74x12
Well-Known Member
It's like talking about tribes of native Americans that lived in Texas. If someone took you literally they would say there was no Texas then. But of course you don't mean to imply that there was a Texas. You're talking about people that lived in what would be Texas.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.... (Gen. 11:31)
A glaring mistake I came across whilst reading Genesis: Ur of the Chaldees did not exist until about the eighth century B.C., which is around one thousand years after the time of Abraham.
This signals that Genesis was written some time AFTER Christ's birth, which would have resulted in an erroneously written 'eyewitness' account.
Thoughts?
The point is that Ur was definitely around in the time of Abraham and Terah. Not necessarily considered a Chaldean city yet. But even the name "Sumerian" is not what they would call themselves. Sumerian is a modern name given to ancient people that lived in Mesopotamia otherwise known as "Sumer"
As for this proving that Genesis was written after Christ's birth. That doesn't follow at all. Not sure how your math has led you to that conclusion.