[b-hebrew] Re: Eden's Four Rivers (article)
kwrandolph at email.com
Fri May 13 13:54:32 EDT 2005
We have reached an impass where, quite frankly, unless there is significant new information that either of us can present, this discussion will go on without
resolution. Therefore, shall we just call it quits for the moment?
I believe that Abraham was literate, and that he and his sons authored documents that either served as source documents, or were actually incorporated largely
unchanged, when Moses compiled Genesis. As such, nothing that is included in this narrative is an anachronism. There is evidence from literary styles included in
Genesis that Moses had older documents before him.
I totally reject the documentary hypothesis as it stands. After rejecting its philosophical foundation, it is only logical to reject the theoretical superstructure built
on that foundation.
I also would not be surprised if many of the dates claimed for Ur in Sumer are off by as much as a millennium, so that the local flood that Walter Mattfeld
mentions really happened in 1900 BC, not 2900 as is presently dated. If this were the case, then many of the social conditions presently claimed for Abraham’s
time may actually have occurred much later. But without a detailed study, which I have neither the time nor the documentary resources to carry out, I am not able
to demonstrate my suspicions in a rigorous manner.
Items which I think significant, you discount, as can be seen by those edited items listed below. That shows that there is not a meeting of the minds. So let’s just
agree to disagree, and go on to the next subject.
Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>>
> On 13/05/2005 07:18, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > ...
> >> Precisely. There is no evidence for you to rule out him being
> >> from Sumer, and no evidence for others to rule out him being
> >> from Edessa/Urfa. There is insufficient evidence either way.
> > The strongest evidence is the name of the place listed as
> > Abraham’s birth place. That it is connected with a Semitic people
> > argues against it being Sumer. Even a Sumer with a Semitic
> > underclass.
> You misunderstand the situation. The Semites in the southern Ur
> were not an underclass. If, as many do, we date Abraham to the Ur
> III period of revival following the period of domination by the
> Gutians, this was in fact a period of revival of Sumerian culture,
> but only after a period in which Ur and all of southern Mesopotamia
> had been dominated by the Semites of Akkad/Agade. Perhaps Terah and
> Abraham, as Semites, felt unwelcome in an Ur where Sumerians had
> regained dominance, and so moved to more clearly Semitic lands to
> the north west.
> As for the connection with a Semitic people, who were the Kasdim?
> Unless this is an anachronistic reference to the neo-Babylonians of
> Nebuchadnezzar's time, we have no reason to suppose that they were
> Semites rather than Sumerians.
> > ... By naming several places as having the same name, the article
> > explains why the place wasn’t just called “Ur” rather “Ur of the
> > Chaldeas”. Further, looking at the Hebrew pronunciation of
> > Chaldean, K#DYM, it sounds like it indicates a people who in
> > Abraham’s time probably lived north of Babylon, while Sumer was
> > to the south.
> What evidence do you have for who the K#DYM were in Abraham's time?
> That is a serious question, I would be interested in any evidence
> for this people in this period.
> > ... as )WR K#DYM or the equivelant. ...
> No, because I suspect that this name is an anachronism, and because
> if it is not no one knows who the K#DYM were.
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew