From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not Equal to China[edit]

Shinar does not equate with China. A certain website ( which is promoting rather strange views has recently invented this link, supposedly based on the similar sounding names. Support for this joke should not be provided by Wiki. I had therefore deleted the reference. 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Shinar is not a broad designation applied to Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the region, which is quite extensive, and Shinar is a plain comprising a small fraction of the regional area.

It is not NPOV to hint some comment on the validity of the source, so the phrase 'is said to have been' is improper when quoting a statement from a recognised source.

The construction of the tower of Babel was undertaken at the beginning of the reign of Nimrod (ref Genesis, Jasher, etc), his name was Amraphel after the tower destruction, so the reference to Amraphel is good in regard to Shinar, but not particularly accurate in regard to the immediate previous reference to the tower.

Nimrod/Amraphel is not usually identified with Hammurabi at all. Different person, different time and place.

The If statement is hardly relevant, the plain of Shinar does not include Babylon. Whether Babylonia was referred to as Sangar is off topic.

Shinar is not a general synonym for Babylonia, and this cannot be inferred from the quotes given from Joshua, Isaiah and Zechariah. In any event, the Joshua quote is incorrect and doesn't mention Shinar at all, the Isaiah reference lists Shinar with other regions, and Zechariah likewise, mentions Shinar, but there is no reference of inference to Babylonia.

The reference to the moon god Sin is relevant to Shinar, because of Ur. Cobblers 06:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because these points are unsourced and uncited and sound like some fringe views... Who in the world equates Nimrod with Amraphel?? There may be some fringe groups that do so, but it's going to need to be properly cited to make clear exactly "who" believes this; the two are not equated in the canonical Bible, nor in the mainstream view. The version that was there before represents the mainstream view in most sources. What is your source that Shinar was a plain in the "northern" part of Mesopotamia??? Shinar is the English form of a term (Senaar) only occurring in Biblical literature, although it is clearly connected with the Egyptian name for Mesopotamia in the Amarna Letters (Sangar), and that cite is certainly not off topic... There are numerous printed sources supporting the view that the name was used generally for Babylonia... Sorry, but unless you have better sources for a different view, you're just replacing the mainstream version with fringe stuff and possible OR... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, the source is primarily from the Book of Jasher which includes a number of references to Nimrod, king of Shinar, specifically mentioning the name change to Amraphel. Certainly not a fringe view, I would have thought you particularly would know of these things. Mesopotamia is large region, on maps from the 2nd to 17th centuries, shown as extending to the north of Syria, so certainly includes Ur Casdim. The subject is Shinar, not Mesopotamia in general, nor Babylon. I know you have a habit of reverting, but you are not the umpire. Cobblers 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the references required by Codex. I trust that this is satisfactory. Cobblers 11:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Genesis 14:1 and 14:9 states clearly that Amraphel was king of Shinar. Cross reference Genesis 10:10 which says that, in the same era, Nimrod was the king of Shinar, and built Babel, etc. The two are therefore certainly equated in the Bible. Book of Jasher then confirms the same information, in numerous places, but specifically states the name change to Amraphel in Jasher 27:2. More later . . . Cobblers 11:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Ur, as not being helpful. Discussion on the birthplace of Abram is not really material to the Shinar topic, as there is no definitive link between Ur and Shinar. Islamic tradition has it that Abram was born in Ur (Casdim, Kessed, Chaldees) as the place of Sanliurfa, Turkey, and this opposes the placement of Ur of the Chaldees in southern Mesopotamia. This should be dealt with elsewhere. Cobblers 15:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'Book of Jasher' is a Joke[edit]

The so-called 'Book of Jasher' can hardly be taken seriously, it is one of the most blatant mediaeval forgeries there is... It first appeared around the year 1600, and wasn't written long before, unless you think names like "Langobardi" were known in antiquity... It has little or no place in this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are getting confused with Pseudo-Jasher, which was indeed a blatant forgery. Cobblers 15:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is no "Book of Jasher" known from Antiquity, but there are more than one forgery by that name, hence more than one "Pseudo-Jasher". The one that makes all the Nimrod = Amraphel (unbiblical) connection, is the very same one that has all the references to the "Ancient Langobardi" etc. LOL ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have electronically searched my Book of Jasher, there is no reference in it to Langobardi, so I must have the valid version. Cobblers 16:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Try Jasher 10:15 - "The Lumbardi, who conquered Italia..." -- This is a historical event, but it took place 700 years after Christ -- "and are there to this day"... This and other references make the book you are referring to, that surfaced around 1600, a clear forgery.

Genesis has this link, so disputing the validity of Jasher is unnecessary. Please identify your point of dispute. Removing the Jasher quotes doesn't change the basic information. Cobblers 16:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That whole idea comes from Jasher. There is nothing in the canonical books - anyone's canonical books - to suggest that Nimrod was, or could have been, identical to Amraphel, just because the name 'Shinar' is mentioned in connection with both. There are other discrepancies disputes between your new version and the previous multi-editor version, that I will also address at a more convenient time. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not want any edit war. What I find objectionable, however, is that you take it upon yourself to dispute, and now you are going to leave it for a more convenient time. I could possibly find many articles to dispute, and go a tag them all. I would certainly aggravate lots of people, unnecessarily. As I have said before, you are not the umpire. Please take your time, but in the meanwhile the tag should not remain, just because you find some fault that you can't actually specify. Cobblers 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already have the right to dispute the factual accuracy, and have not taken anything upon myself. For you to suggest that this is objectionable, is unjustified. I have already mentioned a number of problems I have with the factual accuracy of this article, but please be patient and I will have them all reformatted for you again with more supporting evidence in the very near future. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of the factual accuracy tag is for when "the article may be significantly inaccurate, or contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references, or contains information which is particularly difficult to verify, or has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic." Not one of these policy points apply. So you are inappropriately using the tag, against Wiki policy. Please don't do it again. Cobblers 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You've already broken three reverts. I have a right to dispute an article, because we're having a dispute. You may not remove a factual accuracy or a npov dispute tag until consensus has been reached. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So now its an NPOV dispute, when it wasn't before. Please explain. All statements are sourced, the article is neutral. Ok, you don't like the Jasher source. Just because policy shows that you have no justification to place a dispute tag, you now place an NPOV tag. This is ridiculous. Cobblers 17:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You should know to discuss the issues BEFORE placing any tag. Cobblers 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, that's not how tags work. I thought you read the policy. The discussion is supposed to take place while the tag is up, and come down only AFTER an agreement has been reached. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You have exceeded your share of reverts for the day (6 times).... Are you trying to get blocked??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am totally disputing your information in this article, and will continue to do so until my issues have been satisfactorily resolved. It's not up to you to determine when my issues have been resolved and the dispute is over. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Further improvements[edit]

The following quote is removed, but recorded here: According to H. Welsh, it is likely, arising from association with Ur of the Chaldees, that Shinar signifies the land of the Mesopotamian moon god Sin, whose earliest temple was at Ur. Sin had a network of temples spanning across the fertile crescent, including a prominent temple in Babylon and one of its famous Gates, also a major temple in Harran, and probably another in Jericho, that most ancient city, whose name means "Place of the Moon God."

This is supposition and has no support, particularly on the pretext of association with Ur of the Chaldees. Certainly there was widespread worship of the Mesopotamian moon god throughout the entire region, but the name Shinar does not signify nor have any link with the name Sin. It is indeed likely instead that Shinar was named after Peleg's father-in-law Shin'ar, but this too would be conjecture. Cobblers 15:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual dispute[edit]

I do not understand why you, after repeatedly maintaining that you were disputing on the grounds of factual inaccuracy, then changed the dispute to NPOV as well. I can only assume heat of the moment. The banter was getting a bit lively. Sorry.

In regard to the Book of Jasher citations, I would refer you to Sefer haYashar (midrash). This should explain that the source is not any of the false books, but rather something of historical antiquity, extant in its original form from very early times, as it is referred to in Joshua 10:13 and again in 2 Samuel 1:18. This is not a source that should be rejected out of hand, and you should set your own POV to one side if you think that this is so.

The Bible says that emerging civilisation initially moved westward (from the Ararat area) to a place they called Shinar. I know of no secular information to oppose this statement, and it is quite consistent with later Sumerian civilisation to the south.

The citations from Book of Jubilees doesn't identify Shinar precisely, but it does gives the lands of Asshur (which includes Shinar) as being somewhat north (and west) of the lands of Arpachshad (which includes the lands of the Chaldees).

Such a place as Ur of the Chaldees in a southern Mesopotamian location is not challenged, but from these historical documents, it cannot be said to be part of Shinar. The existence of another place called Ur in a northern Mesopotamian location does tend to support a northern location for Shinar, but of itself is not conclusive. Perhaps this information should remain in the article, it was probably my POV to exclude it. Cobblers 03:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the same book you refer to as "Book of Jasher" was A) Never attested as existing before 1600 AD, and B) contains many anachronistic references such as "The Lumbardi, who invaded Italia and are there to this day", not to mention numerous other discrepancies from canonical works... It makes Abraham a contemporary of the Tower of Babel, for example, whereas the Bible has him being born centuries later... If there ever was a Biblical Book that went by the name of Jasher (btw definitely not a personal name as is often assumed), that sure ain't it. I stand by everything I have said already about this forgery, and have seen nothing to convince me it ever existed before mediaeval times in any form. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point is accepted. It would now appear that not one of the many documents identified as Book of Jasher can be the one referred to in Joshua and 2 Samuel. References removed. Cobblers 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

they travelled to the plain in Shinar FROM the East.[edit]

After the flood it says in Genesis in the original Hebrew (not the silly translations like the NIV which has changed it)

1 Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.

If they were referring that they left Mountains of Ararat which is Armenia / Far Northeastern Turkey, then how can Shinar be Mesopatamia and Babel be Babylon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talkcontribs) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


What is the traditional English pronunciation of the name? Can anyone please add a note to the article? Thank you. SpectrumDT (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)