Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So? it's the same place----just like the land that the Romans decided to Rename PALESTINE---is really Judea and Israel. TheJoseph Smith's Book of Abraham, which he claimed was written by Abraham himself, repeatedly refers to the land of Chaldea and its inhabitants, the Chaldeans.
Problem is, there was no land of Chaldea or Chaldeans in Abraham's day. They didn't exist until more than a thousand years later.
Joseph Smith obviously made this mistake because he was deriving part of his Abraham story from Genesis 11 which mentions Abraham living in "Ur of the Chaldeans." The reason for this, however, is because the narrative of Abraham in the Bible was written, or at least edited, by later Jewish scribes who were referring to the place as it was known in their day, not in the time of Abraham.
Joseph Smith obviously didn't know this, and, as a result, created an anachronism as bad or worse than any in the Book of Mormon.
So? it's the same place----just like the land that the Romans decided to Rename PALESTINE---is really Judea and Israel. The
state of my childhood was once called the COLONY of---and before that-----no particular name at all ---the NEW WORLD. It is silly to get tied up in Semantics. Copts and Chaldeans are good people to know---they have a grasp on the history of the LEVANT uncorrupted by the islamic version thereof
SO? was MESOPOTAMIA a word back then. Even as a kid I was not stupid enough to imagine that there was a country calledUrfa is not in Mesopotamia.
SO? was MESOPOTAMIA a word back then. Even as a kid I was not stupid enough to imagine that there was a country called
MESOPOTAMIA----it just is a somewhat modern word to describe a
place between (MESO) two rivers----however one says that in
greek or latin. Describing land masses by their proximity to this or that river or mountain was HOW IT WAS DONE. It just does not make the accuracy of current methods but it is still done---kinda poetically. My marriage contract done in Aramaic describes the
location of the marriage in reference to the Hudson river and some other landmarks-----I found the address sorta POETIC---with a timeless quality. You wouldn't understand
there was no Turkey back then. Don't tell Erdogan---he is still working on the OTTOMAN CALIPHATEUrfa is in Turkey.
Genesis 11:31Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, which he claimed was written by Abraham himself, repeatedly refers to the land of Chaldea and its inhabitants, the Chaldeans.
Problem is, there was no land of Chaldea or Chaldeans in Abraham's day. They didn't exist until more than a thousand years later.
Joseph Smith obviously made this mistake because he was deriving part of his Abraham story from Genesis 11 which mentions Abraham living in "Ur of the Chaldeans." The reason for this, however, is because the narrative of Abraham in the Bible was written, or at least edited, by later Jewish scribes who were referring to the place as it was known in their day, not in the time of Abraham.
Joseph Smith obviously didn't know this, and, as a result, created an anachronism as bad or worse than any in the Book of Mormon.
To test Abrahams faith( Gen 22:12)--Abraham knew God made a covenant with him for the nation of Israel( Gen 21:12 to come through Issac. Thus Abraham knew God would bring Issac back to life if he did kill him to keep his promise of that covenant he made about Issac.Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his Son? And why did he say Abraham's ONLY son? Ishmael was also a son of Abraham. Isaac wasn't even the first born. So, I'd like to see responses by Jews, Muslims and Christians on this.
Abraham did not know. He was in anguish when told to do so. Where do you people get such nonsense?To test Abrahams faith( Gen 22:12)--Abraham knew God made a covenant with him for the nation of Israel( Gen 21:12 to come through Issac. Thus Abraham knew God would bring Issac back to life if he did kill him to keep his promise of that covenant he made about Issac.
God, knowing the end from the beginning, would never have allowed Abraham to kill his son. Gen 22:12 proves this. It was only a test of the faith of Abraham who loved God more than even his son. God tested Abraham, but would never have allowed him to actually kill his son. God tested Abraham's free will whether he would sacrifice all for God or not. Abraham past the test. It was never even contemplated by God to actually allow Abraham to sacrifice his son.To test Abrahams faith( Gen 22:12)--Abraham knew God made a covenant with him for the nation of Israel( Gen 21:12 to come through Issac. Thus Abraham knew God would bring Issac back to life if he did kill him to keep his promise of that covenant he made about Issac.
Abraham knew 100% God was not a liar, thus knew the covenant he made about Issac would come true, Thus if Abraham killed Issac the only way it could come true was if God brought him back to life.Abraham did not know. He was in anguish when told to do so. Where do you people get such nonsense?
I agree, but Abraham didn't know that at the time. He was prepared to kill Issac.God, knowing the end from the beginning, would never have allowed Abraham to kill his son. Gen 22:12 proves this. It was only a test of the faith of Abraham who loved God more than even his son. God tested Abraham, but would never have allowed him to actually kill his son. God tested Abraham's free will whether he would sacrifice all for God or not. Abraham past the test. It was never even contemplated by God to actually allow Abraham to sacrifice his son.
The point is that God loves obedience the mostWhy did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his Son? And why did he say Abraham's ONLY son? Ishmael was also a son of Abraham. Isaac wasn't even the first born. So, I'd like to see responses by Jews, Muslims and Christians on this.
huh? The OP asked a question and now he knowsAnd the alternative is-?
What? Hmm?
Abraham past the test. It was never even contemplated by God to actually allow Abraham to sacrifice his son.
“Take your son to the land of Moriah and kill your son there as a sacrifice for me. This must be Isaac, your only son, the one you love. Use him ...
there was no Turkey back then. Don't tell Erdogan---he is still working on the OTTOMAN CALIPHATE
Genesis 11:31
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, t
To go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Genesis 15:7
7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
According to the Bible you have it wrong!!
So you don't believe the Bible.There was no Ur of the Chaldees until about the 8th century BC...
Oh the demand on Abraham was made, but was only carried out to the point where Abraham showed that he was willing to go through with the demand. He was then stopped by God in carrying out the demand! You bring up Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus' mission was not a test of his faith but a mission to save all mankind from death and to save the faithful into the kingdom of heaven. That mission needed to be accomplished or God would not be God and we would all unavoidably perish!really ...
whoever's story this is the heavens would not make such a demand and not expect for it to be adhered to - nor to allow taking the life of the lamb as a substitute for their demand. the choice abraham made instead.
the episode as a parable fails for its obvious purpose to denounce hereditary idolatry by one means or another - the authors were unable or unwilling to complete their task.
So you don't believe the Bible.
