Did Abraham ever really exist?

Archaeology hasn't proven Abraham's existence...yet...that doesn't mean it can't.

Also...according to recorded history....Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king. Which of course led people to believe that Belshazzar(Daniel 5) was a fabricated character because there were no extra-biblical sources at the time to validate his existence...and then what do you know....some cuneiform tablets were found INDISPUTABLY PROVING his existence...

As of this moment, we're simply awaiting the evidence....Just because you don't have the evidence at your disposal does not mean it's a fabrication. Stop trying so hard.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

Archaeology hasn't proven Abraham's existence...yet...that doesn't mean it can't.

Also...according to recorded history....Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king. Which of course led people to believe that Belshazzar(Daniel 5) was a fabricated character because there were no extra-biblical sources at the time to validate his existence...and then what do you know....some cuneiform tablets were found INDISPUTABLY PROVING his existence...

As of this moment, we're simply awaiting the evidence....Just because you don't have the evidence at your disposal does not mean it's a fabrication. Stop trying so hard.

A2D

And that's exactly how archaeology, history and anthropology work. While the media and people at large seem to have it in their minds that "science" presents absolutes when all that is being stated is really "this is what we know currently based on the best data and material we currently have to work with at the moment. It may he interpreted by people as such but it's never presented in terms of absolutes. Is it possible that at some point an actual historical artifact that supports the existance if Abraham but if so it still doesn't give anymore credence to the biblical theistic narrative.

For example, you mention Belshazzar. And yes it's quite true that the deciphering of the Nabidonius cylinder proved the Balshazaar was indeed a historical figure. However what it did not prove let alone even indicate that Belshazzar was ever king. It is known that he served as Nabidonius regent for a time but nothing currently known indicated he ever ascended the throne. Another aspect the cylinder does not prove is the biblical narrative from Daniel 5. In other words, while Belshazzar was a historical figure there is no proof or any mention anywhere outside Daniel of the "writing on the wall" incident.

I don't think anyone denies the historicity of early Israel or the period of Babylonian slavery. What is being disputed is the supernatural aspects attributed to Yahweh. There's a rather large disconnect between history and theology and for good reason. Does that mean the status quo is going to perpetuate ad infinitum? Not at all. While I personally don't think there was a historical Abraham, in certainly open to being wrong because it's always a learning experience.

a reply to: peter vlar

We're always left wondering something. That's just the nature of the beast called science...

Regardless, I find it unproductive to question the existence of a person...If only the supernatural aspects attributed to Yahweh were in question, the title of the thread would not be as it is...

As I see it, every little thing that can be used to discredit a religion is eventually at some point used...even if it has little to no bearing on the VALUES of said religion....

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
As of this moment, we're simply awaiting the evidence....Just because you don't have the evidence at your disposal does not mean it's a fabrication. Stop trying so hard.

Actually, your statement here is evidence of 'trying so hard'. As of now the Abraham story is just folklore. To tell people it's just because evidence hasn't been uncovered yet .... that's 'trying so hard'.

a reply to: FlyersFan




Not trying hard at all. I'm simply pointing out the obvious....

You're casting your verdict before you've examined the evidence....because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, therefore, THERE IS NO VERDICT.

A2D

a reply to: FlyersFan
I just wish we knew the answer to who was even greater than Abraham, and Abraham paid tithes to, Melchizedek.... hmmmmm ?? so many myths built from the Old and New testament, if there are truths, you best believe the adepts, Kings and the initiates (Pharisees, Babylonians) all had enough time to either purposely or not so purposely lose the real and true stories, if much of these traditions started orally and were passed down through generations, I really am not sure what to believe and also I have doubts when there is picking, choosing, selecting what is good enough or accurate to report a story or what books get tossed out of the "official" word or laws, sort of like having editors at a newspaper picking the feature story and then somehow people will believe it just because it is in a newspaper article.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

....Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king. Which of course led people to believe that Belshazzar(Daniel 5) was a fabricated character because there were no extra-biblical sources at the time to validate his existence...and then what do you know....some cuneiform tablets were found INDISPUTABLY PROVING his existence...

It may "INDISPUTABLY PROVE" his existence, but where the narration becomes problematic is the claim that he was ever King in the first place, and that he was King when Babylon was taken by the Persians.
The extra-biblical sources say that Belshazzar served as vice-regent while Nabonidus was away on a trip to Arabia.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I understand that...but my point is relevant to the thread..."Did Abraham ever really exist"....and as I said, people asked the same question of Belshazzar....

What Belshazzar did or what office he held is of no grave concern...The example only served as a point of comparison...

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

What Belshazzar did or what office he held is of no grave concern...

It is pertinent if it points out that the New Testament takes liberties with history, by inserting characters at will.
"Abraham" is to me, if nothing else, an obviously made-up name that describes the role that the person served, the "father of the nation".
You could say that "of course somebody was", but did he do everything that is attributed to this story character?

a reply to: jmdewey60

Perhaps to some it would be considered relevant...to me not at all.

I find the VALUES within Christianity to be my main concern...

I don't really care if the characters are Jim, Joe, Jack, and Jeff from the local pub, as long as it can somehow be applied beneficially to mankind...

A2D

a reply to: peter vlar

Then supply evidence that there is. You can't prove a negative, you can only show evidence for what is there or was there.

This doesn't make any sense in view of the totality of my post...

The data is peer reviewed

Right, and money corrupts a good many men and women. I wouldn't trust something just because it's peer reviewed. In addition, people who peer reviewing something went through the same institution of education that is controlled by the aristocracy.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that others aren't utilizing unrealistic standards because you're trying to apply philosophical standards to a system of research comprised of different standards and you can't do that.

No, what I am getting at is that you cannot even prove Abraham Lincoln existed with 100% conclusiveness. Therefore, if you cannot even do that, how can you possibly expect to prove the Biblical Abraham existed to your satisfaction?

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
..because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, therefore, THERE IS NO VERDICT.

No evidence that he existed means that he didn't exist unless it can be proven that he did.

originally posted by: iosolomon
you cannot even prove Abraham Lincoln existed with 100% conclusiveness.

Yes we can. Already have. I already gave the information. There is NO evidence of Abraham except a folklore story. But that's no more solid evidence of him existing then the story of Jack and Beanstalk proving magic beans are real.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: iosolomon
you cannot even prove Abraham Lincoln existed with 100% conclusiveness.

Yes we can. Already have. I already gave the information.

No, you have not proven that Abraham Lincoln existed with 100% conclusiveness. You simply cannot do that. I refuted each of your points. How do you know that the government isn't lying to you? That they didn't also lie to your parents? You don't know, and you can never know, so you can never say with 100% certainty that Abraham Lincoln existed. You have faith in your government that he did, but you do not have 100% proof that he did without making the leap to faith. So if you make the leap to faith, then Abraham Lincoln did.

There is NO evidence of Abraham except a folklore story. But that's no more solid evidence of him existing then the story of Jack and Beanstalk proving magic beans are real.

I do think the Bible is enough proof that one needs, but to each his or her own.

a reply to: iosolomon

Wait, you said the bible is all the proof you need? That is better than Grimm's Fairy Tales?

originally posted by: iosolomon
I refuted each of your points.

No hun ... you didn't. You probably really think you did. But you didn't. Sorry.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You have not offered me 100% concrete proof that Abraham Lincoln existed. In fact, that is impossible for you to do.

So, in regards for your assertion you proved that Abraham Lincoln existed with 100% certainty, I would say,

"No hun ... you didn't. You probably really think you did. But you didn't. Sorry."

Because you simply can't do that. There is no way you can prove with 100% certainty that something is the case, especially something that happened before you were born. You can be relatively certain that something is the case, but you can never be 100% certain. Heck, you could even be 99.9997% certain, and if you want to round up, then you can round up, but you can never truly be 100% certain. You make that leap of faith --the same leap of faith that people make when they believe Abraham existed-- to say that Abraham Lincoln concretely existed.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
..because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, therefore, THERE IS NO VERDICT.

No evidence that he existed means that he didn't exist unless it can be proven that he did.

Let me get this straight...

Because I cannot prove that he did exist, that means that he didn't?

An argument from ignorance

Furthermore

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Because I cannot prove that he did exist, that means that he didn't?

It means if you can't prove he existed .. then until you reasonably can .. it's just folklore. With no proof, we can't say definitively that Abraham actually existed or didn't exist. Folklore.

a reply to: FlyersFan

"Did Abraham ever really exist?"

I imagine Judaism, Christianity and Islamic religious will have rather a few issues regarding their authenticity should he prove to be fictitious!