And I said when I posted it that I hadn't seen it before. And, I still don't know that it's true, just that it's an idea someone has that king Terru could be Terah. But even if it is true, why doesn't the story of Abraham mention that his dad was a king?
Regardless, quoting one of the most famous bits of the ten commandments to me (which obviously I've heard before) doesn't answer my question.
I think these guys got kicked off TRS because they're so arrogant and argumentative about religion. I enjoyed some of their podcasts, learned a lot. But this attitude of their own infallibility is as annoying as the pope.
No, I think there's a lot more of the OT that is Euhemerist than just the Abraham story. I'm sorry you're so poorly educated about ANE history, you're missing a lot. Meiroop is well known, hard to study ANE history without coming across his papers. You should read some of them.
Meiroop probably doesn't comment on such things, I haven't seen him write about it. If you'd ever studied ANE history, you'd know that it's taboo to say things that might upset jews. They usually sidestep such things, I doubt he's religious. In general, the Chaldean migration is used as evidence for a late dating of the writing of Genesis.
No, I had a professor in a private conversation say that Abraham could be a god. If you read much ancient literature the similarities jump out. But it's a topic avoided in lectures because guys like you will start ranting.
I can't find the original articles I read about it, more than a decade ago, the internet is very good a burying older stuff. But this newer article is sufficient. I'm surprised you never investigated it.
Yes, could be. Funny, I can say that and it doesn't change how I feel about Jesus. But you get apoplectic if someone says something you don't like about the Bible. Question: Since everyone descended from Adam and Eve, so they all knew about God, and "Zeus" just means "god" why is it so offensive to consider the various ancient forms of storm god worship as God worship? Maybe they were doing it wrong, but it looks like they were trying.
That didn't answer my question. If Super is wrong about the location of Ur, does that mean he's leading people to false beliefs, or just didn't know about the debate?
There aren't centuries and centuries of scholarship claiming Ur was located in Southern Mesopotamia. There's centuries and centuries of tradition in Sanliurfa itself, and among the people of the Mid-East, that it is the home of Abraham. Wooley started the claim that it was the Southern Ur, and as the article points out, his evidence is weak at best. You are not an archaeologist or a historian, you're a preacher.
And, like so many preachers, you start with stating that the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant and infallible, then proceed to claim you're inerrant and infallible in your reading of it. I didn't claim God lied or that you lied, just suggested the story might be a lot more interesting than you are noticing.
If you'd read the article I gave you, or any article about the Chaldeans, you'd already know this: Eusebius was mistaken, because the Chaldeans were not even in Southern Mesopotamia until the 9th century. " The Chaldean tribes started to migrate—from exactly where scholars aren't sure—into the south of Mesopotamia in the ninth century B.C. At this time, they began to take over the areas around Babylon, notes scholar Marc van de Mieroop in his A History of the Ancient Near East, along with another people called the Arameans. They were divided into three main tribes, the Bit-Dakkuri, the Bit-Amukani, and the Bit-Jakin, against whom the Assyrians waged war in the ninth century B.C." https://www.learnreligions.com/the-chaldeans-of-ancient-mesopotamia-117396
Weak, everyone here knows my stance on the Holohoax.
You're insisting on a Fundamentalist interpretation, that serves Zionists. jews need Abraham to be a human, so they can claim genetic inheritance. But as spiritual heirs, it makes no difference to Christians if Abraham was a man, or a god with a Euhemerist story.
And, there's zero archaeological evidence for Israelite monotheism. There's tons of evidence they followed traditions very similar to their neighbors. And the OT testifies to those practices. The OT was not a contemporary composition, it's a retrospective, reflecting the beliefs of the authors who lived a long time after the described events.
That's what the baby killing neighbors believed. They sacrificed babies to become deified, to become messengers to the spiritual realm. It was done at times of distress, to ask the gods for help. It was also done to establish cult sites, and sometimes for the founding of cities. The sacrifice victim became the god of that site.