Two Comments under a Bergsma Video

The Douay-Rheims Only Controversy? w/ Dr. John Bergsma
Matt Fradd | 27 May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_38mE9ruuA

0:38 I just read up Genesis 11:2 in New Jerusalem Bible or Revised such and in Douay Rheims.

"Now, as people moved eastwards they found a valley in the land of Shinar where they settled."
Genesis, 11 - Bíblia Católica Online
Leia mais em: https://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/new-jerusalem-bible/genesis/11/

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.
Douay-Rheims Bible Book of Genesis Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/01011.htm

Can I comment under this comment, or is it deleted?

Now, eastward and from the east contradict.

miqqedem means from the east.

And the reason for the change is a supposition about the story : that the Ark landed in the vicinity of Mt Ararat and Babel is supposed to be around Classic Babylon.

39°42.113′N 44°17.899′E for Ararat
30°48′57″N 45°59′46″E for Eridu.

Obviously Eridu is further east than Ararat. So, eastward would make sense.

Now, make another little supposition instead. Mountains of Armenia includes Mountains of Turkish Armenia, which includes Mount Judi near Cizre. The Babel we will see about is also known as Göbekli Tepe.

37°22′10″N 42°20′39″E for Mount Judi
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E for Göbekli Tepe.

Obviously Mount Judi is further east than Göbekli Tepe, so "from the east" makes sense. This is also what miqqedem means.

Two other observations. If you go from Ararat to Eridu, you will find the plain before crossing the Tigris into Mesopotamia. The plain surrounds Mesopotamia. It would make sense with "they found a plain, namely Shinar". If you go from Judi to Göbekli Tepe region, you cross the Tigris immediately, so you are already inside Sennaar when you find the plain around Harran (on Turkish-Syrian border today) as within this larger land. So, "they found a plain in the land of Sennaar," makes sense. Göbekli Tepe is midway of the Western half of the Northern limit of this plain. If Göbekli Tepe had another purpose than everyday dwelling and they dwelt a bit further South in the plain, the following words "and dwelt in it" also make perfect sense.

And, with Judi to GT, the E-W axis preponderates over the N-S, with A-E, N-S vastly preponderates over E-W.

Now, what does not make sense with Göbekli Tepe, on the face of it, and I have admitted as much, is, verse 3.

Bricks and mortar have so far not been found in Göbekli Tepe.

I can make a supposition on the meaning and consider etymological Hebrew senses, namely "they made whites and burnt them with burning and used thickening for thickening"* and argue, it describes stamped earth around skeleta of burned chalk, of which the presence of such burned chalk inside the stamped earth could be tested.

I may be right, I may be wrong, but I am not authorised to replace verse 3 as it stands with the actual text "and made stamped earth with burnt chalk skeleta" even though this is a possible way of building and one that is used, for instance in stables in Scandinavia (stöphus).

Just as, even if I am right about verse 4 ... well, let's check the two versions on it.

'Come,' they said, 'let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top reaching heaven. Let us make a name for ourselves, so that we do not get scattered all over the world.

And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

The Hebrew has: "and a tower and the top [is] in the heavens"

It is neutral between the two, but the use of New Jerusalem "with" suggests that the tower still stands under the top while it is in heaven, while the Douay Rheims at least allows that the top reaches heaven after discarding the tower - in other words that this describes the project of a three step rocket.

Even if I am right, with my supposition on content, that doesn't give me any right to change the text.

* I am not a Hebraist, but explanations adding up to this were given by one who was.

2:28 Not a Hebraist, but:

masculine singular third person הוּא hu he / it
feminine singular third person הִיא / הִוא hi / hiw she / it

Strong resemblance in spelling for he and she, right?

Sheshallcrush

@SheShallCrush

Vetus latina from 2nd century AD says “she”. That Latin manuscript predates Jerome and copied from Greek texts. Jerome wrote “she.” There is a Greek Septuagint found by Origin with surviving fragments published by Bernard Montfaucon that says “she shall crush.” It was in the Caesarea library Jerome utilized. Don’t ever let someone tell you “she” is a copyist error. Also, Bernard de Rossi, Kennicott, Fr. Francis Xavier Patrizi, and 1572 Polyglot contains Hebrew manuscripts that say “She.” The original was a “she” pronoun surrounded by masculine verb “shall crush.” Scribes coming across this original changed it to “he” so that it matches the verb. Scribes thought they were fixing it but actually ruined the original. This is how he became dominant while she died out. Ancient Hebrew also has plenty of gender discord (I.e Song of Songs). “She” pronoun with masculine verb to crush is evidence of antiquity. Also, the masoretic Hebrew is not the original. It dates to the 9th century AD and contains vowel pointing not present in the original. The original had a she vocalization tradition. However many manuscripts are visually ambiguous. According to Lectio Difficilior Potior “he” tradition came later. “She” was original. Look up Lectio Difficilior Potior. Hope this helps

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@SheShallCrush Checking, I thought you were wrong about the Hebrew, but here is the current Masoretic:

... zar·‘āh; hū yə·šū·p̄ə·ḵā

So, yes, there actually is a personal pronoun before the verb, which could have been "hi" (she).*

Thank you!

It does help!

* footnote

She shall crush thy head is the original Hebrew for Genesis 3:15
Sheshallcrush | 21 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5jk4nDagEg

She shall crush thy head original Hebrew part 2
Sheshallcrush | 28 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCgmifNZIU