[b-hebrew] Ur of the Chaldees

Schmuel schmuel at escape.com
Wed May 11 09:51:38 EDT 2005


Hi b-hebrew,

Subject was: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Eden's Four Rivers (article)

Genesis 11:31
And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. 

Karl W. Randolph
>Further, Abraham was not even from Sumer, but from Ur of the Chaldeans, which spoke a different language. 

Occasionally this has been used as an argument against the integrity of the scriptures, (an anachronism)  and in that context two years back on ABH I pointed out evidence that Abraham's Ur was not the Babylonian Ur, and there was no problem found with the scholarship.  I will share it here now.

Question Asked
>3. Explain the anachronisms (of such things as Abraham coming from the Ur of the Chaldees).

http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/discovered/html/chapter06.htm 

Babel & Ur- Where Were They?

Ever since Woolley's discovery of the ancient city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia, the general consensus among the "learned men and scholars" has been that THIS was Abraham's Ur." But again, this doesn't agree with the Biblical account. It indicates that Abraham make a 600 or so mile detour to the north yet, Canaan was directly WEST of this "UR." Remember, Gen.11:31, tells us distinctly that when Abraham, Terah and Lot left Ur, they were going to CANAAN. 

The cuneiform tablets of Ebla mention a city designated "Ur in the territory of Haran." (See BAR June 1977). The evidence shows local tradition and place names but where was "the Chaldees?" Ur is referred to as "Ur of the Chalices," yet the only mention of Chaldea after this, in the Bible, is referring to the Chaldean dynasty of Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's time, which was almost 1,700 years later! I believe the answer can be found in the religion of the people who continued to live in the region of eastern and central Turkey. The first inhabitants of this region were called "Hurrians," and later "Urartuans," from which the name "Ararat" comes. Inscriptions show that the Urartuans had at least 79 different gods and this conglomeration of gods were called "Khaldis" (Chaldees). In the inscription of Argistis near Van, it states: "This is the spoil of the cities which I obtained for the people of the Khaldis its one year... To Khaldis, the giver, to the Khaldises. the supreme givers, she children of Khaldis the mighty....." 

Sir Charles Marston wrote in "New Bible Evidence" (1934) p. 21, "...Bible commentators as a rule display little respect for the Old Testament when it stands it the way of their conjectures. 
======================================================================

Karl Randolph
(snip)
>Now this is not an argument commanding you to "believe the Bible" (unless you were predisposed to do that before) but just an acknowledgement that linguistically, the Biblical account makes certain claims which you are free to accept as truth or reject as mere legend. 

However, it is helpful if we don't put ourself in a paradigmic box where legend ideas are based on missing alternative basic scriptural geographical understandings. 

========================================================================
Sir Charles Marston wrote in "New Bible Evidence" (1934) p. 21, "...Bible commentators as a rule display little respect for the Old Testament when it stands it the way of their conjectures. 
===================================================================

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/ 






More information about the b-hebrew mailing list