When was Abraham born and in what country?

[lucy]

Well, it may be a silly idea to you, Vel, but that is EXACTLY the basis upon which Israel stakes its claim, frankly. And that is the basis upon which many in the US who believe in the Bible continue to support Israel, from what I see and hear around me, mostly at churches across the country. Without the Judeo-Christian "folklore" which is believed by a billion people worldwide, Israel would not be the place given for the establishment of a Jewish state.

You can dismiss the thought, but essentially you cannot dismiss what is culturally accepted doctrine for Israel being what it is and where it is.

Now, if you BELIEVE that folklore, then there is some substance to the claim, imo. However, if you DON"T BELIEVE the folklore, then upon what idea does the claim exist to you other than it just happens to be that way....

"this land is mine, God gave this land to me...."

[johnhp]

Well, it may be a silly idea to you, Vel, but that is EXACTLY the basis upon which Israel stakes its claim, frankly.

Inaccurate and untrue.  Some religious groups may make this claim, but it is not the claim of the state itself, nor is it the central claim leading up to the creation of the state.  The modern state of Israel is the result of a long history of persecution of Jews in Europe critiqued in the 19th century around the issue of the "Jewish question" with regard to what we refer to as rights of citizens and culminating with the Holocaust.  The idea of the return to Zion is fundamentally a political quest in which Jews looked to the establishment nation as the solution to their persecution.

And that is the basis upon which many in the US who believe in the Bible continue to support Israel, from what I see and hear around me, mostly at churches across the country. Without the Judeo-Christian "folklore" which is believed by a billion people worldwide, Israel would not be the place given for the establishment of a Jewish state.

Utter rubbish.  Without European lust for blood that was intensified with the Nazis, Israel would not have been founded in the way it was.  Likely, there would have been continued immigration over a longer period of time and a state established without the amount of conflict that we have seen.

You can dismiss the thought, but essentially you cannot dismiss what is culturally accepted doctrine for Israel being what it is and where it is.

It can certainly be dismissed in an attempt to search for fact.

[lucy]

Why Israel then? And certainly why, as Golda Meier complained, the one spot in all the ME without oil/

Return. Well, they needed a place to go after WWII and their property had already been confiscated. Since no one wanted a huge fight over whose property was whose in Europe, I daresay the powers that be were happy to allow the Jewish people to settle in the ME. I agree with that fact. What I find odd is that no one wants to admit any religious signficance to the Jews themselves re Israel. Without that, they could have resettled in oil-rich central Asia....etc.

[Malone22]

Poorly.  I think your idiocy is funny. In fact I can count on you being a prick.

Ivanm I would seriously defer to Johnhp's expertise on the subject. With your track record about this subject you should keep your mouth shut.

[Malone22]

Like I said Ivanm you should shut up before you make a fool of  yourself again.

[lucy]

If politics/policies are determined or reinforced by religious beliefs, then regardless of the "truth" of the beliefs, they have profound effects on what we do as a nation and what other nations do likewise, then.

[Velleity]

Something tells me a passage I had posted about not telling Gentiles about Judaism . . .

Medication would probably make those voices go away.

[johnhp]

Who are you to judge?  All he does is inject unsupported claims into what could otherwise be an educational and amiable conversation for those of us who are not "experts" on the matter.

Unsupported claims?  Throughout this thread you seek to identify the Habiru with the Hebrews assuming a linguistic identity between the two.  Only in reply # 37 did you source your remark.  However, if you look at reply # 21, i have already sourced an article (from the conservative Biblical Archaeology Review) that demonstrates why this claim is no longer credible.  i cited, and linked to, an article by Anson Rainey (Pref Emeritus Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Semitic Linguistics Tel Aviv University) that was written for the lay reader on precisely this issue.  i an going to post the first paragraph in full:

It is time to clarify for BAR readers the widely discussed relationship between the habiru, who are well documented in Egyptian and Near Eastern inscriptions, and the Hebrews of the Bible. There is absolutely no relationship!

What is the relationship between the Habiru and the Hebrews?  Rainey writes without equivocation: "There is absolutely no relationship!"

In fact, Habiru is not an ethic designation at all: "It is clear from these references, however, that habiru is not an ethnic designation."


As i attempted to explain to you:

These shasu were the main source of early hill-country settlements in Canaan that represent the Israelites’ settling down. The earliest hill-country settlements from Iron Age I sprang up in marginal areas where pastoralists could graze their flocks and engage in dry farming.

Link to the article.


With regard to the book by G. Ernest Wright.  He was absolutely correct.  Are you referring to his Biblical Archaeology or Bringing Old Testament times to life?  They are very good books, but dated.  Subsequent findings have called into question the association of Habiru and Hebrew, as i have noted several times before on this thread.

[johnhp]

Ivanm I would seriously defer to Johnhp's expertise on the subject. With your track record about this subject you should keep your mouth shut.

Malone,

Thank you.  Did you read that article?  You may like BAR, it is an interesting magazine.

[johnhp]

There is something that "experts" like you and Johnhp, who is very much an atheist based on his comments, do not understand.

Why would you suggest i am an atheist?


 

Let's cut the chase and the bullshit.  Either you tell us the basis of the Jews being the "chosen people" or stay the hell out of it.

That is not the topic.  Look at the subject that begins this thread:

When was Abraham born and in what country?

You began the thread, how in the world do you not know the topic?

[Hollybaere]

Would be nothing. Israel's existence is not based on the Bible and this idea is rather silly.

Really? Then the claim to the Palestinian's land is based on "folklore"?  Certainly that is where this claim of the "covanent" is written and refered to when they back their "justification" to this land.

If Israel's existence is not based on the Bible, then were is it written?? Where is the deed to this land that God supposedly promised, if not in the Bible?

[aeffed]

I have found bits of information about the birth of Abraham and his birthplace.  The first excerpt comes from URL

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/abraham.html#2

From reading the article Abraham was born in the era of 2051 BC to 1951 BC. Is this really true?  Maybe or maybe not, but it provides food for thought and starts a time line for
Abraham's life and journey to the land of Canaan.
______________________________________________________________________________

  
Abraham emerges from the pages of Genesis as the first patriarch whom we are allowed to know well. Enoch, Shem and Eber, great as they were, are allotted only a few verses, whereas the story of Abraham requires 14 chapters to tell (Gen. 12-25). Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:4) and that through him all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3). So Abraham is a key figure indeed, but just when did he live?


2.1 60-year Uncertainty
There has been a long-standing dilemma concerning the birth date of Abraham. There are two choices which have seemed almost equally viable. Up until Abraham, the Book of Genesis records the ages of the fathers at the births of their sons, so that one can add up the ages to get a clear indication of the year of the birth of each. At Abraham, that unbroken chain seems ambiguous for the following reasons.

First, the verse which we expect to be definitive seems unclear: "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran" (Gen. 11:26). Was Terah age 70 when he begat Abram (whose named was later changed to Abraham)? Were the three brothers triplets? For all of the preceding patriarchs, the year of the principal son's birth was listed, followed by the statement that the father also begat other sons and daughters. This appears to be the same pattern, except that the other two sons are named. The clear intent seems to be that Terah was age 70 at Abraham's birth, and that he had two other sons named Nahor and Haran.

An alternate interpretation arises because immediately after the statement that Abraham's father died in Haran at age 205, it says that Abraham departed from Haran at age 75 (Gen. 11:32-12:4). If one assumes that Abraham left immediately after Haran died, then Terah was 130 ( = 205 - 75 ) at Abraham's birth. So was Terah age 70 or 130 at Abraham's birth? And does it really matter?


2.2 Are 60 Years Important?
Does it matter that we know Abraham's birth date to better than 60-year accuracy? To me, it is important to know which of the two alternatives is correct in order to know how the lives of the patriarchs overlap. The Book of Jasher explicitly states that Terah was age 70 at Abraham's birth (Jasher 7:51) and that Noah didn't die until Abraham was 58 years old (Jasher 13:9), which agrees with the first interpretation of the Genesis account. Why was Abraham so righteous when his father worshipped idols? Jasher explains that Abraham was raised and taught by Noah for 39 years, from age 11 to 49 (Jasher 8:36, 9:6, 11:13). Is that true? Could it have been true?

Counting years from the Flood in 2343 BC, Noah died in about 1993 BC. Similarly, the two choices for Abraham are either that he was born about 2051 BC or about 1991 BC. Thus, if Abraham was born when Terah was 130, then Noah could not have known Abraham because Abraham would have been born two years after he died.

A similar question arises concerning the Tower of Babel. According to Genesis, Peleg died about a decade before Noah. Jasher says the Tower of Babel occurred nearly at the end of Peleg's life (Jasher 10:1). If so, then the confusion of tongues occurred when Abraham was about 48. If we knew with certainty when Abraham lived, we might be able to resolve that question, which would help us to know Abraham better. For example, might Abraham have been acquainted with Jared and his group who left Babel to be led to a promised land in the Americas? If so, that might help us understand the context in which the Lord later told Abraham that he would (also) be led to a promised land and father many nations.

The chronology found in Bibles published during the last three centuries generally follows that of Bishop Ussher, who decided that Terah was age 130 at Abraham's birth. L.D.S. Bibles used to list those dates, but then they were dropped when the new L.D.S. edition was published. Even so, our current L.D.S. Bible Dictionary still lists Abraham's birth as occurring after Noah's death. But that is just a hold-over from Ussher, which is not supported by modern revelation as we shall now see.

_____________________________________________________________________________
 
My living bible indicates that Terah was Abraham's father and he and his family one day moved away from Ur of the Chaldeans and headed for Canaan but stopped at Haran, which is north of Canaan in what is now Syria, and settled there.  Terah in time died in Haran and Abraham finally moved on a few years after his death.   I have had to ascertain certain statements in my bible by using other sources
from the internet.

Ur was an ancient city in Sumeria which was part of Mesopotamia.  Mesopotamia was essentially what
is now Iraq and SE Turkey.  
 
The following excerpt from wikipedia seem to support the premise that Abraham was born possbly in southeastern Turkey.

"Mesopotamia (from Greek Μεσοποταμία "[land] between the rivers", rendered in Arabic as بلاد الرافدين bilād al-rāfidayn)[1] is a toponym for the area of the Tigris-Euphrates river system, along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, largely corresponding to modern Iraq,[2] as well as some parts of northeastern Syria,[2] some parts of southeastern Turkey,[2] and some parts of the Khūzestān Province of southwestern Iran.[3][4]"

Terah stopped in Haran with his family of Abraham the son plus others.  Haran is located as follows, and is not in the land of Canaan.


"Harran (Akkadian: Harrânu; Ancient Greek: Κάῤῥαι; Latin: Carrhae) is a district of Şanlıurfa Province in the southeast of Turkey. And is near the border of Syria.
 
A very ancient city which was a major Assyrian commercial, cultural, and religious center, Harran is a valuable archaeological site. It is often identified with Haran, the place in which Abraham lived before he reached Canaan, and with the Haran of Ezekiel 27:23, a city which traded with Tyre. One of Harran's specialties was the odoriferous gum derived from the stobrum tree.[1][2] The city was the chief home of the Mesopotamian moon god Sin, under the Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians/Chaldeans and even into Roman times."

[aeffed]

I can see most discussions assume somehow available information must either be correct (and in need of correct interpretation) or unreliable if not total fiction.   In any case, it appears the real concern has to do with the birthright seemingly documented (or fictionalized) in what is assumed to be either a supernatural guarantee or covenant that needs proper understanding or mythology designed to favor special interests.

Literally minded materialists certainly want to prove or disprove either position and seek more than any serious physicist would expect to find materially, including DNA (which could prove interesting at least, and revealing more than many might be willing to accept).

The reality is that nothing was written down even in the most strict tradition before Moses, meaning everything is essentially oral tradition at least until then.  We hence must rely on spiritual realities rather than physical proofs that even in carbon dating has wide parameters.  Spiritual truths, unfortunately to the disappointment of materialists reflect reality understood subjectively and cannot be proven by any science.   Spiritual truths are totally dependent on the belief of those asserting them and those accepting them.  What is interesting is that the materialists who cannot prove very much, are certainly in a position to challenge all comers when they can find material evidence such as DNA or fossils to challenge false assumptions.   Problem is, belief is belief and not false to any believer who chooses to ignore material evidence.

That is why I always choose to use tradition and beliefs themselves to sort out what can possibly be most true.  Now we already know Mormon tradition is not only newest, but least supported materially, so must rely on consistency.  Now the biggest bone of contention is between Isaac's and Ishmael's immediate heirs, both starting from the bosom of Abraham.

Let Everyone remember that Ishmael, son of Abraham and Hagar are the most Semitic heirs of Abram/Abraham.  Isaac wed a Syrian who bore him twins and conspired with one of them (Jacob/Israel) to cheat the elder (Esau/Edom) of a presumed birthright (who was the guarantor? The one true god recognized by Abraham several times disowned the children of Israel).  Jacob married two of his uncles daughters making all of his heirs 75% Syrian by birth except for the half-tribes of Moses's heirs Ephraim and  Manasseh born of Jethro's daughter, an African.

Instead of worrying where and when Abraham came from, we need to worry about the spiritual heirs who refuse to recognize their own co-consanguinity.  How is it possible to be anti-semitic supporting Syria, Jordanians, Palestinian sons of Edom  or Ishmael's recognized offspring?  If the sons of Israel are once again in God's favor, how did those who lived longest in that promised land for many nations from Abraham now be denied the homeland of some 3,000 years compared to a recent century after 2,000 years absence (only Judah and Levi at that; Samaritans were descended from the northern tribes who intermarried with Edom's progeny)?

[Malone22]

Malone,

Thank you.  Did you read that article?  You may like BAR, it is an interesting magazine.

No I am embarrased to say I haven't...but I will look it up.

But I do know one thing a subject like this, Ivanm could possibly turn it to one of his anti-semitic rants.

[Malone22]

IVANM I knew you wouldn't let me down!