Do you believe in a global flood?

[gnostic]

i. In 1911 a flood in China killed 100,000 people.
ii. In 1931 another flood in China killed 3,700,000 people.
iii. In 1960 a Flood in Bangladesh killed 100,000 people.
iv. In 1991 another Flood in Bangladesh killed more than 150,000 people.

None of these flood cover entire mountains in water. None of them showed it rain for 40 days and none of them had flood water that didn't begin to recede until after 150 days. The bible showed a fictional flood, supposed COVERING ALL THE HIGHEST MOUNTAINS, and for a whole year they remained in the ark. So how are any of these floods related to the biblical flood.

What did the human and animals eat when there are no trees, crops. Soil being underwater for a whole year would not be farmable. And supposed Noah began planting after the he embarked from the ark, do you know how long for the crops to be grown to maturity. Months. A whole season and a half. And what did the carnivore animals meat with no other games other than animals from the ark?

 

[rusra02]

None of these flood cover entire mountains in water. None of them showed it rain for 40 days and none of them had flood water that didn't begin to recede until after 150 days. The bible showed a fictional flood, supposed COVERING ALL THE HIGHEST MOUNTAINS, and for a whole year they remained in the ark. So how are any of these floods related to the biblical flood.

What did the human and animals eat when there are no trees, crops. Soil being underwater for a whole year would not be farmable. And supposed Noah began planting after the he embarked from the ark, do you know how long for the crops to be grown to maturity. Months. A whole season and a half. And what did the carnivore animals meat with no other games other than animals from the ark?

Once again, unfounded assertions abound. How do you know there were no trees or edible plants? The Ark contained food supplies. Why would soil not be farmable after being underwater? The animals on the ark would quickly multiply. Mice, for example, are prolific breeders.

 

[rusra02]

If the flood happened around sometimes the 2nd half of 3rd millennium BCE (c. 2400-2100 BCE), then there should be geological evidences. Most creationists favored the dating of 2340 BCE.

Not only that the Persian Gulf used to further inland than it is today, so the Sumerian cities of ancient Ur, Eridu and Lagash used to be closer to the sure of the gulf; in fact, Ur used to be a coastal city-state. The city of Ur has been around since early Sumerian period (c. 3000 BCE) but archaeological evidences showed centuries of human occupations in the area (as Neolithic villages), prior to 3000 BCE. And flourished by 2600 BCE, roughly around the same time of historical Gilgamesh supposed to rule in Uruk.

Had the flood occurred as the bible say around that time, then these city-states would have been wiped out and washed away. No such evidences of such flood of that magnitude hit any of the 3 cities, archaeologically or geologically.

Also the Euphrates and Tigris used to both drained out into the Persian Gulf, SEPARATELY. In fact, the Persian Gulf, if anything has been receding back, instead of covering these cities, which what should have done had the flood occurred. Instead centuries after centuries, the Persian Gulf recede further and further back. By the time of Hammurabi, the 1st great king of Babylon, living in the 18th century BCE, Ur was no longer a coastal city; they were miles away from the shore at that time.

By the time of Alexander the Great, the Tigris have already been joined to the Euphrates river.

The point I'm making is that Ur has been a coastal city-state centuries before, during and after the supposed Flood, and being a low-land city, it should not and could not have existed had the Flood happened, and there would not have been a 3rd dynasty of Ur in the last quarter of the 3rd millennium BCE, if what you're saying is true.

The Indian Ocean do affect the Persian Gulf, and it has been showed that the Gulf has been receding gradually in the late 3rd millennium BCE. It did not experience sudden increase in sea level, otherwise it would show geologically and archaeology of such destruction.

No man today knows what cities existed before the Flood. The claims for the ages of cities being pre-flood are based on highly-suspect dating methods. Doubters of the Flood claim geological and archeological evidence for the Flood is lacking. Perhaps the problem lies in how the evidence is interpreted. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age. Thousands of frozen mammoths have been uncovered in Siberia. After thousands of years, vegetation is found still in their mouths. Some see in this, as well as in such other things as marine fossils found on high mountains, convincing evidence of a sudden, catastrophic global flood.
On close examination, the claims of the doubters are seen to be weak and based on false assumptions.
As for archaeology, “Archaeology has also unearthed other versions of the [Genesis] story of the Deluge . . . The similarities are more striking than the differences.”—Digging Up the Bible Lands.

“A world cataclysm during which the earth was inundated or submerged by water [is] a concept found in almost every mythology in the world. . . . In Inca mythology it was provoked by the supreme god, Viracocha, who was dissatisfied with the first men and decided to destroy them.”—Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend.​

 

[tumbleweed41]

Once again, unfounded assertions abound. How do you know there were no trees or edible plants? The Ark contained food supplies. Why would soil not be farmable after being underwater? The animals on the ark would quickly multiply. Mice, for example, are prolific breeders.

Biology, botany, geology and logistics are not unfounded.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No man today knows what cities existed before the Flood. The claims for the ages of cities being pre-flood are based on highly-suspect dating methods. Doubters of the Flood claim geological and archeological evidence for the Flood is lacking. Perhaps the problem lies in how the evidence is interpreted. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age. Thousands of frozen mammoths have been uncovered in Siberia. After thousands of years, vegetation is found still in their mouths. Some see in this, as well as in such other things as marine fossils found on high mountains, convincing evidence of a sudden, catastrophic global flood.
On close examination, the claims of the doubters are seen to be weak and based on false assumptions.
As for archaeology, “Archaeology has also unearthed other versions of the [Genesis] story of the Deluge . . . The similarities are more striking than the differences.”—Digging Up the Bible Lands.

“A world cataclysm during which the earth was inundated or submerged by water [is] a concept found in almost every mythology in the world. . . . In Inca mythology it was provoked by the supreme god, Viracocha, who was dissatisfied with the first men and decided to destroy them.”—Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend.​

First, their claim that hundreds of thousands of frozen carcasses have been found is simply incorrect. At most, only a few tens of frozen carcasses have been documented in all of Siberia and Alaska. In Canada, the frozen mammal material found consists of scraps of hide and muscle found attached to bones. All of these "frozen carcasses" that have been carefully examined show evidence of decomposition, scavenging, or both prior to be buried, e.g. Gutherie (1990). Also, the sediments in which these carcasses occur are clearly of noncatastrophic origin (Gutherie 1990, Lister and Bahn 1994, Pewe 1975, Uraintseva 1993)
MOM and Atlantis, Mammoths, and Crustal Shift

Second, those Mammoths found are dated at 41,000+/-900 B.P. (Uraintseva 1993)

Third, the Glacial Ice age is backed by a plethora of empirical evidence. Whereas the "Global Flood" has none.

 

[sniper762]

Gen 7 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered.
That’s less than 30 ft. that the waters rose. Covered the mountains? 15 cubits, a cubit is 21 inches.
Why was 15 cubits even mentioned? Water seeks its own level. Just think of this: The hardest rain
ever recorded by the National Geographic Society was around 17 inches in a 24 hour period. Sea level
is the same all over the world, so as it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and thus covered the entire earth,
even all the high mountains, then it would have to have risen about 30,000 feet (to cover Mt, Everest).
40 days and 40 nights is equal to 40 x 24 hours is equal to 960 hours. The waters rose 30,000 feet in
960 hours which was 31.25 feet per hour. That was a hard rain! The scriptures also point out that all the
fountains of the earth were opened to assist in this flood. Scientist say that their is not enough water in
the earth or above the earth to cause enough water to cover the entire earth to the height of the
highest mountain.

 

[gnostic]

No man today knows what cities existed before the Flood. The claims for the ages of cities being pre-flood are based on highly-suspect dating methods. Doubters of the Flood claim geological and archeological evidence for the Flood is lacking.

And you want us to take your bible's words for the Flood? Is that it?

Sorry, rursa, but I preferred archaeological evidences over your fantasy world of make believe.

There are physical evidences that none of the city-states were destroyed by flood AT ANY TIME OF THE 2nd HALF OF THE 3rd MILLENNIUM BCE. It didn't happen on the 1st half of the 3rd millennium BCE too. If it (flood) happened on the 1st half, then Abraham, Moses, fall of Jerusalem and Jesus would be around 500 years too earlier.

And unless you can provide such evidences, then you are merely taken the bible on blind faith. There are archaeological evidences that showed many Sumerian cities existed prior to the supposed flood and after it, but there are evidences LACKING that show all these cities being destroyed AT THE SAME (point in) TIME by a supposed flood at that period of time. So it is your claim that are actually unfounded.

Why are you so against archaeological evidences? Because they don't correlate with anything about the earlier books of the bible?

The archaeological evidences are there (meaning it existed) regardless of your belief (or mind for that matter). Many Sumerian cities existed prior to 2340 BCE, and those that weren't left ruined by the Akkadian dynasty and the conquest of Sumerian by the Akkadians, continued to exist. The same could not be said about the global "Flood".

The 3rd dynasty of Ur was the last great Sumerian city, which fell around the time of the Amorites taking over Mesopotamia, and began the Old Babylonian period in 20th century BCE, and when a minor town, called Babylon, became a great city. It is around century or later that Abraham had supposedly left the city of Ur and then later from Haran.

And you know what, the Bible is inaccurate. The Genesis called the city of Ur, as "Ur of the Chaldeans", but the historical fact is that the Chaldeans did not exist in southern Mesopotamia, until the 1st millennium BCE. Look up Chaldeans, because the Chaldeans were people of the Neo-Babylonians. They were not the same as the Amorites that rule Babylonia in Abraham's time. And according to the Genesis, the Amorites were supposedly descendants of Ham and Cush, however, the Amorites existed in Canaan, Syria and western part of Mesopotamia as early as 26th-25th centuries BCE, at least a couple of centuries before the supposed flood. The more I explore the history and archaeology of Sumer civilisation the less likely the flood happen at all in any part of 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE.

 

[rusra02]

And you want us to take your bible's words for the Flood? Is that it?

Sorry, rursa, but I preferred archaeological evidences over your fantasy world of make believe.

There are physical evidences that none of the city-states were destroyed by flood AT ANY TIME OF THE 2nd HALF OF THE 3rd MILLENNIUM BCE. It didn't happen on the 1st half of the 3rd millennium BCE too. If it (flood) happened on the 1st half, then Abraham, Moses, fall of Jerusalem and Jesus would be around 500 years too earlier.

And unless you can provide such evidences, then you are merely taken the bible on blind faith. There are archaeological evidences that showed many Sumerian cities existed prior to the supposed flood and after it, but there are evidences LACKING that show all these cities being destroyed AT THE SAME (point in) TIME by a supposed flood at that period of time. So it is your claim that are actually unfounded.

Why are you so against archaeological evidences? Because they don't correlate with anything about the earlier books of the bible?

The archaeological evidences are there (meaning it existed) regardless of your belief (or mind for that matter). Many Sumerian cities existed prior to 2340 BCE, and those that weren't left ruined by the Akkadian dynasty and the conquest of Sumerian by the Akkadians, continued to exist. The same could not be said about the global "Flood".

The 3rd dynasty of Ur was the last great Sumerian city, which fell around the time of the Amorites taking over Mesopotamia, and began the Old Babylonian period in 20th century BCE, and when a minor town, called Babylon, became a great city. It is around century or later that Abraham had supposedly left the city of Ur and then later from Haran.

And you know what, the Bible is inaccurate. The Genesis called the city of Ur, as "Ur of the Chaldeans", but the historical fact is that the Chaldeans did not exist in southern Mesopotamia, until the 1st millennium BCE. Look up Chaldeans, because the Chaldeans were people of the Neo-Babylonians. They were not the same as the Amorites that rule Babylonia in Abraham's time. And according to the Genesis, the Amorites were supposedly descendants of Ham and Cush, however, the Amorites existed in Canaan, Syria and western part of Mesopotamia as early as 26th-25th centuries BCE, at least a couple of centuries before the supposed flood. The more I explore the history and archaeology of Sumer civilisation the less likely the flood happen at all in any part of 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Let me address your last point first. According to the Bible, Abraham was raised in “Ur of the Chaldeans.” (Genesis 11:27-31; 15:7) For centuries, Ur’s location was a mystery. Critics believed that if it existed at all, it was an insignificant, backward place. Then, to their embarrassment, ruins that lie between Babylon and the Persian Gulf were identified unmistakably to be those of Ur. Thousands of clay tablets unearthed at the site revealed that Ur was a center of world trade, with a large cosmopolitan population. In the time of Abraham, the city even had schools where boys were taught to write and do arithmetic.
Your assertion that the Chaldeans did not exist at the time is without foundation.
People often make unfounded assertions concerning the Bible, and time and again, they have been proven wrong. The global Flood changed the landscape of the earth dramatically, and it is wrong to compare the expected effects of this Flood to a local inundation. I am not against archeological evidence, but I am against unfounded assertions made without corroboration, such as the assertion above about the Chaldeans. To repeat, the dating methods used by archeologists are not to be taken as irrefutable fact. They are guesses, pure and simple, often based on incorrect assumptions, and subject to frequent change.

 

[sojourner]

I am not against archeological evidence, but I am against unfounded assertions made without corroboration, such as the assertion above about the Chaldeans. To repeat, the dating methods used by archeologists are not to be taken as irrefutable fact. They are guesses, pure and simple, often based on incorrect assumptions, and subject to frequent change.

Their guesses are a whole lot better than the assertions of ancient storytellers, writing thousands of years after the alleged fact...

 

[gnostic]

Thousands of clay tablets unearthed at the site revealed that Ur was a center of world trade, with a large cosmopolitan population. In the time of Abraham, the city even had schools where boys were taught to write and do arithmetic.
Your assertion that the Chaldeans did not exist at the time is without foundation.

Ur was a Sumerian city. It was still a Sumerian city at the time of Abraham, which is supposedly at some times during the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BCE). The difference is that at the end of 3rd dynasty of Ur, Sumerian was no longer a spoken language, but written language still existed, especially among the priesthood and scribes. The language of Akkadian was more predominant, even during the 3rd dynasty of Ur, but it (Akkadian) split into Assyrian and (Old) Babylonian. Akkadian was an East Semitic language.

Historically, and archaeologically, Ur remained a Sumerian city in the Babylonian empire, an empire that peaked at Hammurabi. Hammurabi and the dynasty he was under were Amorites, not Chaldeans. Do you understand what I am saying?

Two different groups of people (Amorites and Chaldeans), 2 different empires, and 2 different time. The Chaldeans didn't exist the 1st millennium BCE. The Chaldeans were name given to the Neo-Babylonian people and for the Chaldean dynasty, the same dynasty that saw the Fall of Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE.

Before the Chaldean was another dynasty that ruled Babylonian Empire, known as the Kassite, again different people. This period was called Middle Babylonian period.

It is you, rursa02, who don't know what you are talking about.

I don't think the Genesis was written until between 9th century BCE and the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE.

You have stated that the dating are wrong, but what dates can you provide, rursa?

Many cities existed prior to the supposed flood, and they continued to exit long after. Can you provide a single evidence that Ur didn't exist until after the supposed Flood?

Babylon existed before the supposed flood too, but it was a very minor town, compared to the other cities during 3rd millennium BCE. Babylon just didn't gain any importance until the Amorites took over the Sumerian empire. According to tradition, Sargon the Great (founder of the Akkadian dynasty) was said to found Babylon, hence around 24th or 23rd century BCE, as well as Agade, not this Nimrod of the bible, unless the creationists thinks Nimrod and Sargon are the same people, which I doubt very much.

Seriously, rursa. You want to put whatever happen in the Genesis in historical or archaeological profile, and yet, you condemn people who find some flaws with the bible as historical accounts or lacking in archaeological evidences, but refused to give actual history or archaeology their dues.

Their guesses are a whole lot better than the assertions of ancient storytellers, writing thousands of years after the alleged fact...

Exactly.

Different groups of people have occupied Mesopotamia, before the Chaldeans ever had control of southern Mesopotamia (eg. Sumerian, Amorites, Kassites).

 

[ZooGirl02]

No, I do not believe in a global flood. I do, however, believe that there may have been a very rainy period at one point in the earth's history and that this caused floods in many parts of the world which is why so many flood stories seem to exist at around the same time. But I do not think that a global flood is even possible.

 

[rusra02]

Ur was a Sumerian city. It was still a Sumerian city at the time of Abraham, which is supposedly at some times during the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BCE). The difference is that at the end of 3rd dynasty of Ur, Sumerian was no longer a spoken language, but written language still existed, especially among the priesthood and scribes. The language of Akkadian was more predominant, even during the 3rd dynasty of Ur, but it (Akkadian) split into Assyrian and (Old) Babylonian. Akkadian was an East Semitic language.

Historically, and archaeologically, Ur remained a Sumerian city in the Babylonian empire, an empire that peaked at Hammurabi. Hammurabi and the dynasty he was under were Amorites, not Chaldeans. Do you understand what I am saying?

Two different groups of people (Amorites and Chaldeans), 2 different empires, and 2 different time. The Chaldeans didn't exist the 1st millennium BCE. The Chaldeans were name given to the Neo-Babylonian people and for the Chaldean dynasty, the same dynasty that saw the Fall of Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE.

Before the Chaldean was another dynasty that ruled Babylonian Empire, known as the Kassite, again different people. This period was called Middle Babylonian period.

It is you, rursa02, who don't know what you are talking about.

I don't think the Genesis was written until between 9th century BCE and the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE.

You have stated that the dating are wrong, but what dates can you provide, rursa?

Many cities existed prior to the supposed flood, and they continued to exit long after. Can you provide a single evidence that Ur didn't exist until after the supposed Flood?

Babylon existed before the supposed flood too, but it was a very minor town, compared to the other cities during 3rd millennium BCE. Babylon just didn't gain any importance until the Amorites took over the Sumerian empire. According to tradition, Sargon the Great (founder of the Akkadian dynasty) was said to found Babylon, hence around 24th or 23rd century BCE, as well as Agade, not this Nimrod of the bible, unless the creationists thinks Nimrod and Sargon are the same people, which I doubt very much.

Seriously, rursa. You want to put whatever happen in the Genesis in historical or archaeological profile, and yet, you condemn people who find some flaws with the bible as historical accounts or lacking in archaeological evidences, but refused to give actual history or archaeology their dues.


Exactly.

Different groups of people have occupied Mesopotamia, before the Chaldeans ever had control of southern Mesopotamia (eg. Sumerian, Amorites, Kassites).

The fact remains the Chaldeans did control the area Abraham came from. Even though the city was Sumerian, it became known as Ur of the Chaldeans. It would not have been incorrect, therefore, to identify the city as Ur of the Chaldeans. The book of Job shows the Chaldeans existed in his day (Job 1:17). The events in Job cover a time period from 1657 B.C.E. Your statement is incorrect when you say "The Chaldeans didn't exist the 1st millennium BCE." They existed long before and evidently held considerable influence in the region Abraham came from.

 

[gnostic]

The fact remains the Chaldeans did control the area Abraham came from. Even though the city was Sumerian, it became known as Ur of the Chaldeans. It would not have been incorrect, therefore, to identify the city as Ur of the Chaldeans.

I would agree with you about Ur became known as the Chaldeans, however, it was not so until the 1st millennium BCE and not in the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE. What is incorrect is the Genesis and you to call the city being of the Chaldeans in this period when Abraham was born. The Amorite living in Mesopotamia at that time of Abraham weren't Chaldeans, nor were the Sumerians still living in Ur. There are no evidences whatsoever that the Chaldeans were living there in the 1st half of 2nd millennium BCE.

The book of Job shows the Chaldeans existed in his day (Job 1:17). The events in Job cover a time period from 1657 B.C.E. Your statement is incorrect when you say "The Chaldeans didn't exist the 1st millennium BCE." They existed long before and evidently held considerable influence in the region Abraham came from.

You're wrong.

And the reason you are wrong is that Chaldeans were a Greek name for the people living in that area. Hellenistic Greek name to be more precise. Hence the term "Chaldee" and "Chaldean" were coined until after Alexander the Great. This showed how ignorance you really are.

The Chaldeans didn't arrive in Babylonia, until the 2nd quarter of the 1st millennium.

The Greek historian claimed that the Chaldeans might have come from Egypt, but I am dubious of the claim. What is clear that the Chaldeans weren't originally from southern Mesopotamia. Where they came from, no one really know, except they were around the time of the last Assyrian empire, which they had overthrown and established a new empire, Neo-Babylonian empire, the dynasty known as the Chaldean Dynasty.

And as to the Book of Job, that wasn't written until the during or after Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE). Unless you can provide evidence, such as fragment that the book was written earlier than that, then please provide sources.

 

[rusra02]

I would agree with you about Ur became known as the Chaldeans, however, it was not so until the 1st millennium BCE and not in the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE. What is incorrect is the Genesis and you to call the city being of the Chaldeans in this period when Abraham was born. The Amorite living in Mesopotamia at that time of Abraham weren't Chaldeans, nor were the Sumerians still living in Ur. There are no evidences whatsoever that the Chaldeans were living there in the 1st half of 2nd millennium BCE.


You're wrong.

And the reason you are wrong is that Chaldeans were a Greek name for the people living in that area. Hellenistic Greek name to be more precise. Hence the term "Chaldee" and "Chaldean" were coined until after Alexander the Great. This showed how ignorance you really are.

The Chaldeans didn't arrive in Babylonia, until the 2nd quarter of the 1st millennium.

The Greek historian claimed that the Chaldeans might have come from Egypt, but I am dubious of the claim. What is clear that the Chaldeans weren't originally from southern Mesopotamia. Where they came from, no one really know, except they were around the time of the last Assyrian empire, which they had overthrown and established a new empire, Neo-Babylonian empire, the dynasty known as the Chaldean Dynasty.

And as to the Book of Job, that wasn't written until the during or after Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE). Unless you can provide evidence, such as fragment that the book was written earlier than that, then please provide sources.

The Book of Job is attributed to Moses by many Bible scholars, who lived long before the 6th century BCE. What basis do you have to say Job was written in the 6th century BCE? Further, the Genesis account long predates Alexander the Great, when you claim the term Chaldean came into usage. It's usage of Ur of the Chaldeans date from about 1513 BCE.

 

[gnostic]

The Book of Job is attributed to Moses by many Bible scholars, who lived long before the 6th century BCE. What basis do you have to say Job was written in the 6th century BCE? Further, the Genesis account long predates Alexander the Great, when you claim the term Chaldean came into usage. It's usage of Ur of the Chaldeans date from about 1513 BCE.

Actually the usage of Chaldeans in "Ur of the Chaldeans", comes from geography of the time of translation from Hebrew to Hellenistic Greek, namely the Septuagint Bible.

As to attribution to Moses, that it's all it is attribution. Moses have been credited with writing Deuteronomy too, as part of the Torah (or Pentateuch), but it is clearly evidenced that it was not written by Moses. It is from Jewish scholarship in the Talmud that we find reference to Moses' authorship, but that can't be confirmed at all on who wrote Job. Modern scholars now put Job being written in the 2nd Temple Period, possibly in the 5th century BCE.

In any case, I wouldn't put much stock on Job being written by Moses, or your assertion that it was written in 1513 BCE.

And the reason why I disagree with you on 1513 BCE is because the land of Canaan was pretty much in the hand of the Egyptians in the early part of 18th dynasty in Egypt.

Ahmose I who drove out the Hyksos from Egypt, and followed them all the way in Canaan and Syria. Ahmose I founded the 18th dynasty. And though his successor Amenhotep I did not keep Canaan. Your date (of 1513 BCE) would fall in Amenhotep's reign (1524 - 1503). However, his successor, Thutmose I (1503 - 1491) retook Canaan, and incorporated Canaan as part of their empire. This is followed by Thutmose II (1491 - 1479, with jointly Hatshepsut, 1503 - 1491), Thutmose III (1479 - 1424), Amenhotep II (1424 - 1398). Amenhotep II kept Canaan, despite being at war against the Mitanni (from northern Syria). Canaan remained as part of Egyptian empire, right up to the early part of Akhenaten (1360 - 1343). Akhenaten, the monotheist follower of Aten, was not interest in empire or foreign policy.

My point in this Egypt's chronology is that the thing is, this 1513 BCE can't be the time of Moses and Joshua, because of very strong presence of Egypt in Canaan.

 

[rusra02]

I would agree with you about Ur became known as the Chaldeans, however, it was not so until the 1st millennium BCE and not in the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE. What is incorrect is the Genesis and you to call the city being of the Chaldeans in this period when Abraham was born. The Amorite living in Mesopotamia at that time of Abraham weren't Chaldeans, nor were the Sumerians still living in Ur. There are no evidences whatsoever that the Chaldeans were living there in the 1st half of 2nd millennium BCE.


You're wrong.

And the reason you are wrong is that Chaldeans were a Greek name for the people living in that area. Hellenistic Greek name to be more precise. Hence the term "Chaldee" and "Chaldean" were coined until after Alexander the Great. This showed how ignorance you really are.

The Chaldeans didn't arrive in Babylonia, until the 2nd quarter of the 1st millennium.

The Greek historian claimed that the Chaldeans might have come from Egypt, but I am dubious of the claim. What is clear that the Chaldeans weren't originally from southern Mesopotamia. Where they came from, no one really know, except they were around the time of the last Assyrian empire, which they had overthrown and established a new empire, Neo-Babylonian empire, the dynasty known as the Chaldean Dynasty.

And as to the Book of Job, that wasn't written until the during or after Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE). Unless you can provide evidence, such as fragment that the book was written earlier than that, then please provide sources.

I underlined and highlighted your statement above. So even though no one know where the Chaldeans came from, you are sure you know when they came? from?

 

[gnostic]

I underlined and highlighted your statement above. So even though no one know where the Chaldeans came from, you are sure you know when they came? from?

What is certain that they (the Chaldeans) were not the same people as the Sumerians before them, nor the succeeding group of people that followed the Sumerians - Akkadians, Amorites or Kassites before them whom later took over the region before the Assyrian empire. Historically, these people whom we referred to as Chaldeans did not exist prior to the late Assyrian empire (or Neo-Assyrian period, which began in the 2nd half of 10th century and ended in 609 BCE, when the Chaldeans took over the empire).

And as I said previously, the name Chaldee, the land of the Chaldeans, given to that region in southern Mesopotamia, was never coined until Greek historians began writing in the Hellenistic period. It wasn't until the translation of Hebrew scriptures into Greek that the Chaldeans in relationship to the city of Ur was inserted into the Genesis.

Are you denying that Chaldee and the Chaldeans are not Greek words?