Was Abraham Sumerian, or Babylonian? Aware me

[outhouse]

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.

Your post has nothing to do with the reality of evolution.

The world is never going back to a biblical science view, ever! Those were called the dark ages for a reason.

 

[outhouse]

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

It is called that because it was One of the first large civilizations.

It has nothing to do with some mythology you posit, that you also, cannot back up.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

I think what Outhouse is saying is worth considering, although there is more to it that you would be interested in I think. Abraham the Hebrew was originally Abram the Syrian. (See Deuteronomy 26:5) Abram is a man who becomes 'Abraham' when he leaves everything he knows in order to become a blessing to the world. He chooses to become a light to the world and to sponsor justice and peace. The story outlines his life's journey which parallels his personal transformation from Abram into Abraham. Early in the story he breaks ties with the king of Sodom (or so it seems to me) and makes a treaty with the king of Shalom (Shalom, a place that is fabled to be the same city as Jerusalem. 'Shalom' is also a greeting used that means peace.)

 

[outhouse]

I think what Outhouse is saying is worth considering, although there is more to it that you would be interested in I think.

Only problem is, Israelites used him as their originating father, and wrote their origins around his legend.

But Israelites had no idea about their origins.


They factually were Canaanites according to one of the best archeologist, and so far no one has been able to refute him with any credibility.


There is no way displaced Canaanite new their origin a thousand years pervious, and there is no way Israelites would have been able to even have the faintest ideas either.


Israelites didn't even know their own prehistory form 1200 BC to 1000 BC.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Only problem is, Israelites used him as their originating father, and wrote their origins around his legend.

But Israelites had no idea about their origins.


They factually were Canaanites according to one of the best archeologist, and so far no one has been able to refute him with any credibility.


There is no way displaced Canaanite new their origin a thousand years pervious, and there is no way Israelites would have been able to even have the faintest ideas either.


Israelites didn't even know their own prehistory form 1200 BC to 1000 BC.

I grasp that information and am not refuting it, but taking into account that Jainarayan is a Darmic Deist they are probably interested in Buddha-like types. Abraham definitely is one and has some things in common with the Buddha, and his origin as a 'Wandering Syrian' is immediately relevant, not just the archaeological information. It is more important to include this than to focus only upon Archaeological items. By itself Archaeology can only modify who Abraham appears to be. When asking where Abraham was from it still matters where he is from in the story, even more than it might matter in Archaeology. The Archaeology tells some things and suggests Abraham is some kind of an ideal, but doesn't address Abraham's Buddha-like features.

Only problem is, Israelites used him as their originating father, and wrote their origins around his legend.

Its not a problem, and maybe its a feature. It could be a problem for certain people but not for everybody. I doubt its a huge deal for Jainarayan.

 

[Jainarayan]

but taking into account that Jainarayan is a Darmic Deist they are probably interested in Buddha-like types. ... I doubt its a huge deal for Jainarayan.

It's only because I'm interested in history, linguistics, archaeology and other -ologies; it's from a purely academic standpoint, though I was Christian for about 35 years of my 56. It was one of those "hey wait a minute... how could he be the father of the Israelites if he wasn't even Semitic?" brainfarts.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Never say never. In fact, as a casual search on Google reveals, these terms are in common use amongst evolutionists. And your sneer that "creationists are ignorant fools" is sadly typical of the ploys used by evolutionists trying to bully others to ignore the facts and swallow the evolutionary propaganda.

 

[rusra02]

Your post has nothing to do with the reality of evolution.

The world is never going back to a biblical science view, ever! Those were called the dark ages for a reason.

Nor did yours, when you argued since others have accepted evolution, it is encumbent upon us to do likewise. Millions accept the Bible account of creation as scientifically accurate.

 

[Poeticus]

Millions accept the Bible account of creation as scientifically accurate.

Therein in lies the problem. Because, it's not scientifically accurate.

 

[rusra02]

Therein in lies the problem. Because, it's not scientifically accurate.

For example?

 

[Jainarayan]

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped? Joshua 10:13 Okie-dokie!

Maybe this...

 

[Pegg]

It is called that because it was One of the first large civilizations.

It has nothing to do with some mythology you posit, that you also, cannot back up.

'large'?

how many people were there?

 

[Pegg]

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped? Joshua 10:13 Okie-dokie!

Maybe this...

thats not the creation account

 

[outhouse]

'large'?

how many people were there?

6000 years ago, there was enough to start a civilization large enough to develop writing.


Egypt and China followed shortly after


People of all races lived everywhere they do now, 6000 years ago.

 

[EtuMalku]

'large'?

how many people were there?

before 2000 bc the population was around 20,000

 

[outhouse]

Millions accept the Bible account of creation as scientifically accurate.

With ZERO education or REAL knowledge on the subject.



You are embarrassing good theist everywhere.

 

[outhouse]

Nor did yours, when you argued since others have accepted evolution, it is encumbent upon us to do likewise. .

Stop the nonsense.

Evolution is fact as gravity.


There is no debate about the credibility or validity of the facts of evolution. Only certain theist embarrassing themselves through ignorance.

 

[Jainarayan]

thats not the creation account

Is the story of the sun and moon standing still in the bible? That is scientifically impossible, yet our friend rusra02 asked for an example of why the bible is not scientifically accurate. I shouldn't even have to go into Jesus's miracles... not a one of them is scientifically possible.

 

[Pegg]

6000 years ago, there was enough to start a civilization large enough to develop writing.


Egypt and China followed shortly after


People of all races lived everywhere they do now, 6000 years ago.

well then, Mesopotamia was not the cradle of civilisation as the experts claim.

Maybe you should teach them what they dont know.

 

[EtuMalku]

well then, Mesopotamia was not the cradle of civilisation as the experts claim.

Maybe you should teach them what they dont know.

Give it up . . .
"Mesopotamia is generally credited with being the first place where civilized societies truly began to take shape. People around the world had been developing the groundwork for civilization for millennia: Agriculture was established around 8000 B.C. The domestication of animals for labor and food develop*ed simultaneously" [source: Ohio State University].