Was Abraham Sumerian, or Babylonian? Aware me

[Sha'irullah]

The location of Ur is known, and it's ruins lie in what is present day Iraq. Abraham is a historical figure. Hhis life overlapped that of Shem, one of Noah's sons, by 150 years. It may have been from Shem that Abraham received knowledge that led him to exercise such strong faith in Jehovah. Despite claims to the contrary, the Bible record stands as historically accurate.

This may surprise you but very little of the Bible can be confirmed. Please confirm, Adam and Eve along with a talking serpent.
....Wait, evolution debunked that .

The Bible is a historical literary piece but it is not historically accurate. Far from it in reality.

Most pieces of the Bible can be accredited to other works actually making it a forgery if anything.

 

[rusra02]

The vast majority of narratives found in scripture cannot be confirm nor denied as there's simply not enough archaeological evidence one way or another.

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.

 

[outhouse]

I don't agree. .

Your opinion is noted.

And it doesnt match what is known.

next it will be the mythical global flood was real :areyoucra

 

[rusra02]

False, he has absolutely NO historicity what so ever.

Sources. You need to supply them

In addition to the extensive evidence throughout the Bible itself, including the testimony of Jesus Christ, Clay tablets from the early second millennium B.C.E. list cities with the names of Abraham’s relatives. These cities include Peleg, Serug, Nahor, Terah, and Haran.—Genesis 11:17-32.
In addition, a relief on the wall of an Egyptian temple at Karnak mentions conquered towns in Israel and also mentions "the field of Abram".
The events mentioned in the relief are also mentioned in the Bible and dated at 993 BCE, long centuries before King Josiah's birth. (1 kings 14:24-28)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The events recorded in the Holy Scriptures by reliable eyewitness historians have more credence, IMO, then many other supposed historical events ...

Could you supply perhaps three nontrivial events which were "recorded in the Holy Scriptures by reliable eyewitness historians."?

 

[outhouse]

In addition to the extensive evidence throughout the Bible itself, including the testimony of Jesus Christ, Clay tablets from the early second millennium B.C.E. list cities with the names of Abraham’s relatives. These cities include Peleg, Serug, Nahor, Terah, and Haran.—Genesis 11:17-32.
In addition, a relief on the wall of an Egyptian temple at Karnak mentions conquered towns in Israel and also mentions "the field of Abram".
The events mentioned in the relief are also mentioned in the Bible and dated at 993 BCE, long centuries before King Josiah's birth. (1 kings 14:24-28)

The bible does not have extensive evidence twoards abraham being historical.

These were discussed earlier in a similar thread yesterday.

It only shows that abraham was a popular name. one is a famer who leased a ox and not the bibical character.

ABRAHAM AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Page 3 goes into complete detail.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Anyone ever here about the ibri?

 

[EtuMalku]

None of which builds any historicity at all for Abraham.

The article only deals with possibilities of biblical matches with the real history of 4000 years ago. Which are totally luck that anything matches up.

Try a better source.

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible's internal chronology places Abraham around 2000 BCE,[5] but the stories in Genesis cannot be definitively related to the known history of that time.[6]

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".[8]

Yeah Wiki is a better source . . . the article (did you read it?) mentions 20,000 clay tablets, you know actual artifacts?

information translated from the Mari tablets would seem to indicate that the Sumerian Ur, not Ur of the Chaldeans, is more likely the place where Abraham and his family started their journey.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Actually, the city of Ur does historically and archaeological exist in southern Sumer. It was originally a pre-Sumerian city (or prehaps a better term is "proto-Sumerian") that was found about 5800 years ago (hence c 3800 BCE). Ur only became prominent in the 3rd millennium BCE, and was responsible for the late Sumerian renaissance in late 3rd millennium BCE, known as the 3rd dynasty of Ur.

After the 3rd dynasty, Ur has declined in early 2nd millennium BCE, where the Amorite dynasty in Babylon conquered all of Sumer and Akkad, including Ur. The first half of 2nd millennium BCE was known as Old Babylonian period. It is around the Old Babylonian period that Abraham emerged from.

However, this Chaldees didn't exist in the Old Babylonian period, or in the Sumerian-Akkadian period.

The land of the Chaldees (or Chaldea) was all the land from Ur to the shore of the Persian Gulf. And this land didn't exist in the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE, for the Persian Gulf was further inland, and the Sumerian cities of Ur and Larsa used to be coastal cities.

From mid-2nd millennium BCE, year-by-year the Persian Gulf recede further back, turning what was once sea (or Gulf) into marshland. Chaldea and the people of Chaldea didn't exist until the marshland became dry land around the early 1st millennium BCE. And some point in time, the a Semitic tribe of people, who became the Chaldees, had migrated to this former sea and former marshland, and conquered all the southern and formerly Sumerian cities.

This is one of the reason why this part of Genesis (Gen. 12) was written in 1st millennium BCE, because the Chaldees or their land didn't exist the Old Babylonian period.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah Wiki is a better source . . . the article (did you read it?) mentions 20,000 clay tablets, you know actual artifacts?

None of which gives any historicity to the biblical Abraham.


You cant even quote your own article for Abrahams historicity, because it isn't there.

I read it. It doesn't even deal with Abrahams


And if you read it, you would see their source is encyclopedias, only twisted to meet a theistic agenda of the timeline 4000 years ago.

 

[EtuMalku]

None of which gives any historicity to the biblical Abraham

I see what you're after . . . ok you're right.

 

[rusra02]

This may surprise you but very little of the Bible can be confirmed. Please confirm, Adam and Eve along with a talking serpent.
....Wait, evolution debunked that .

The Bible is a historical literary piece but it is not historically accurate. Far from it in reality.

Most pieces of the Bible can be accredited to other works actually making it a forgery if anything.

No, the unproven ToE has not disproven the Genesis account of creation, despite many decades of ceaseless propaganda. And not mere historical accuracy marks the Bible, important though that is, but uniquely among sacred texts, the Bible accurately prophesies future events. Your statement that the Bible is a forgery is blatantly false.

 

[rusra02]

Could you supply perhaps three nontrivial events which were "recorded in the Holy Scriptures by reliable eyewitness historians."?

1. Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon - Jeremiah

2. The life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ - Matthew, Mark, John ( Luke, while apparently not an eyewitness, is a proven reliable historian.)

3. Fall of Babylon - Daniel

 

[rusra02]

The bible does not have extensive evidence twoards abraham being historical.

These were discussed earlier in a similar thread yesterday.

It only shows that abraham was a popular name. one is a famer who leased a ox and not the bibical character.

ABRAHAM AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Page 3 goes into complete detail.

What Bible are you reading?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon - Jeremiah
2. The life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ - Matthew, Mark, John ( Luke, while apparently not an eyewitness, is a proven reliable historian.)
3. Fall of Babylon - Daniel

:biglaugh:

 

[Jainarayan]

No, the unproven ToE has not disproven the Genesis account of creation, despite many decades of ceaseless propaganda.

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.

 

[Jainarayan]

1. Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon - Jeremiah

2. The life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ - Matthew, Mark, John ( Luke, while apparently not an eyewitness, is a proven reliable historian.)

3. Fall of Babylon - Daniel

Who verified the existence and reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

 

[outhouse]

1. Destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon - Jeremiah

2. The life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ - Matthew, Mark, John ( Luke, while apparently not an eyewitness, is a proven reliable historian.)

3. Fall of Babylon - Daniel

the gospels were not written by eye witnesses.

The gospel authors are unknown.

 

[outhouse]

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

The bible is not a actual historical account. It is not credible history.

The ToE is now fact.

And ToE doesnt need to disprove the mythology of adam and eve. Two people cannot factually start a breeding population.



IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

The following academies have endorsed this statement
Albanian Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
Australian Academy of Science
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academia Chilena de Ciencias
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Académie des Sciences, France
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
The Academy of Athens, Greece
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Royal Irish Academy
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Mongolian Academy of Sciences
Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
Polish Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Singapore National Academy of Sciences
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society, UK
US National Academy of Sciences
Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
African Academy of Sciences
The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

 

[metis]

Jews only hath the old and above all else they have the Tawrah, the most bloodiest books of them all. There is no way on earth any Jew can fully follow the Tawrat.

There's no doubt that the Laws found in Torah can be very harsh at times, but Judaism didn't stop at Torah but went on to write and follow the Tanakh and then the Talmud, both of which very much put restraints on the overall harshness found in Torah.