charity wrote:My study on this is not extensive, but what I have seen is a lack of consensus on the placement of Abraham on a timeline. I did find this article, which was interesting and shows some of the uncertainties of dating issues http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/epn_3_bimson.html
Fair enough. As an aside, I wish you'd use the quote feature, as you do on the other board. It works exactly the same here. The bolding is difficult to deal with.
I couldn't check this out because the citation was insufficient to look anything up.
I chose that as representative, as several museums and universities I checked view the location of Ur as a given.
All I could find was one source which said that the Tal al Mugayyar site was the "most popular" among scholars. Which means there are other sites, even if they are not the most popular.
But we have to go beyond "most popular." We were told that more and more archeologists believe it's in southern Turkey. But there's no evidence for this given, other than Gordon's 1958 piece.
Again, runtu. Majority means there are others who don't agree. I would say to this that the majority are often wrong. But of course, I don't think any of us can say for sure what is correct, since it is still up for grabs.
Of course, but Lundquist leads us to believe that Gordon's theory is becoming more and more accepted. Surely you agree that's not the case.
I think this statement, however, is much less than conclusive. "Thus, there is no insurmountable objection to the southern Ur, Ur of the Chaldees, being Abraham’s birthplace—as the Bible describes it."
I didn't say it was conclusive; in fact, I believe I said the article summarized the arguments for and against. But if you read the article (good for you) you read that the case for the minority view is less than solid.
I think your questions is a good one. We don't believe that when the papyrus say they were written by Abraham in his own hand, that Abraham physically wrote them. The original might have been, but certainly the copies were not.
Whether or not Abraham physically wrote them, the text is tightly tied to Egyptian icons and figures. How is that possible given the location Lundquist posits, where they would have used cuneiform tablets?
I don't know that I would agree with that assessment. Or more properly, I should say I am skeptical of the assurance with which we can describe any culture back that far. The history of that area is still very sketchy. A few jar lids and pot sherds from which to make a very complete description of a society.
Wait a minute. Lundquist had just told us that the Ebla tablets gave us a great deal of information about the history of the area, so at least he doesn't think it's all that sketchy. But in general, I agree with you on the sketchiness. That's why I have a huge problem with his "strong Egyptian presence" from one inscription of a name on a jar lid. That's a giant leap unsupported by the evidence.
I don't think I get this point.
How did Abraham know about people who didn't exist yet and what their altars looked like?
Again, so much of this is tentative reconstruction, I don't think this speaks too forcefully against Lundquist.
Well, we disagree. He has to transplant Mesopotamian gods northward for his theory to work, and yet he in the same breath argues for non-Mesopotamian worship.
And yet, when I read the articles you references, their tone is very tentative and conjectural as well. I think that is the nature of the beast.[/b]
Of course it's tentative. That was my point. Lundquist said that he had, and I quote, one "direct confirmatory connection between the Book of Abraham accounts and information found in the Ebla tablets or elsewhere in recent archeological discoveries." That's not tentative or conjectural, and that is the problem with this article. It relies on conjecture and several major stretches and then proclaims direct confirmatory evidence.
You did a lot of work, and I enjoyed reading the references I could find. I think you have done something that hasn't been done of this thread to this point. You have pointed out that the issue has an added layer of complexity. These issues of archeology, anthropology and chronology must be considered as well as the production issues and doctrinal correspondence with ancient texts and traditions.
Thanks. For the record, my point isn't that the Book of Abraham couldn't possibly be true, but rather that we shouldn't rely on sketchy research to claim victory, as Lundquist appears to be doing.