DiscussMormonism.com

A traditional chronology can be constructed from the Masoretic Text as follows: If Solomon's temple was begun when most scholars put it, ca. 960-970 BC/BCE, using e.g. 966, we get 1446 for the Exodus (I Ki. 6:1). There were 400 years reportedly spent in Egypt (Ex. 12:40), and then we only need add years from Jacob's going into Egypt to Abraham. So, we can add that Jacob was supposedly 130 when he came to Egypt (Gen. 47:9), Isaac was 60 years old when he had Jacob (Gen. 25:26) and Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born, and we get 1446 + 400 + 130 + 60 + 100 = 2136 BC/BCE for Abram's birth. (A considerable variety of scriptural chronologies are possible, however.)

Oral Tradition. We must first turn our attention to a factor of fundamental importance in the formation of Israelite literature—the factor of oral tradition. It is generally accepted that no Israelite literature was written extensively before the reign of David. It is altogether unlikely that much of the prophetic literature was composed in writing. The later historical books, the Former Prophets, contain extensive passages which must have been formed in oral tradition before writing. Our questions about literature in society must recognize that the things written were composed and retained orally before their writing, and in some instances they were retained in oral tradition for several centuries.

Many scholars claim, on the basis of archaeological and philological evidence, that many stories in the Pentateuch, including the accounts about Abraham, Moses were written under king Josiah (7th century BC/BCE) or king Hezekiah (8th century BC/BCE) in order to provide a historical framework for the monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Some scholars point out that the archives of neighboring countries with written records that survive, such as Egypt, Assyria, etc., show no trace of the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC/BCE.

Evidence from Biblical scholars indicate Abraham is fiction
Scholars conclude that the time lapse between the epic of Abraham and the first recorded accounts are on the order of 1000 years. During this time, it is suggested that the history of the Semite (Hebrew, Arabic and others) people was maintained by an oral tradition.

This being the case, it is extremely improbable that the characters Abraham, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac, et al, were real people. Even if one were persuaded of the existence of these characters, it is a stretch to believe the exact word-for-word dialogue between God and Abraham, Abraham and Sarah, etc were preserved in the detail given in Genesis. The one and only way this level of detail can be preserved is with the use of on-the-spot recording by a stenographer or audio recording device. There are no extant original records of the epic of Abraham which date back to the time of his reported adventures.

Roger Morrison wrote:

Evidence from Biblical scholars indicate Abraham is fiction
Scholars conclude that the time lapse between the epic of Abraham and the first recorded accounts are on the order of 1000 years. During this time, it is suggested that the history of the Semite (Hebrew, Arabic and others) people was maintained by an oral tradition.

This being the case, it is extremely improbable that the characters Abraham, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac, et al, were real people. Even if one were persuaded of the existence of these characters, it is a stretch to believe the exact word-for-word dialogue between God and Abraham, Abraham and Sarah, etc were preserved in the detail given in Genesis. The one and only way this level of detail can be preserved is with the use of on-the-spot recording by a stenographer or audio recording device. There are no extant original records of the epic of Abraham which date back to the time of his reported adventures.

That's a relief!! Never did like Abe, or his progeny. Not nice folks! What does that do to "The Book of Abraham"?

What does that do to "The Book of Abraham"?

Quantumwave wrote:Scholars conclude that the time lapse between the epic of Abraham and the first recorded accounts are on the order of 1000 years. During this time, it is suggested that the history of the Semite (Hebrew, Arabic and others) people was maintained by an oral tradition.

This being the case, it is extremely improbable that the characters Abraham, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac, et al, were real people.

Even if one were persuaded of the existence of these characters, it is a stretch to believe the exact word-for-word dialogue between God and Abraham, Abraham and Sarah, etc were preserved in the detail given in Genesis.

The one and only way this level of detail can be preserved is with the use of on-the-spot recording by a stenographer or audio recording device.

Do you have anything else?

Quantumwave wrote:Certainly! Besides the pot-shot questions, do you have any evidence of your own to support what appears (even though you haven't stated a position) to be your belief that the story of Abraham is true?

I have provided evidence from Bible scholars...

...which you seem to reject, (wiithout being explicit)...

...so what evidence do you have to refute the conclusion I have made?

Jason Bourne wrote:Fortigun

I would be interested if you can refer me to historical evidence of Abraham.

As an aside I have been very interested in some of your arguments and am curous, if you are willing to share, what you religous views and background are. You seemt to be an LDS Critic but I am not sure where you relgous beliefs lay.

Quantumwave wrote:Certainly! Besides the pot-shot questions, do you have any evidence of your own to support what appears (even though you haven't stated a position) to be your belief that the story of Abraham is true?

In the absence of such evidence, the existence of Abraham as a person is a matter of faith.

I have provided evidence from Bible scholars...

...so what evidence do you have to refute the conclusion I have made?

Quantumwave wrote:QW: What are you placing your "faith" in?

The Hebrew scribes who wrote the story of Abraham about 1000 years hence, were living at a time the culture of the region was very similar to "the socio-cultural environment of a person such as Abraham would have been", so it was natural for them to be able to portray such conditions.

No they weren't. A thousand years after Abraham, his descendants were living in Egypt, in a completely different region with a completely different culture. How much have you actually read on this subject?

QW: I place confidence in the statements of professionals. They base their conclusions on many years of study and research they have invested to obtain their advanced degrees in the field of theology.

You're now committing the fallacy of the appeal to authority, because you are appealing to the 'many years of study and research' of unspecified scholars, in unspecified fields, assessing unspecified evidence, making unspecified statements. Bring some evidence and scholarship to the table, and we'll talk.

You, however, base your opinion on faith???????

No I don't base my opinion on faith. But when I express my opinion, I don't pretend it's a fact. I've told you outright that my belief in Abraham as a real person is based on faith, and I don't pretend otherwise. But it is based on an informed faith. I believe there is sufficient evidence to rely on the record of Abraham as valid.

It is your opinion that what you call opinions of Bible scholars is wrong. Your opinion is simply just an opinion.

When I referred to the opinions you quoted, I was making a statement of fact. It is simply an opinion to say that the only way information regarding Abraham could have been communicated from his time to 1,000 years later is by oral tradition. That, as I pointed out, is an opinion. You even correctly cited it as a 'suggestion', but immediately went on to treat it as a fact:

...it is suggested that...

[...]

This being the case...

See that? You started off with a suggestion, and a sentence later you'd turned it into a cast iron fact.

To state that the only way that information could have been communicated over that time is by oral tradition, is simply untrue. That is not an opinion, that is based on the fact that writing had already been invented before Abraham lived, and people were actually using it to communicate information. Various Akkadian tablets managed to survive numerous wars and invasions, two major cultural changes, and three different scribal languages (Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian), to end up copied in the late Babylonian era with their message intact - that's covering some 2,000 years of scribal tradition from around 2,500 BC to 500 BC. So please don't tell me information could only be transmitted from Abraham's day to 1,000 years later by oral tradition. It's clearly untrue.

QW: My reasoning is simple; it is based on the confidence I have in the statements of professional Bible scholars. If my reasoning is flawed, then the information provided by the scholars must be invalid. Can you substantiate this?