Who was Abraham that religions get named after him?

[Robittybob1]

 

 

You have a totally extraordinary ability to miss the point. It is amazing. If there were Olympics in missing the point, you would get Gold.

OK so what was the point of mentioning Pi? It went back to fractions but where did fractions come from in the discussion on Abraham? Do I have to scroll up? Bad maths in the Old Testament that's right.

I just read the summary of Abraham's life story http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Abraham.aspx and none of it seems PC for today.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Delta1212]

 

 

You think God can't do fractions? But he is omnipotent!

 

"This opening was round, and with its basework it measured a cubit and a half."

1 Kings 7:31

(Among many others.)

In which case, maybe he was dealing with non-Euclidean geometries, just because. If you're omnipotent, you can bend space to make Pi 3 if you really want to.

[Robittybob1]

In which case, maybe he was dealing with non-Euclidean geometries, just because. If you're omnipotent, you can bend space to make Pi 3 if you really want to.

The passage in question seems to be just a person describing a physical object. God doesn't come into it.

You could still be right about the omnipotence nonetheless.

[dimreepr]

Is there any truth to his existence? What did he really do to get all this respect?

 

 

He was a dude who did stuff that got remembered (for some reason).

[disarray]

Yes, there doesn't seem to be any non-scriptural, significant historical evidence for Abraham's existence. But doesn't it then follow that we can't put much credence that his putative descendants actually existed either..... So, isn't the whole distinction between the Jewish/Christian lineage (from Isaac) and the Islamic one (from Ishmael) rather chimerical.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, there doesn't seem to be any non-scriptural, significant historical evidence for Abraham's existence. But doesn't it then follow that we can't put much credence that his putative descendants actually existed either..... So, isn't the whole distinction between the Jewish/Christian lineage (from Isaac) and the Islamic one (from Ishmael) rather chimerical.

I've heard of the word chimera. What did you mean by "chimerical"?

Google definition: chimerical. 1 : existing only as the product of unchecked imagination : fantastically visionary or improbable.

 

How many of us can trace the history of our families back 500 years? Maybe the family tree of Abraham has now been lost but it was still around when they wrote the beginning of the Old Testament.

(Parts of my family tree can be traced to the 1300's but that is just one branch of it, it would be so easy to lose it, unless it is copied and backed up.) I could imagine that wasn't that easy back then. Still not easy today unless you are disciplined. Digital files can be impossible to access if the device malfunctions.

 

I always thought it funny how Genesis records the words of Adam long before the advent of paper and writing.

When does the chimerical story become merged into reality?

 

Our country (NZ) is based on the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a half decomposed moth eaten copy left to prove it. Will this too become the thing of legends in the future? Maybe not for there is much effort in trying to preserve it. It seems we have to be cautious of discounting all our past.

https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1318981529/136/5814136.jpg (It is weird to look at this picture for me. Makes my hairs on my arms stand on end.)

Edited June 3, 2016 by Robittybob1

[disarray]

Robittybob1:

 

Well, sure, we shouldn't have too high expectations to find the equivalent of hospital birth certificates of Abraham. But the problem is much greater than just a lack of family tree documents. There is just no evidence at all that Abraham was an actual person, or that the narrative of his existence was anything other than fiction. Given the unlikelihood of some of the events described, e.g., number of descendants, I used the word chimerical as per the definition you gave, in order to describe how I viewed claims that this Biblical character actually existed, or at least existed in the manner in which he was described in the Bible, so that, even if there was one or more men called Abraham, or Ibrahim or whatever, who was a tribal leader with lots of offspring whose deeds resembled those of the Abrahamic character of the Bible, we have no way to determine which events associated with him actually happened, or are just improbably visions and fantasies, e.g., spending three days in a furnace unharmed.

 

'When I asked scholars the question, "Was there ever a man called Abraham?" as often as not they were respectful (we can't disprove it) but convinced of the futility of trying to find a flesh-and-blood individual. "Abraham is beyond recovery," said Israel Finkelstein, a biblical archaeologist at Tel Aviv University. Without any proof of the patriarch's existence, the search for a historical Abraham is even more difficult than the search for a historical Jesus.'

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/features/world/asia/israel/abraham-text

 

At least with your Treaty...moth-eaten or not, there is some evidence, so it is a moot point as to whether future generations can believe in it. My point is that one should not believe in legendary figures such as Robin Hood or King Arthur or whatever unless there is some credible evidence to support myth and rumor. It seems to me that the onus is on a storyteller to give evidence that something really happened, especially when the story seems like an unlikely fantasy, not the other way around.

 

[Robittybob1]

 

Robittybob1:

 

Well, sure, we shouldn't have too high expectations to find the equivalent of hospital birth certificates of Abraham. But the problem is much greater than just a lack of family tree documents. There is just no evidence at all that Abraham was an actual person, or that the narrative of his existence was anything other than fiction. .....

Well I have only access to a bit of paper that traces my ancestry back to King Henry III. What actual evidence could there be? Records can now be photocopied or put onto the internet, but I just remember it as a hand copied family tree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_III_of_England

 

 

It seems to me that the onus is on a storyteller to give evidence that something really happened,

What form do you think this could take? This would have to be something indivisible and so would be liable to be lost over the centuries. Who owns this and where is it going to be kept?

Edited June 4, 2016 by Robittybob1

[disarray]

Robbitybob1:

 

Well, again, I don't expect to have high expectations that someone produce some sort of primary certified document that proves their lineage, birth, death, or what have you. But I don't see any need to let the question as to the existence of someone in the past rest entirely on the availability of such personal documents.

 

Let's broaden our perspective a little....I suspect that we can produce a whole range and network of primary and secondary sources, for example, that support the claim that various Kings and Queens of Europe actually existed. On the other hand, we don't have that sort of non-scriptural information to support the existence of Abraham.

 

But that aside, the point I just made was that the onus is particularly on those making claims about the existence of some historical character who has been credited with a number of fantastic and improbable (aka chimerical) accomplishments, e.g., miracles:

• Came out of burning furnace just fine after a few days, when he should have been ashes
• Ancestor of the Son of God
• Could, with the help of Allah, cut four birds into pieces, scatter the pieces on various mountain tops...wait, and then the birds fly back alive and in one piece
• Given a tour of heaven ( Quran 6:75)
• etc.

If you are just going to say that there was a man named Abraham, who had some wives and children and made a few prophecies, well that's fine....I don't expect such a person to have left much evidence of his existence behind. But if, in your story about a character in the past, you claim that he participated in miracles and was given huge tracts of land by God (or Allah), then I think that it is up to the storyteller to give me some evidence as to just why I should believe it.

 

Similarly, if you are making the claim that a man named Robin (or Robert, or Ron, or Rupert or whatever) robbed some people who complained that they were being unfairly taxed, well, that could be any number of forest thieves, and, since there is nothing particularly remarkable or unusual about such a person, I really don't expect or care to see any evidence that there was one who had a particular name. However, if some story, which there is, credits him with being able to hit a target a mile away with his bow, a feat generally considered impossible at the time, then the onus is on the storyteller to provide reasons why such an "improbable" (as in chimerical) event ever took place.

 

In particular, it would seem that the story of Abraham is more of a legend than anything else, given the paucity of historical evidence that the miracles he participated in ever occurred. (And by legend, I mean, a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated.)

 

But as we know, the culture of many a nation is filled with claims that their present or past leaders had all sorts of supernatural powers or associations, e.g., a great number of the kings and queens of Europe. In particular, James I of England made a great display about his divine right to rule. An example of this tendency for royalty to declare that there family tree can be traced back to divine characters is found this site claiming that British rulers could trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve: http://www.jesusevidence.org/gen.html

 

So, I am not looking just at the evidence, nor am I expecting an unusual amount of evidence, but rather, I am looking at possible motives for claiming that Abraham was a character who hobnobbed with God and performed miracles. Quite a difference between asking for evidence for a quasi-divine figure such as Abraham, and asking for evidence of blood quantum, or debating whether John Henry or Homer were actual persons or just legends.

Edited June 4, 2016 by disarray

[Robittybob1]

@Disarray - From memory Abraham led a fairly mundane life (see below *), except for his wife having a child (Isaac, at an extreme old age. was it at 90 years of age? All the promises of land and vast numbers of descendants were for future generations.

Maybe a tomb or an inscription will be found oneday.

 

[* I have just listened to a talk about the history of Abraham's life and it appears he was some sort of sheik at the time, so a leader of a tribe.]

Edited June 4, 2016 by Robittybob1

[disarray]

Robbitybob1:

 

I wonder how many sheiks were called Abraham? The personage of Abraham is so vague that it doesn't really matter whether one says he existed or not since no one has any idea who they are talking about. I don't usually quote from Wiki, but since the source was given, I think that this sentence sums it up pretty well:

"The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age,along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history. McNutt, p. 41-42."

So its a story of his life can't even be connected with any definite historical period, but rather is just a vague literary construct, e.g., a work of fiction.

 

"A common hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity, and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counter-claim on Moses and the Exodus tradition." Ska 2006 p. 227-228, 260.

So its a bit of folklore that was made up by Jewish landowners to claim that certain land belonged to them.

 

Ultimately, it is not whether a tribal leader existed, but whether the crucial events attributed to him can be substantiated in any way (No!), and whether anyone would have a motive to make up these events (Yes!). The most relevant event was that God gave Canaan to Abraham, now modern day Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. (Hmm...has there ever been any conflict over these lands?) Even today some Muslims claim to be descendants of the original Canaanites in order to substantiate their claim over these lands, while Jews claim the land was given to them through Abraham and later through Joshua. Both Muslims and Christians believe in Abraham, but they give quite different interpretations as to what events took place, to say the least, and as to who rightfully owns the Holy Lands. Suggesting that Abraham didn't really exist in the first place, or, that God did not promise the Israel, etc. to him certainly would be a blow to Jewish claims that they are entitled to this land.

 

So no, we don't have a tomb or inscription, and even if we did, that would not really solve anything, as it would not give us any clues as to whether Abraham could sit in a burning furnace for several days without being hurt and whether God promised him the Holy Lands.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by disarray

[Robittybob1]

 

...

 

So no, we don't have a tomb or inscription, and even if we did, that would not really solve anything, as it would not give us any clues as to whether Abraham could sit in a burning furnace for several days without being hurt and whether God promised him the Holy Lands.

.

Are you getting mixed up with Daniel? I'll have to go and read the story of Abraham again for I don't remember that bit, yet you have mentioned it three times.

 

It is a story not without its relevance to today's political situation as you have pointed out. It might be like NZ, we need to maintain that treaty so that in future years we can claim this land jointly. When I say that it doesn't seem to stake the claim as much as the promise to Abraham.

 

I've never doubted the reality of Abraham even though the thought of sacrificing the child on an altar has always disturbed me, but I realise these practices were common in the times past.

I don't find the story that remarkable that it could not have happened. If you looked at the story of Moses then you have to wonder. It has just got those examples of faith in it.

OK doing a bit more research the story of Abraham surviving the furnace is a Jewish story, and is not found in the Bible. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112063/jewish/Abrahams-Early-Life.htm

 

Such an important event as Abraham's defiance of Nimrod, the king and leader of all the heathens and idol worshippers of his time, which led to Abraham's being thrown into a burning furnace, is only hinted in the Torah. The full story of this and other important events in Abraham's early life was only told by word of mouth, from generation to generation, until the details were finally recorded by the Sages of the Talmud in various Midrashim. Some of them we have already told you in our previous TALKS, and we will here fill in other interesting details about Abraham's early life, until he reached the age of seventy five.

[disarray]

Indeed, this story of Abraham being saved from a furnace/fire is, say some Christian scholars, a misinterpretation by Jewish writers of the word for city ("UR") as it appears in the Bible (Genesis 15) and that from thence the story likewise found its way into the Quran. Christian scholars then scoff at the misinterpretation as if to prove that only the Bible can be the unerring word of God. But who knows if there really was a misinterpretation.... if anything it just goes to show that the Abraham of one religion's text is not the same Abraham of another religions scriptural text, if one is looking at actual events attributed to him...so, again, it is spurious to claim that it is the same person. Nevertheless, several miraculous events are attributed to Abraham in a variety of scriptural contexts. If one of them was not in the Bible, I hardly see how that fact detracts from my main point that the onus is on those making claims that an alleged historical character actually performed miracles, not on others to prove that he didn't.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_abraham_ur.htm

 

Also, I see no reason why you should dismiss the story as irrelevant, on the basis that it does not appear in the Bible. Are you suggesting that the Bible is a more credible or important source of information than Jewish or Islamic scriptures?

 

I don't think that one can say the story of Abraham's almost sacrificing his child is authentic because it involves faith on Abraham's part, given that it parallels the faith that Moses had , if that is your claim. A more likely explanation is that both stories are merely exampled of writers making up stories that would encourage worshipers to believe things on the basis of blind faith.

 

I remain skeptical that a God promised land to Abraham because history is replete with examples of political and religious leaders concocting stories to justify their taking the land of other people. Indeed, nations frequently claim that God is on their side as they fight over land. One need not do much research on the topic of religious wars to see this....I doubt that you will find a single example (our of hundreds of religious-oriented wars) in which a tribe, village, nation, empire, or whatever fights a war over territory and that claims that God is really on the opposing side.

 

And it's not that I have a problem with the miracles, but rather with the fact that the miracles are so bizarre (e.g., birds being chopped up and then flying back alive and whole to the person who chopped them up the next day) and so typical of the culture of the time. This suggest to me that the miracles attributed to Abraham weren't something that a God would actually devise, but rather just anthropmorphic and culturo-centric literary creations of a people who needed an excuse to justify taking over someone elses territory, much like Americans justified converting or killing Native Americans as they took over their territory on the basis that it was their God given "manifest destiny" and right to do so, and much as Columbus and thousands of Spaniards had previously felt religiously justified in killing and maiming Native Americans in the name of God, as they took over the lands that they inhabited. So much blood shed because of someone's claim that God had whispered in his or some mythical character's ear that his tribe or nation had a right to take over someone elses land.

Edited June 4, 2016 by disarray

[Robittybob1]

@Disarray - well you do have some strong points there, and coming at it from other perspectives which I didn't even know existed.

I'll tackle some of it over the next few days. Thanks for debating the issue.

[dimreepr]

Yes, there doesn't seem to be any non-scriptural, significant historical evidence for Abraham's existence. But doesn't it then follow that we can't put much credence that his putative descendants actually existed either..... So, isn't the whole distinction between the Jewish/Christian lineage (from Isaac) and the Islamic one (from Ishmael) rather chimerical.

 

 

Indeed but history is written in a variety of ways, most of which has a nugget of truth; the actual ‘details’ will always be lost to time but the truth may not, so fundamental questions that require either can never be answered unless we assume there is a truth and hope to stumble onto it.

Some truths are easy to understand, such as, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" .

Some need a little work, such as, 'forgive the guy who just killed your mother'.

Edited June 4, 2016 by dimreepr

[Strange]

I've never doubted the reality of Abraham ...

 

 

 

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Indeed but history is written in a variety of ways, most of which has a nugget of truth; the actual ‘details’ will always be lost to time but the truth may not, so fundamental questions that require either can never be answered unless we assume there is a truth and hope to stumble onto it.

Some truths are easy to understand, such as, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" .

Some need a little work, such as, 'forgive the guy who just killed your mother'.

Abraham in his day would "Do unto others as they'd have done unto unto you and more so they never do it again"

'Don't bother forgiving the guy who just killed your mother just kill him and his family'

 

The Maori in NZ had a word for this, "UTU", which is like revenge. It is how I feel too at times, but this time I strangely forgave.

Google:

 

Utu is a Māori concept of reciprocation, or balance. To retain mana, both friendly and unfriendly actions require an appropriate response - hence utu covers both the reciprocation of kind deeds, and the seeking of revenge.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Robittybob1

[dimreepr]

You're welcome to you're revenge, I hope it brings you peace.

But it won't.

"UTU"?

[disarray]

dimreaper

 

The idea that the truth of laws found in the Bible are indisputable and absolute is perhaps entirely based on the notion that God spoke to various characters, as if they were his mouthpiece...much like the Pope is said to provide infallible truth because he has a direct line to God. So I think that to suggest that the Bible is inerrant because the patriarchs, for example, claim that God told them the truth, and, on the other hand, to say that God must have talked to them because the Bible says so and is an inerrant source is circular and meaningless tautology.

 

I don't doubt that there is a nugget of truth in many of the stories in the Bible....but that really says nothing unless one makes a claim as to what such a nugget might be. If one considers it a detail that Abraham is in direct line of descent from characters such as Adam and Eve and a forefather of Jesus, I would say that is quite a significant claim. Similarly, if God promised Abraham and his descendants that they own a huge chunk of prime (green, lush) real estate, and if God said that only through him and his descendants could other people be eternally saved, then I consider those to be pretty significant details, and not just general nuggets about how to be loving and kind.

 

The devil is in the Abrahamic details when it comes to deciding which religion supposedly has and is the Truth and the Light and the way to Salvation. Christians claim that one becomes a descendant of Abraham through Christian faith, while Jews say that one becomes a descendant through natural birth as a Jew or through conversion to Judaism. Islam also has a different interpretation, and thinks that one benefits from Abraham by having faith in Muhammed, the greatest of all prophets, who was in a line of great prophets beginning with Abraham. Thus, according to Biblical scholar, Jon D. Levenson, there is no "real" Abraham that existed outside of these religions and that is somehow an authority figure in each. (And I don't see how anthropologists and historians can take give much credence to a genealogy that traces Abraham's lineage after just a few generations back to some supposed first humans, Adam and Eve, to whom God also allegedly spoke and gave land. )

Yes, there is a nugget of positive thought in the Abrahamic legend: 'Rabbi Menahem Froman, who lives near Hebron said, "For me Abraham is philosophy, Abraham is culture. Abraham may or may not be historical. Abraham is a message of loving kindness. Abraham is an idea. Abraham is everything. I don't need flesh and blood."'

 

This is all very well and good, and indeed, most of the major monotheistic religions today preach things such as love and kindness. However, it is the details that determine just what religion is considered to be the only one that can do the job of saving a person's soul and which religions are false and even pagan, and to determine just who is the rightful heir of temples and tracts of land.

 

So no, I don't think that the idea that the Abrahamic tradition supports love and kindness towards ones own family and fellow worshipers (and, perhaps, in practice, not so much towards the "infidels" of other religions), has anything to do with whether we accept that Abraham was an actual person, or, to be more precise, has anything to do with whether the events attributed to him actually took place (e.g., God promised ownership of certain lands to his descendants...especially when there is militant controversy as to just who these descendants actually are!).

 

In any case, with all due respect, I don't see that saying that nuggets matter and details don't unless one is actually going to be more specific and spell out just what nuggets and details one is talking about.

Edited June 4, 2016 by disarray

[Robittybob1]

@Disarray - well you do have some strong points there, and coming at it from other perspectives which I didn't even know existed.

I'll tackle some of it over the next few days. Thanks for debating the issue.

@Disarray - I see that article comes from a site called "Answering Islam" was there a reason you chose that article? http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html

Edited June 5, 2016 by Robittybob1

[disarray]

Robittybob1

 

I typically avoid using sources that come from religious websites, owing to the possibility of biased interpretations and information.

 

However, in this case, I thought that it was acceptable because I was actually trying to show that there might be some rationale for the fact that Judaism and Islam contained a narrative about Abraham being in a furnace/fire, while the Bible did not. (In any case, I did not come across any other site that discussed this fine theological point.) Also, I thought it interesting, as I pointed out, that the Christian site was quick to claim that a misinterpretation of Biblical sources had led the other religions to create the story, as if that proved that only the Bible was really the Word of God and the scriptures of other religions were not (as if they were just distorted and poor imitations). In any case, my point was that the onus is on those to provide evidence that the claim made by the religious scriptures to the effect that Abraham could participate in miracles actually took place...and, as I mentioned before....At the end of the day, I don't see why it should matter whether the story was found in all three of the major religions we have been discussing or not.

 

Another point that I was making was that the major monotheistic religions are not in harmony when it comes to agreeing about what events actually occurred in Abraham's lifetime, and indeed, as I mentioned in my last post, the accounts are so different (according to the scholar, Jon D. Levenson, American Hebrew Bible scholar and Professor of Jewish Studies at the Harvard Divinity School, in his book, "Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" (2012) as to make it illogical to presume that there is some neutral and 'real" Abraham that we can claim actually existed apart from the disparate interpretations offered by the various religions. (I did not quote directly from his book as it contravened copyright, but you can download the relevant chapter at http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9815.pdf ).

 

I would acknowledge that Levenson may be presenting a Jewish perspective, but again, I find that this suits my purposes in this situation because I have been consistently maintaining that leading authorities and religious leaders from the major religions that deal with the Abrahamic narrative do not agree as to what he actually did, and therefore do not agree that the Abraham depicted in other religions is valid. In short, even a disinterested person has no reason to think that any one religion's depiction of Abraham is any more valid than any other religion's, and for all intents and purposes, he can not be considered to be the same Abraham (apart from a similar genealogy, which most likely was copied from one religion's scriptural text to another anyway).

 

In any case, I am attempting to take a disinterested anthropological approach, and certainly do not have any interest in advocating religious beliefs or of advocating one religion's viewpoint over another.

Edited June 5, 2016 by disarray

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Let's keep the topic on the historical reality or not of Abraham and not stray into lex talionis etc.

[Robittybob1]

Had to consult the dictionary. I like learning new words thanks.

As far as Abraham goes it appears he is lost in history. The have found a city called "Ur of the Chaldees" and for some reason they have rebuilt a complex there and called it the "House of Abraham", but I didn't see any definitive proof of this.

Stories about Abraham seem to have been embellished with time. The basic story is rather simple and hence seems quite likely.

[disarray]

Luk 3:23-38 shows about 20 generations between Abraham and Adam, and 55 from Abraham to Jesus.

Mat 1:16-2 shows about 40 generattions from Abraham to Jesus.

 

http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/genealogy_of_jesus.htm

 

Then there is the Islamic claim that Muhammed was a descendant of Abraham. One finds other disagreements between Christianity/Judaism and Islam in this regard: "Islam also claims that Abraham and Ishmael founded the city of Mecca, but Mecca was not in existence prior to the 4th century A.D."

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mohammad/ishmael.htm

 

But I don't want to get embroiled in a discussion as to scriptural consistency of genealogies, but rather to point out that scriptural estimates of the time from Adam to Abraham can't possibly be in harmony with standard anthropological estimates: "The ultimate conclusions of this hermeneutical and mathematical analysis—as analyzed herein below—shows the Bible revealed absolute timeframe from the time when Christ created Adam, to the birth of Abraham, is between 1,948 to 1,984 years, i.e., almost but not quite 2,000 solar years."

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PCrFLroZgSMJ:https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Scriptural-Data-to-Calculate-from-Adam-to-Abraham.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

Of course, such a brief span of time is not consistent with mainstream scientific views. Even the theory that there was a single mitochondrial eve goes back much further, and, of course, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is unlikely that scientists will agree that there is any one exact point where we can say that, in the line of hominids, one group is human and previous hominids are not:

 

"Versions of the Adam-and-Eve story date back at least 5,000 years and have been told in cultures from the Mediterranean to the South Pacific to the Americas. The mythmakers spun their tales on the same basic assumption as the scientists: that at some point we all share an ancestor. The scientists don't claim to have found the first woman, merely a common ancestor -- possibly one from the time when modern humans arose. What's startling about this Eve is that she lived 200,000 years ago. This date not only upsets fundamentalists (the Bible's Eve was calculated to have lived 5,992 years ago), it challenges many evolutionists' conviction that the human family tree began much earlier."

http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102%20%28spring%2001%29/articles/tierney.html

Richard Dawkins claims that there is no cutoff point when we can say that humans first came into existence, however, and the Smithsonian outline of the family tree likewise has no cutoff point and traces the human family tree back some 6 million years. (Estimates of 200,000 or 100,000 years ago have more to do with what is termed 'modern homo sapiens'.) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

So even if there were consistent scriptural narratives relating the genealogy of Abraham, we certainly couldn't accept such a truncated genealogy from a secular (non-faith based) point of view.

 

@ Robittybob1: What is this 'basic story' of which you speak....in other words, what, in your opinion, are the basic facts common to all religions, for example, about the life of Abraham? Also, on what grounds do you think that simple stories are likely to be true...if that is the criteria, I think that we have to accept the veracity of many a fairy tale. I am wondering whether the video you posted produces any proof at all that they have found Abraham's house, much less "definitive" proof. I have no doubt that archeologists have unearthed remains of cities that correspond with places mentioned in the Bible, but the fact that the video claims without batting an eye that one 'house' belonged to Abraham suggests to me that some people are unscientifically willing to make extraordinary assumptions based upon sketchy background information.

Edited June 5, 2016 by disarray

[Strange]

 

Then there is the Islamic claim that Muhammed was a descendant of Abraham.

 

 

If Abraham existed then Mohammed would have been a descendant. As would everyone else alive at the time.