Abraham and Jewish History?!?

[solja247]

I have spent a bit of time looking at the historicity of the Bible, mostly Moses, Abraham and other patriachs. I was reading a lot of skeptic 'mainstream' archaeology and history, saying that Abraham did not exist and was a fabrication, I went to a friend of mine, a biblical scholar, and he asked me a powerful question; Why should we not believe Abraham existed? People want evidence for Abraham's existence, but isnt that absurd? Should we expect evidence? My skeptic mind had no answer, after all, there are large gaps in history, massive gaps, perhaps we should be a little more careful when dismiss historical characters, such as Abraham?
Another thing to take into consideration, is the fact that the Jews had a very very very strong oral tradition. We should NOT dismiss oral, espicially if there is no reason too. Oral tradition is what people used, a fine example of this is the rainbow serpent, in Aboriginal's mythology they believe a rainbow serpent created Australia (or the world?) we know they believe this through oral tradition, they didnt write, they drew and had symbols. Never the less, relied HEAVILY on oral tradition and we take their oral traiditions as being credible, being passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years. However, for some reason, people dismiss the Bible as quick as they can, and largely have no reason why, they dismiss Jewish history (Although they dont dismiss other culture's history) as being 'made up' by the Religous leaders, being copied from the Epic of Gilgamesh and other sacred mythological texts. Is this a reasonable conclusion to come too? Why should we believe that Abraham did not exist?

[Zen Badger]

Never the less, relied HEAVILY on oral tradition and we take their oral traiditions as being credible, being passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years

Who's this "we" you're talking about?

Certainly no-one I know attaches any credibility to the aborigines creation myths, and to use that as a reason to take Abraham seriously is ludicrous.

[Minimalist]

People want evidence for Abraham's existence, but isnt that absurd?

Only to people who are bound and determined to believe whatever bullshit stories they are told. King Arthur was a myth, too. So was jesus.

27Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and (O)Haran became the father of (P)Lot.

28Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his birth, in (Q)Ur of the Chaldeans

Genesis 11 27-28.

Which leads to:

The Biblical text refers to Abraham’s birthplace as “Ur of the Chaldees.” No evidence exists for the term “Chaldean” earlier than the ninth century B.C.

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/Ur.htm

As noted, the Chaldeans did not arrive in Mesopotamia until the Iron Age - long after the alleged time of "Abraham."

[Cerrone]

Never the less, relied HEAVILY on oral tradition and we take their oral traiditions as being credible, being passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years

Who's this "we" you're talking about?

Certainly no-one I know attaches any credibility to the aborigines creation myths, and to use that as a reason to take Abraham seriously is ludicrous.

I think the guys point was more to do with the common trend being that atheists or people with an anti-god/religion agenda (... or is anti-deists the correct term?) will attack christianity or islam, but they don't concern themselves with the more ancient pagan religions like the aboriginies, aztecs or the celts.

I can't answer for anyone else but my explanation of my own anti-deism stems from the fact that i've seen christianity repeatedly as a harmful school of thought, both dangerous to the individual and the society with no basis in truth and no redeeming qualities whatsoever unless the individual wanted to become powerless and exploited, and the society wanted to lower itself to the status of slaves.

That's also the reason I tend to leave Islam alone, whereas the christians have historically been the savage aggressor it's been Islam that has been the enlightened defender, at least around its own borders and that's true today even if you look at the middle east situation objectively. Granted, Islam and Christianity are very similar, but i've always been a great believer in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and socially and certianly ideologically i've always found Muslims more agreeable and generally pleasent compared to the head in the sand or just plain indifferant christians.

With ancient religions, particulary those that followed the "family of gods" and "nature is sacred" trends you can't help but see that the logic in these beliefs is undeniable and at the time presented a functioning and sustainable basis from which many societies and cultures have prospered. Granted, it's still propaganda, but the product of paganism and polythesium never resulted in such misery and instilled dystopian aspirations as christianity caused. And I hasten to add i've studied anthropology and history pretty much all of my life, so I like to think I can claim some authority on the subjects.

Simply put though, in answer to Why you should condemn christianity, judaism and any kind of monothesium and not the ancient religions; it's they believe that this world is false, that god made it for us to exploit and that all we should only concern ourselves with is praying to jesus or allah and looking forward to death after a lifetime of unrelentless labour and suffering, and that our kings and rulers are gods representatives on earth and that any revolution to try and change our lives for the better is an abhorent blasphemy.

Now look at that and compare it to the practise of paganism and polytheist religions with a respect for nature and natural order, who believed that man was equal and had his place in the world and that nature should be respected. Which was their general view of life more or less. So whereas the ancient religions attempted to make mankind be at peace and have harmony in their lives, it's been christianity that's tried to control and exploit the world for the benefit of the people in charge.

Does that help you find an answer at all?

[Minimalist]

but they don't concern themselves with the more ancient pagan religions like the aboriginies, aztecs or the celts.

Simple answer is those people are not annoying the shit out of us anymore.

[solja247]

Certainly no-one I know attaches any credibility to the aborigines creation myths, and to use that as a reason to take Abraham seriously is ludicrous.

I used Abraham and the dreaming time because they both rely heavily on oral tradition, I dont know many other peoples who relied on oral traditions. But we take the oral tradition of the Aboriginal's as credible, of what the Aboriginals have believed for a very long time, yet we dismiss the Bible in its entirety when, there is no reason to take the Torah as being metaphoric, or not to be taken literal.

King Arthur was a myth, too. So was jesus.

So was Socrates...

As noted, the Chaldeans did not arrive in Mesopotamia until the Iron Age - long after the alleged time of "Abraham."

We have to be careful, archaeology is always digging and proving old theories wrong...
Although, the article said something which seems to be more so the case:

"If we suppose that the Genesis text has a much earlier origin, then “of the Chaldees” could be an explanation added to the text at a time when the location of Ur needed to be clarified. The phrase may not be part of a tradition reaching back to Abraham’s time, but the information it preserves—namely, that Abraham came from Babylonia—could well be part of the ancient tradition."

Dr Hoffmeier in his book, 'The Archaeology of the Bible' has a lot of stuff to say for example, that the 6,000 recorded West Semetic names, 'Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael and Joseph' are more popular in the first of the second millennium bc, than the second half. Reading Abraham's life, in the Bible, shows ancient beliefs like, 'Alliances, treaties, marriage and children.'

I can't answer for anyone else but my explanation of my own anti-deism stems from the fact that i've seen christianity repeatedly as a harmful school of thought, both dangerous to the individual and the society with no basis in truth and no redeeming qualities whatsoever unless the individual wanted to become powerless and exploited, and the society wanted to lower itself to the status of slaves.

'Asians cant drive' is exactly the same sort of sterotyping you are doing above...

That's also the reason I tend to leave Islam alone, whereas the christians have historically been the savage aggressor

No. Yes, in the West, but not in the East (Asia) or in the South (Africa) it lived there for centuries, relatively peaceful...
You may find this incredible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianit...he_Mongols (I know I did)

Islam that has been the enlightened defender

Not really...

Simply put though, in answer to Why you should condemn christianity, judaism and any kind of monothesium and not the ancient religions; it's they believe that this world is false, that god made it for us to exploit and that all we should only concern ourselves with is praying to jesus or allah and looking forward to death after a lifetime of unrelentless labour and suffering, and that our kings and rulers are gods representatives on earth and that any revolution to try and change our lives for the better is an abhorent blasphemy.

Thats not what I asked. Why should we dismiss Moses, Abraham, David and so forth? We have no reason at all!

So whereas the ancient religions attempted to make mankind be at peace and have harmony in their lives

Really?

[Minimalist]

We have to be careful, archaeology is always digging and proving old theories wrong...

Right you are! It has trashed your fucking bible in the last 35 years.

[Cerrone]

So was Socrates...

Are you actually joking?

'Asians cant drive' is exactly the same sort of sterotyping you are doing above...

LOL so if a man rapes a woman is it wrong to stereotype him as a rapist?

No. Yes, in the West, but not in the East (Asia) or in the South (Africa) it lived there for centuries, relatively peaceful...
You may find this incredible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianit...he_Mongols (I know I did)

No I didn't find that incredible, I certianly found this part to prove my stereotyping as true though..

When the Mongols conquered Baghdad in 1258, many of the citizens of the city were massacred, but the Christian inhabitants were spared. As the Mongol Empire further encroached upon Palestine, there were some attempts at forming a Franco-Mongol alliance with the Christians of Europe against the Muslims.

Thats not what I asked. Why should we dismiss Moses, Abraham, David and so forth? We have no reason at all!

I already answered your question and presented you with a practical reason why the dismissal of Moses, Abraham, David and so frorth was not only valid but should be actively encouraged.

We have to be careful, archaeology is always digging and proving old theories wrong...

Right you are! It has trashed your fucking bible in the last 35 years.

[solja247]

it's they believe that this world is false, that god made it for us to exploit and that all we should only concern ourselves with is praying to jesus or allah and looking forward to death after a lifetime of unrelentless labour and suffering, and that our kings and rulers are gods representatives on earth and that any revolution to try and change our lives for the better is an abhorent blasphemy.

lets talk about this. I am writing an essay on Romans 13 (obeying the law) it is rather fascinating...

Are you actually joking?

Where is your EMPIRICAL evidence, that Socrates existed?

LOL so if a man rapes a woman is it wrong to stereotype him as a rapist?

If all men raped women, it wouldnt be a sterotype, since all men dont rape women...

No I didn't find that incredible, I certianly found this part to prove my stereotyping as true though..

Are you like modern readers, who dismiss all the crimes in the world committed by pagan and other religions, but when a Christians does something you go, 'OMG look Christians are evil!' Mongolia had a lot of Christians (dare I say Christian soldiers), however, it wasnt Christian, Christians under Islam regime gladly accepted the Mongols as their new leaders, is that a problem?

Anyways, it worked bad for them, as when the Mongols left, persecution by the Muslims started, this time, with an iron fist...

I already answered your question and presented you with a practical reason why the dismissal of Moses, Abraham, David and so frorth was not only valid but should be actively encouraged.

If that was your answer, it wasnt historical or archaeological, it was a theological answer...

---

Right you are! It has trashed your fucking bible in the last 35 years.

How so?

[Zen Badger]

I used Abraham and the dreaming time because they both rely heavily on oral tradition, I dont know many other peoples who relied on oral traditions. But we take the oral tradition of the Aboriginal's as credible, of what the Aboriginals have believed for a very long time, yet we dismiss the Bible in its entirety when, there is no reason to take the Torah as being metaphoric, or not to be taken literal.

I'll ask this again. Who takes the the dreamtime credibly? Who is this "we" that thinks it is true?

Provide evidence for your assertation or you're talking out your arse.