Evidence from Biblical scholars indicate Abraham is fiction

[_Quantumwave]

Fortigurn wrote:

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.

You state that your conclusions are based on fact, and yet you state:

To state that the only way that information could have been communicated over that time is by oral tradition, is simply untrue. ...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.

Please show me where I made the statement you attribute to me where I say the only way...is by oral tradition. Your statement is obviously not based on fact.

You state that writing had been invented before the time of Abraham, and I fully agree. There are no extant written accounts of Abraham that are dated to his time, but there are cuneiform tablets describing the epic of Gilgamesh, circa 3500 BC and over 25000 cuneiform tablets uncovered at the palace of Mari, on the Euphrates. Mari has a history that includes what is surmised to be the time of Abraham, circa 2000 BC. Translation of some of these tablets sheds light on the culture and commerce of the time. There are many other cuneiform tablets in existence, but none provide information from which authors of the Old Testament did or even could draw from.

[_Fortigurn]

You state that your conclusions are based on fact...

Yes, my conclusion that information regarding Abraham could have been transmitted in a manner other than by oral tradition was indeed based on fact - the fact of the availability of written communication during that time.

Please show me where I made the statement you attribute to me where I say the only way...is by oral tradition.

Right here:

This evidence establishes the argument that the time lapse between the purported adventures of Abraham and the written record is on the order of 1000 years. There is no way any semblance of accuracy can be maintained orally for that period of time!

You explicitly excluded the possibility of any written records prior to 1,000 years after Abraham, and then claimed that oral tradition couldn't bridge the gap. If you were actually saying that the oral tradition theory is irrelevant because this information could have been transmitted by writing, then I certainly apologise for misunderstanding you.

You state that writing had been invented before the time of Abraham, and I fully agree.

Great, so where's the problem?

There are no extant written accounts of Abraham that are dated to his time...

I agree. So what?

...but there are cuneiform tablets describing the epic of Gilgamesh, circa 3500 BC and over 25000 cuneiform tablets uncovered at the palace of Mari, on the Euphrates.

Mari has a history that includes what is surmised to be the time of Abraham, circa 2000 BC. Translation of some of these tablets sheds light on the culture and commerce of the time.

It certainly does. Both the Mari and Nuzi tablets helpfully corroborate the accuracy of the Genesis description of the cultural environment in which Abraham would have lived.

There are many other cuneiform tablets in existence, but none provide information from which authors of the Old Testament did or even could draw from.

None extant, no. And? Would you care to explain how the Genesis record accurately describes the Mari and Nuzi customs of 1,000 years prior to the Jewish monarchy, without having (as you say), 'information from which authors of the Old Testament did or even could draw from'?

[_Quantumwave]

Fort:
My statement:

There is no way any semblance of accuracy can be maintained orally for that period of time!

is valid.

Your statement that this means:

To state that the only way that information could have been communicated over that time is by oral tradition, is simply untrue. ...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.

is clearly erroneous. In fact, the only way to maintain accuracy over that time period would be in writing.

Fortigurn wrote:

Yes, my conclusion that information regarding Abraham could have been transmitted in a manner other than by oral tradition was indeed based on fact - the fact of the availability of written communication during that time.

So do you believe that "written communication during that time" contained the detail of the word-for-word dialogue shown in Genesis between God and Abraham, Abraham and Sarah, etc?

[_Fortigurn]

Fort:
My statement:

There is no way any semblance of accuracy can be maintained orally for that period of time!

is valid.

As a statement of fact, it's questionable. But my point is that in this case it's irrelevant. You treated it as relevant, which is why I challenged your implicit claim that information regarding Abraham was either transmitted orally or not at all.

Your statement that this means:

I did not say that's what it means.

So do you believe that "written communication during that time" contained the detail of the word-for-word dialogue shown in Genesis between God and Abraham, Abraham and Sarah, etc?

No, I don't have to. Operating from a pre-suppositional paradigm, I can rely on Divine revelation.

[_Jason Bourne]

I've mentioned it a couple of times on this forum. I'm a Christadelphian. I've spent a lot of time discussing and researching the Bible, and as a result I've decided to start an apologetic blog. Ask me anything you want. I can't guarantee I'll know the right answers, but I'll never tell you I know if I don't.

Thanks Fortigun. Very interesting. Two other questions. Whence your interest in LDS things and do other main line protestants consider your group a pseudo Christian Cult like they do LDS? The thing that prompts this is Christadelphians rejection of the trinity.

[_Fortigurn]

Whence your interest in LDS thing...

Many years ago I had a friend in Australia who converted. That was my first brush with them. A few years ago (while still in Australia), a couple of missionaries held some talks with a friend of mine and myself over about 6 weeks. They were doing their usual missionary bit, and we thought we'd give them a fair hearing and a more friendly welcome than they were used to. Didn't hit them with any of the big stuff, didn't hit them with any of the flaws in Mormonism actually, mainly just asked them to show us how the Bible and the Book of Mormon agreed (very difficult), and why there was any need for a restoration of a prophetic office when there was a Bible full of prophecies which uninspired men had successfully interpreted for centuries.

They ran up against a brick wall when we didn't feel the burning in the bosom, and that was about it. Nice guys though, and good feelings all round. They were classic TBM chapel Mormons. Absolutely Old Skool to the core. None of this LGT nonsense, they had their official spiel about North America, their carefully illustrated cards to lay out on the table showing us exactly where all the geography was, where people came from and went, what they did when, the works. Any difficult questions such as 'How about archaeological evidence?' were met with 'We can pass your question on to someone who can answer that for you', which I thought was fair enough since they were there to preach, not to be wandering apologists.

We have a number of Mormons here in this country. They've been around for over a decade, but don't get very far. The locals here are very syncretic in their religious beliefs, so dogmatism doesn't have much of a foothold. The population is largely Buddhist, and Christians make up about 5% of the population. Mormons here find their congregations have a high turnover. The classic Utah LDS model just doesn't work over here. Culture's completely different. You'd think they'd have a chance with the ancestor worship, at least.

I came here after being on MADB, and went there after being invited to do so by 'Sargon', on a discussion board at this site.

...and do other main line protestants consider your group a pseudo Christian Cult like they do LDS?

Yes. The North American ones that is. You'll find that outside North America, the whole 'you're-a-cultist-because-you-don't-believe-Jesus-is-God' thing is almost non-existent. It's a homegrown weed.

The thing that prompts this is Christadelphians rejection of the trinity.

Believe me, I come in for my share of abuse and cries of 'heretic', 'cultist', 'you're not Christian', 'you're demon possessed', 'you belong to satan', 'you'll know you're wrong when you're burning in hell', 'if you don't believe Jesus is God, you're damned', and all the other lovely fruits of the North American Evangelical spirit.

[_Jason Bourne]

...and do other main line protestants consider your group a pseudo Christian Cult like they do LDS?

Yes. The North American ones that is. You'll find that outside North America, the whole 'you're-a-cultist-because-you-don't-believe-Jesus-is-God' thing is almost non-existent. It's a homegrown weed.

The thing that prompts this is Christadelphians rejection of the trinity.

Believe me, I come in for my share of abuse and cries of 'heretic', 'cultist', 'you're not Christian', 'you're demon possessed', 'you belong to satan', 'you'll know you're wrong when you're burning in hell', 'if you don't believe Jesus is God, you're damned', and all the other lovely fruits of the North American Evangelical spirit.

[/quote]

Well then that is ONE thing we certianly have in common. Where do you live?

[_marg]

]So do you believe that "written communication during that time" contained the detail of the word-for-word dialogue shown in Genesis between God and Abraham, Abraham and Sarah, etc?

No, I don't have to. Operating from a pre-suppositional paradigm, I can rely on Divine revelation.

You can do whatever you wish, but not logically as a counter in an argument can you invoke divine revelation, until you can demonstrate reasonably such a thing exists.

[_Fortigurn]

You can do whatever you wish, but not logically as a counter in an argument can you invoke divine revelation, until you can demonstrate reasonably such a thing exists.

Of course I can't. That's why I haven't invoked Divine revelation as evidence.

[_Nevo]

Both the Mari and Nuzi tablets helpfully corroborate the accuracy of the Genesis description of the cultural environment in which Abraham would have lived.

This argument was laid to rest more than thirty years ago (see esp. Thomas L. Thompson, The History of the Patriarchal Narratives [1974; repr. 2002] and John Van Seters's Abraham in History and Tradition [1975]).

Even conservative scholars now disavow the alleged parallels between the Nuzi and Mari texts and the patriarchal narratives. One recent "maximalist" treatment notes, for example, that these arguments in favor of the historicity of the patriarchs "have turned out to be weak" and that Thompson and Van Seters et al. have rendered an important service by "disabusing readers of false comparisons" (Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003], 115).