Was Abraham Sumerian, or Babylonian? Aware me

[metis]

I don't agree. Archaeological evidence is not the only evidence of historicity, although time and time again, archeological discoveries have confirmed the historicity of persons and places mentioned in the Bible. The events recorded in the Holy Scriptures by reliable eyewitness historians have more credence, IMO, then many other supposed historical events accepted virtually without question.

Actually most events covered were not written by actual eyewitnesses but were passed down, and this even includes most of the "N.T.". Secondly, people who witness events often don't always agree on what they saw.

Let me give one quick example: how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, and what did he/they say? Check each of the gospels and what you'll see are four differing accounts.

 

[metis]

No, the unproven ToE has not disproven the Genesis account of creation...

If the creation accounts, which also vary a bit btw, are taken literally, it absolutely has.

 

[rusra02]

New species are constantly being discovered. Why don't we know about them if Adam named all the animals brought to him by God as Genesis states? Species are evolving and changing even now. Probably the best example is bacteria; they become resistant to antibiotics at an alarming rate. That's evolution.

Things have changed on earth dramatically, since Adam's creation and subsequent death. What you call evolution is simply adaptation, and does not produce entirely new creatures.

 

[Jainarayan]

Things have changed on earth dramatically, since Adam's creation and subsequent death. What you call evolution is simply adaptation, and does not produce entirely new creatures.

Adaptation is evolution.

 

[metis]

Things have changed on earth dramatically, since Adam's creation and subsequent death. What you call evolution is simply adaptation, and does not produce entirely new creatures.

Please Google "speciation".

 

[outhouse]

Things have changed on earth dramatically, since Adam's creation and subsequent death. What you call evolution is simply adaptation, and does not produce entirely new creatures.

That is intellectual dishonety as I have shown you FACTS of evolution.

You are no one to tell 68 international scientific organizations that they are wrong.

 

[Jainarayan]

Things have changed on earth dramatically, since Adam's creation and subsequent death. What you call evolution is simply adaptation, and does not produce entirely new creatures.

Adaptation is evolution.

Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question of how a group of land mammals became adapted to aquatic life was a mystery until discoveries starting in the late 1970s in Pakistan revealed several stages in the transition of cetaceans from land to sea.

There's the answer to the oft-asked question: "but where are the transitional fossils?"

 

[gnostic]

What you call evolution is simply adaptation,

Adaptation is evolution.

and does not produce entirely new creatures.

Not all changes are speciation. And not all speciation results in new creatures.

You clearly don't understand evolution.

 

[greentwiga]

Back to the original question, Wooley, in order to generate money for his digging in Sumer, declared that Abraham was from Ur of Sumer. Before that, everyone knew that Abraham was from Sanliurfa. This is in southern Turkey, and the word means glorious Urfa. Urfa fits the description of the Bible much better.

Another point is the genetic analysis. Kurdish men are the J2 haplotype of the Y gene. Jews are mainly J2 and J1 with sprinklings of other haplotypes as people from where they lived later joined the religion. J1 would have come from the Canaanites that they lived among in Palestine. J1 came originally from Yemen and is a "Semitic " branch. When Ishmael became the father of the Arabs, that was a small group in SW Arabia, near the Red Sea. Most Arab claim to be descended from Ishmael, but I am not arguing against that, only showing that Abraham came from Kurdistan, as the Muslims still believe. Therefore, Abraham was neither Sumerian or Babylonian, but of the group we now know as Kurdish.

 

[gnostic]

Back to the original question, Wooley, in order to generate money for his digging in Sumer, declared that Abraham was from Ur of Sumer. Before that, everyone knew that Abraham was from Sanliurfa. This is in southern Turkey, and the word means glorious Urfa. Urfa fits the description of the Bible much better.

Another point is the genetic analysis. Kurdish men are the J2 haplotype of the Y gene. Jews are mainly J2 and J1 with sprinklings of other haplotypes as people from where they lived later joined the religion. J1 would have come from the Canaanites that they lived among in Palestine. J1 came originally from Yemen and is a "Semitic " branch. When Ishmael became the father of the Arabs, that was a small group in SW Arabia, near the Red Sea. Most Arab claim to be descended from Ishmael, but I am not arguing against that, only showing that Abraham came from Kurdistan, as the Muslims still believe. Therefore, Abraham was neither Sumerian or Babylonian, but of the group we now know as Kurdish.

Urfa and Kurdistan are very interesting, but you're forgetting כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים - "of the Chaldeans" or "of the Chaldees".

The land of Chaldees is the name given to 1st millennium BCE southern region of Mesopotamia. And Chaldea was used to be underwater (Persian Gulf) prior to mid-2nd millennium BCE, in which Ur was formerly a coastal city off the Persian Gulf. And an unknown Semitic tribe had moved into this region about 1100 BCE, and it was named after them.

 

[Pegg]

The Book of Genesis states that Abraham was from the city of Ur of the Chaldees. Though the exact location of Ur remains a mystery according to the article, Abraham was born somewhere within Mesopotamia. Yet Abraham is the father of the Hebrew and Arab peoples through his sons Isaac and Ishmael, respectively. If this is the case, then a small group of Mesopotamians migrated and took on entirely new cultural and religious identities, with the Sumerians living on genetically not only in Iraq, but the entire Middle East. Is this the case, or is there something else? Btw this is just one of my thought experiments; I'm truly curious.

Abrahams forefather was Shem. Shem was one of Noahs 3 sons. We are all related.

 

[outhouse]

Abrahams forefather was Shem. Shem was one of Noahs 3 sons. We are all related.

That is factually not true.


We are not all related. All different races of current Homo Sapiens factually existed at this time.

And to date. Noah has ZERO historicity as a real person per every credible historian.

 

[greentwiga]

Yes the Chaldees might have moved there much later. They were not near Ur of Sumer in 2000 - 1800 BC.

 

[Pegg]

That is factually not true.


We are not all related. All different races of current Homo Sapiens factually existed at this time.

And to date. Noah has ZERO historicity as a real person per every credible historian.

they dont call Mesopotamia 'the cradle of civilization' because it sounds cool

 

[rusra02]

Adaptation is evolution.

"Evolution" is used by evolutionists, IMO, to imply that macro evolution is true. Calling a finche's slightly larger beak "evolution", for example, is misleading at best, and willfully dishonest at worst. The ability of plants and animals to adapt to their environment does not produce new families of creatures, as evolution claims. I choose to ignore the misleading term micro evolution for these reasons, and only refer to claimed macro evolution by the term "evolution".

 

[rusra02]

That is intellectual dishonety as I have shown you FACTS of evolution.

You are no one to tell 68 international scientific organizations that they are wrong.

Your post reminds me of the Pharisee's appeal to their authority. When questioned why they failed to arrest Jesus, the men sent replied: “Never has any man spoken like this.” *In turn the Pharisees answered: “You have not been misled also, have you?*Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? *But this crowd who do not know the Law are accursed people.”
(John 7:46-49) Many evolutionists sing a very similar tune, ignoring the fact that millions reject the ToE, including scientists who specialize in the study of living things.

 

[Jainarayan]

"Evolution" is used by evolutionists, IMO, to imply that macro evolution is true. Calling a finche's slightly larger beak "evolution", for example, is misleading at best, and willfully dishonest at worst. The ability of plants and animals to adapt to their environment does not produce new families of creatures, as evolution claims. I choose to ignore the misleading term micro evolution for these reasons, and only refer to claimed macro evolution by the term "evolution".

Strawman... "Evolutionists" do not posit macroevolution. That is a strawman used by creationists.

 

[rusra02]

Strawman... "Evolutionists" do not posit macroevolution. That is a strawman used by creationists.

1.Posit
put forward as fact or as a basis for argument.
"the Confucian view posits a perfectible human nature"
synonyms: postulate, put forward, advance, propound, submit, predicate, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, set forth, propose, pose, assert;

Is it your position evolutionists do NOT put macroevolution forward as a fact?

 

[gnostic]

The only people that I have seen to use the word "macroevolution" are creationists, not biologists. The word "macroevolution" (or microevolution) was never used by evolutionary biologists.

Evolution is evolution, regardless if the notable changes occur in a few generations or few thousand (or tens or hundreds of thousands) of generations.

The only thing that this demonstrate is that creationists are ignorant fools.

 

[Jainarayan]

1
Is it your position evolutionists do NOT put macroevolution forward as a fact?

Not in the way creationists use it. The bold is mine.

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution").

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia