shared with languages of other families but in the same Sprachbund. Thank you for making my case.

"Greek and Serbian are both Indo-European languages."

Serbian is not a Hellenic language. Greek is not a Slavic one. Lack of infinitive is not Hellenic, is not Slavic, but is Balkanic. Again, basic grammar shared due to Sprachbund, not family. If you actually knew linguistics, you would know that Slavic and Hellenic are much more immediate families than Indo-European is.

dooglitas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am confused. Saying that something is irrelevant is NOT talking down to you. I explained why it was irrelevant. "Irrelevant" simply means that it is not an argument that has any relevance to the main topic we are discussing. Explaining that such and such a language is different or similar to such and such a language does not relate to your claim that the Indo-European family is "moot." Since languages such as Bulgarian, Romanian, and Latin are all Indo-European languages, mentioning that they are similar or different to each other is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Since you seem easily offended over nothing, I will discontinue this conversation. You may block me if you desire. I really do not care.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dooglitas Fine, you overused "it's irrelevant" in a hammering way, as in wishing to paint me as easily swept away by totally irrelevant facts, so that you had to provide me with relevant ones.

No thank you.

"Since languages such as Bulgarian, Romanian, and Latin are all Indo-European languages, mentioning that they are similar or different to each other is irrelevant to the topic under discussion."

That makes your credentials in linguistics sink to nil. Sorry for being offensive back, but you have earned it. Here is why. A real linguist cannot make the assertion that all similarities between any two Indo-European languages are due to them being Indo-European. I think even you quoted one who didn't do it, since he could distinguish between different similarities between Armenian and Persian. The ones due to loans, the ones due to the Indo-European phenomenon, whether it be family or - older - loans.

No, I don't think I got offended over nothing ....

dooglitas

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I have not been offensive. I have been quite cordial. I have not used any pejorative language in speaking to you. You, however, have just now purposely been offensive. So good-bye. You are the one who started being offensive here, not me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dooglitas Patronising is sometimes as offensive as pejorative, bye.

17:53 In the thousand years of Iceland, if Danish has moved 1000 years from the origin, Icelandic has moved 200 years from it.

It's hard even to read Icelandic, but speaking is near impossible, and part of the problem is, as between Danish and Swedish, or Dutch and German, that same letters are articulated very different, so the languages look more similar on the paper than they sound.

19:21 Irish accent sounds real nice, this time I could make it out : "half four means four thirty"

In Swedish "half four" would mean "three thirty" - so it's not just the letters and words that are different, and yet Swedish and the Irish version of English are both Germanic.

Troy Hailey

=="half four means four thirty"==

Huh! Learn something every day! And here I (an American) had been, all these years, thinking that when the British/Irish say "half four", what they mean is "half an hour short/shy of four", or, as Americans would say, "three thirty".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troy Hailey I would have thought so too.

Specially as Swedes and Germans have that expression.

19:53 No, the traditional (since the Renaissance) depiction is not "a type of ziggurat" ... and I also absolutely do not think the Babel project was about ziggurats - those came way later.

It's only since modern scholars found ziggurats that they have identified these as either copies of or inspirations for Tower of Babel.

The oldest ziggurat I find (of Ur) would be carbon dated as built 4000 BC, which in practise means around when Abraham was 7 or 8 in 2008 or 2007 BC - centuries after Babel.

Sorry, of Uruk, older than the one of Ur.

20:46 "figuratively means a flower bed"

Strong 4026. migdal or migdalah
Definition: a tower
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin: from gadal

1431. gadal
Definition: to grow up, become great

I think the oldest uses of ziggurats, as observatories, came after God had stopped the rocket project.

Hence pyramids spread to many but not all places, in some places you have stone rings instead (Stonehenge).

21:29 Is this to suggest that the KKK came from the worship of a Feathered Serpent?

21:42 [Sun] Hits the steps ... a feature common with Stonehenge and Newgrange, which are not pyramid shaped objects.

23:33 Ninus and Belus were descended from Nimrod, but lived later, in Nineveh, in the time of Sarug - starting with carbon dated 6000 BC. They are when idolatry began. The ToB was technolatry, not far from what we have today.

bones rhodes

" - starting with carbon dated 6000 BC. "

----- and what, pray tell, is that supposed to mean ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@bones rhodes There is a real date that is carbon dated as 6000 BC.

There was no such thing as 6000 BC in real dates, the world wasn't created.

But there is a carbon date 6000 BC.

The phrase "carbon dated 6000 BC" is shorthand for a real date "such that its atmospheric carbon 14 level gave the extra years necessary to add up with itself to carbon dated 6000 BC" ...

When I look at my tables for carbon 14 calibration (assuming Abraham born in 2015 BC, Tower of Babel ending at Peleg's birth in 401 after the Flood or 2556 BC, assuming identities of Babel with Göbekli Tepe and Genesis 14 Amorrhites with those evacuating En Gedi at the end of the chalcolithic there, so we get carbon dates for 2556 BC at 8600 BC and for 1935 - 2015-80 - as 3500) ...THEN I find on my calculations that "carbon dated 6037 BC" = "real date 2287 BC" which was before Abraham's life, but Sarug was already born.