Early Migration

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:06 pm

Src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham

Abraham (also known as ibrahim in Islam), and his family were originally from the city of Ur, which was an ancient city in Mesopotamia.

Abram migrated to Harran, apparently the classical Carrhae, on a branch of the Habor. Thence, after a short stay, he, his wife Sarai, Lot (the son of Abram's brother Haran), and all their followers, departed for Canaan.

Moreover, the names of Abram's forefathers Peleg, Serug, Nahor, and Terah, all appear as names of cities in the region of Haran (Harper's Bible Dictionary, page 373) because cities were named after their rulers.

Look he originated in mesopotamia (not strictly Sumeria at that time (c.2000bce)). Migrated somewhere near syria and then toward Shechem, with is more or less SSW, iirc.

(But as I know you will say, he was a fictional character - so I saved you a little wear and tear on your fingers)

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:10 pm

Oh, no....there was probably someone named Abram or Ibrim living there...

It's "god" who is the ficitional character.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:33 pm

UH-OH. We're talking about Abraham again. Sorry Min. I urge other folks to check out the Abraham/Abram/Brahma thread.

BTW - I have stayed out of the Bible discussions traditionally. But someone needs to say that everything that has been posted in the forum recently has been said before. A long time ago. Mostly by Min.

Old news.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:47 pm

Mostly by Min.

What about my "straight man?"

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:48 pm

Beag,
I know that, as I has reviewed many of the old threads and I also know there are few in this forum who know more about bible history than Min, which makes him pretty adept at debunking B.S. that doesn;t have historical truth. I for one feel we can discuss things without it breaking into a brawl. I am not beating a drum and no one else is either. Countless times we have heard the repeating mantra of how the hebrews absconded with mesopotamian traditions. I don't even know how it came up in this thread, but since it did, I am reminding the readers that the earliest ancestors of the people who would one day be hebrews were from mesopotamia. So these tales were known to them long before they were claimed to have stolen them from the library of Nineveh. I don't think any blood is going to fly over these statements.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:48 pm

You talking about Arch?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:59 pm

breaking into a brawl.

I must have come across in a negative manner that I didn't intend. No brawling here Monk. I was being informative. I've simply read some posts that are put up as "new news". Not trying to ruffle feathers.

One curiousity though. If I come across that way to you, and I apologize for that, why do you never say the same thing to Marduk? Or do you think I rant and rave like he does?

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:20 pm

Beagle wrote:You talking about Arch?

Of course. You know that it never ended.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:33 pm

Yes, I do indeed.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:43 pm

Monk,

Granted that there was a lot of cross-pollination going on but the Babylonians were as far removed chronologically from the Sumerians as the Israelites were. They just happened to be a lot stronger. The tales evolved no matter where they were located.

Outside of fundamentalist circles there is little disagreement about the origins of the Israelites (or proto-Israelites, as William Dever calls them.)

Israel Finkelstein sees the Israelites rising from nomadic groups who were forced to settle down when their Canaanite agricultural trading partners were devastated by the Sea Peoples. William Dever prefers to eliminate the middleman by suggesting that proto-Israelites grew out of the refugees from those burned Canaanite cities. There are compelling arguments on both sides which probably means that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. They both agree on the date, however: c. 1200 BC at the end of the Bronze Age.

It is completely logical to assume that even nomadic tribes would have been exposed to the ideology of the major powers in the area and been influenced by it.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:01 pm

Beag, I sent you a PM. Sorry for misunderstanding your previous posts.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:42 am

I'm upset. Monk's said it for me!

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:31 am

Minimalist wrote:Monk,

It is completely logical to assume that even nomadic tribes would have been exposed to the ideology of the major powers in the area and been influenced by it.

And wanted to legitimise themselves by producing an original myth that gave them an important and ancient pedigree.

Just like the Saxon tribes traced their ancestory back to the gods, and later the English and Scots did so back to Troy and Egypt ....

All cultures do it. The Israelites were no different. And the Bible should be treated as such.

Hmmm. You're right, we have been here before ... !

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:03 am

Essan wrote:And wanted to legitimise themselves by producing an original myth that gave them an important and ancient pedigree.

As did, no doubt, the egyptians and the sumerians.

Just like the Saxon tribes traced their ancestory back to the gods, and later the English and Scots did so back to Troy and Egypt ....

Darn. So if the order of British monarchs was not Noah-Japheth-Samothes-Magus-Saron etc to Brutus, I have to throw out a lot of files. Like this old gem: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16496/16496-8.txt

To suggest people would make it up is shocking!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:12 am

Like I said earlier, this is a wonderfully lively forum!