By whom and when was scripture written?

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Is there still a point to this thread or has it degenerated into yet another spitting contest?

[Cam42]

:spit:






































:rotfl:

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:23 AM']blah, blah, blah, blah......Dr. who?  Don't really care.  That is totally subjective and totally your opinion.  There is historical fact regarding St. Peter.....St. Ireneus writes of him in being in Rome.  Christ institutes him as the head of the Church.  Fluid form of thought.....oops, forgot who I was talking to.

It can be established that he was in Rome, SimpleLes.  It has been....His bones are there.....St. Ireneus speaks of himself being there....he even alludes to the fact that he is there, in his Letter to the Romans.

Sheesh....we've been over this.
[right][snapback]621415[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Please present your evidence that Peter's bones are in Rome. That fiction has long been discounted.

Please present your evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. That is the issue, not where he may have gone sightseeing.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 24 2005, 10:07 AM']Is there still a point to this thread or has it degenerated into yet another spitting contest?
[right][snapback]621522[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I think we are in agreement on this.

However, if I don't respond to a post, I'm accused of being naughty, esp by MotherofPearl. If I do, I'm merely engaging in a spitting contest.

I can't really win either way.

Perhaps if I simply don't respond to CAM??????

LittleLes

[Antonius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 11:32 AM']RESPONSE:

Please present your evidence that Peter's bones are in Rome. That fiction has long been discounted.

Please present your evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. That is the issue, not where he may have gone sightseeing.
[right][snapback]621656[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong. Recently, when I was in Rome, I had the blessing to go on the Scavi Tour, which is an unadvertised tour for pilgrims to go around the Roman Necropolis which was found during the secret excavations of Pius XII during WWII.

Long story short, they found deep under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica, in a marble and prophyry box, the bones of a 5'5'' man. The bones of every part of his body, except for his head and feet were found in the box wrapped in a purple cloak inlaid with gold.

Something and something matched on the skeleton to a man from the Middle East. The head of St. Peter is in St. John Lateran. There were no feet because when Peter was crucified upside down, the Christians took him down quickly by cutting his ankles and buried him. His remains were wrapped in a purple cloak inlaid with gold because historical records report Constantine wrapped them taht way when he built the first Basilica on Vatican Hill all those years ago.

The Church looked at all this evidence of the bones of the man they found under the high altar and declared that they are indeed the bones of St. Peter.

As per your second request for proof, I am ignorant save for Tradition. I trust Tradition, because in the case of Pius XII's excavations, Tradition was proved true, that St. Peter really is buried underneath the high altar at St. Peter's Basilica.

[LittleLes]

The Church looked at all this evidence of the bones of the man they found under the high altar and declared that they are indeed the bones of St. Peter.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not exactly.

CLASSICS IRELAND
1996 Volume 3
University College Dublin, Ireland

The Bones of Saint Peter?
John Curran
The Queen's University
Belfast

"As we saw, Pope Pius XII had been cautious in his Christmas broadcast of 1950 about the identification of the bones found in the space beneath the aedicula. Those bones had been entrusted to Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi for examination and he had identified them as the bones of a powerfully built man who at been 65 or 70 years of age at the time of his death. Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi was no specialist, however, but a general physician. The papal authorities in the interests of proper scientific procedure, sought a second opinion. The remains were passed on to Venerando Correnti, Professor of Medical Anthropology at the University of Palermo and a well respected anatomist. Subjected to thorough examination throughout the 1950s, the bones conveyed a very different conclusion to Correnti.


They were the remains not of one man, but of three people, one of whom was a woman. She was elderly, Correnti estimated her age at death to be 70-75 years. The men were not quite so aged; both were in their fifties at the time of death, one was robust but the other was not. And just to complicate matters further, included in the hoard of bones had been animal remains: pieces of cockerel, pig and horse were found."

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:23 PM']The Church looked at all this evidence of the bones of the man they found under the high altar and declared that they are indeed the bones of St. Peter.[/quote]



[quote]RESPONSE:

Not exactly. 

CLASSICS IRELAND
1996 Volume 3
University College Dublin, Ireland

The Bones of Saint Peter?
John Curran
The Queen's University
Belfast

"As we saw, Pope Pius XII had been cautious in his Christmas broadcast of 1950 about the identification of the bones found in the space beneath the aedicula. Those bones had been entrusted to Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi for examination and he had identified them as the bones of a powerfully built man who at been 65 or 70 years of age at the time of his death. Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi was no specialist, however, but a general physician. The papal authorities in the interests of proper scientific procedure, sought a second opinion. The remains were passed on to Venerando Correnti, Professor of Medical Anthropology at the University of Palermo and a well respected anatomist. Subjected to thorough examination throughout the 1950s, the bones conveyed a very different conclusion to Correnti.
They were the remains not of one man, but of three people, one of whom was a woman. She was elderly, Correnti estimated her age at death to be 70-75 years. The men were not quite so aged; both were in their fifties at the time of death, one was robust but the other was not. And just to complicate matters further, included in the hoard of bones had been animal remains: pieces of cockerel, pig and horse were found."
[right][snapback]622127[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And his credentials? Being from No. Ireland isn't helpful.

Here is a biography from the North American College in Rome. Thanks to Msgr. McCoy, rector, who helped me find this.

[quote name='NAC']Though a few scholars still dispute the point, it is now almost universally agreed that St. Peter lived in Rome, for about twenty-five years before his death. [b]It is confirmed by many ancient writings, including one of his successors, Pope Clement, in about 95.[/b] For seventeen hundred years, tradition alone told us that St. Peter was buried in this site - until the mid-twentieth century, when workers began digging a tomb in 1939 for Pope Pius XI. At the time they were trying to heighten the crypt in the Basilica and decided to lower the floor by about three feet.

They came upon graves of the old Basilica, but also struck the roofs of mausolea from the second century necropolis, a total of nineteen tombs underneath the nave of the church. All had been chopped in half for the construction of Constantine's basilica. This might have been expected; what was surprising were the Christian symbols that they found in the tombs - despite it being a pagan burial ground - such as the shepherd, fisherman, anchor, and vine.

When they began to excavate underneath the main altar, behind the niche of the pallia, they found a gray Constantinian monument surrounding a red plastered wall from the second century. On its left was a "Graffiti Wall" with Christian symbols and requests for prayers scratched into the stone. One of the inscriptions, which are in Greek and Latin, clearly states, "Peter is here." On its right they found the remains of a funeral monument from about the year 160.

Digging deeper still, they came to a small chamber which almost certainly was St. Peter's grave. Not only was the grave carefully protected by the large red retaining wall, but inside the archeologists found votive offerings and coins dating back to the first centuries after Christ. In addition, the archeologists found that many other tombs converged, indeed crowded around, this tomb - indeed, some tombs were stacked several high in their efforts to reside closer to the central tomb. Inside they also found a set of bones which, years later, proved to be from three different individuals.

At this point one of the archeologists, Dotoressa Guarducci, recalled the team having found a set of bones inside the "Graffiti Wall" in a small "repository" which had been locked away for almost ten years. These were removed from their protection under lock and key and submitted for analysis. They turned out to be from a single individual, a man between sixty and seventy years of age, of robust build, and from the right time period to be Saint Peter. They also found that all the bones, ankles down, were missing, confirming an ancient tradition that, after Peter's death, Christians had to steal his body at night by chopping him down from the cross at the ankles, and the bones did not conflict with the purported skull of St. Peter at St. John Lateran. Finally, the bones were found to have particles of earth from the grave itself and to have been wrapped carefully in a purple cloth (made from a dye from a shellfish called "murex" and reserved exclusively for the imperial household) and bundled with a golden cord. It would appear that the bones of Saint Peter had been found, carefully protected inside the wall from would-be thieves and Roman legionaries during times of persecution. While these bones are not "proven" to be St. Peter's, many other graves, of more recent date, are positively identified with less evidence. Thus the Pope had the bones returned to the site where they had lain for eighteen centuries, and they remain there today. [/quote]

Here is an article by Margherita Guarducci:
[quote]One of the surprises of the excavations carried out between 1940 and 1949 under the Confession of the Vatican Basilica was the discovery - beneath the papal altar - of the site of Peter's original tomb empty and in disarray.

The Apostle's remains were strangely missing.

After his martyrdom in Nero's Circus (autumn of 64), Peter was buried a short distance away, beyond the road (Via Cornelia?) which bordered the Circus, in a place where tombs already existed. That place corresponds to the area which archaeologists today call Area P. In the course of the centuries, various monuments were placed over the modest grave of the Apostle: the so-called "Trophy of Gaius" (about the middle of the 2nd century), the monument of Constantine (after 313), the altar of Gregory the Great (590-604), the altar of Calixtus II (1119-1124), and the altar of Clement VIII (1592-1605), which is the present altar. All these monuments were built (or so it seemed at first) over an empty tomb.

At the western edge of Area P there were found remains of human bones, remains to which some people attributed a certain importance. It was subsequently shown that in fact these remains had nothing to do with Peter, differing as they did with regard to both age and sex.

But the excavations inside Constantine's monument had also revealed a characteristic loculus which had been deliberately hollowed out of an already existing wall (the wall which archaeologists today call "Wall G"), included within the Constantinian construction. Wall G is built against the back wall of the Trophy of Gaius, that is the wall which - on account of the vivid red colour of its plaster - came to be called the "Red Wall". Wall G, therefore, is later than the Red Wall, but earlier than the monument of Constantine in which it was enclosed. On the whole, Wall G can be dated to about the mid-3rd century. Inside this wall, as I have said, a secret hiding-place (the loculus) was discovered. It measured 0.77 m long by 0.29 m wide and 0.315 m high, and was lined with slabs of Greek marble.

Wall G and its hiding-place are at the center of extraordinary events, due in part to the somewhat abnormal situation in which the 1940-1949 excavations took place. The first opening made in the northern side of the Constantinian monument brought to light the north section of Wall G, covered with Christian graffiti, and, below it, the opening of the famous loculus. No detailed study of these graffiti was made either then or during the entire period of the excavations. They were deciphered and commented upon at a later time by myself, and in fact they proved to be a wonderful page of Christian spirituality in which the names of Christ, Mary and Peter are particularly prominent and their victory is acclaimed. As for the loculus, the excavators had immediately noticed that it was about half filled with plaster rubble which had fallen from above, that is from the inside of Wall G itself, and from the side, that is from a section of the adjacent Red Wall. For various reasons a systematic emptying of the loculus was not carried out immediately. However, it happened that a certain moment someone noticed that there were bone fragments mixed in with the plaster rubble inside the hiding-place, and arranged for these bones to be gathered up, put in a wooden box and placed in a nearby spot in the Vatican Grottoes, where they remained forgotten for a long time.

In the meantime, the scholars working on the excavations returned to the loculus of Wall G and naturally found it empty, except for "some remains of organic material and bone fragments mixed with earth" (these are their own words) which had remained at the bottom. It was easily perceived that the hiding-place had been made during the building of the Constantinian monument, and from this perception there sprang the theory that it had been intended for the bones of Peter. This theory was admitted, in fact, by various scholars: Father Antonio Ferrua (1952), Jerome Carcopino (1953), Father Engelbert Kirschbaum (1957) and Pasquale Testini (1957). But for the moment the theory remained only a theory. The essential element of proof was missing: the box which had been placed in the nearby spot in the Vatican Grottoes and forgotten.

Since the excavators were unaware of the existence of the box, and on the other hand wished to give some explanation for the riddle of Wall G, the idea was put forward and gained increasing credence that the hiding-place had been opened during the Middle Ages on the eastern side, and that through this opening the remains of the Apostle had been taken away.

The wooden box containing the material removed from the hiding-place was found by me only in 1953. Besides bones, it also contained earth, flakes of red plaster, small pieces of rich fabric and two marble fragments. A note, written by a Sampietrino who took part in the first excavations and read by me clearly and in its entirety, stated that the material had been taken from the loculus of Wall G. The flakes of red plaster belonged to the adjacent section of the Red Wall (as can be easily understood). The fragments of marble were shown by a chemical analysis to originate from the front slab of the lining of the loculus. Both the plaster and the marble fragments clearly confirmed the statement in the note.

The idea accredited by the excavators and then generally accepted that the loculus had been broken into during the Middle Ages meant that at that time I myself did not attribute to these remains the importance due to them. But the elementary duty of serious scientific inquiry led me to transfer them to a dry place and to the making of provisions for their systematic examination by a qualified specialist. The specialist chosen was Prof. Venerando Correnti, who then held the chair of anthropology at the University of Palermo and today holds the same chair at the University of Rome.

Prof. Correnti was therefore asked in 1956 to begin his work. But before anything else he had to make a long and careful study of the skeletal remains, found in the earth on the western edge of Area P, to which (as I have stated above) a certain importance had hitherto been attributed. The anthropological examination showed in fact that the bones belonged to four different individuals, none of whom could be taken into consideration in connection with the problem of Peter's remains.

Only in October 1962 was Prof. Correnti able to devote himself to the examination of the bones found in the loculus of Wall G. This work lasted until the end of June 1963. Briefly, the result was the following: bones of a single individual, of male sex, sturdy build and advanced age (between 60 and 70 years old), encrusted with earth.

This result corresponded with the historical and archaeological data. In the only loculus of Peter's monument-tomb there was in fact to be expected the presence of bones with these characteristics. And this precisely is what had happened. Furthermore, it had to be kept in mind that among the remains from the loculus were small fragments of rich fabric. These indicated that these bones really were the mortal remains of Peter.

There remained a single doubt in my mind: that of the alleged opening of the loculus from the east during the Middle Ages. But it quickly vanished when a minute examination of the interior of the loculus, carried out at my request by the best specialists in Roman wall-construction, proved that the loculus had never been broken into from the time of Constantine until the moment when the excavators of the 1940-49 period had made the first breach of the Constantinian wall.

Experimental analyses of the remains of fabric and of earth were also carried out. All of these tests yielded positive results. The gold was genuine; the cloth was dyed with purple made from murex; the earth matched that of the area.

At this point it seemed reasonable to draw the following conclusions: at the time of Constantine, after the peace of the Church (313), when it was decided to arrange definitively the site of Peter's tomb, the bones lying in the earth under the Trophy of Gaius were collected, wrapped in a precious cloth of purple interwoven with gold and placed in a loculus specially made inside a wall (Wall G) already existing beside the Trophy. In front of this wall, enriched by the precious material inserted, another wall was built which was to be partially broken down only by the excavations begun in 1940. It can be added that the reason for the transfer of Peter's relics from the earth tomb to the loculus in Wall G was probably the well-founded fear that the dampness of the earth, which is notoriously very considerable in the Vatican area, would rapidly damage the venerable remains which had once been entrusted to it.

At this point, it would seem appropriate to sum up, for the sake of clarity, the chief elements which have permitted the present writer to proceed to the identification of the bones in the loculus of Wall G as those of the Apostle:

1. The Constantinian monument was considered, in Constantine's day, to be the tomb of the martyr.

2. Inside the monument-sepulchre there exists a loculus, and one only: the loculus of Wall G.

3. This loculus was carved out of Wall G and lined with marble at the time of Constantine

4. The loculus was never broken into from the age of Constantine until the time of the excavations (about 1941).

5. From this loculus come the bones which were removed at the beginning of the excavations, kept without interruption in a nearby spot in the Vatican Grottoes and recovered from this spot in 1953.

6. These bones, therefore, are the ones which were verified at the time of Constantine as the bones of Peter and place in the loculus of Wall G, inside the monument-sepulchre.

7. The cloth of purple interwoven with gold-thread in which the bones were wrapped at that time confirms the highest dignity then attributed to the remains. The royal purple harmonizes perfectly in fact with the royal porphyry which decorates the outside of the monument.

8. The anthropological examination of the bones - belonging to a single individual - showed that they conform perfectly to what, by tradition, we can imagine was Peter's physical appearance at the time of his martyrdom. Apart from the obvious fact that they belong to a male, the bones indicate a sturdy build and an age somewhere between 60 and 70.

9. The earth encrusted on the bones indicates that the bones themselves originally lay in an earth-grave, and we know that Peter's first burial was in the earth.

10. The characteristics of the earth, shown by the scientific examination, match those of the place where the original tomb was dug (marly sand), while in other parts of the Vatican area the earth is different (blue clay or yellow sand).

11. The place of the earth-burial under the Trophy was found empty. This is in harmony with the presence of the bones, transferred about two metres higher up, in the loculus in the monument of Constantine.

From this concise exposition it can be seen that the above elements constitute the links of a chain, joined to one another, and that chain leads to a conclusion: the bones of Peter have been identified.[/quote]

Need anything more?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:35 PM']RESPONSE:

I think we are in agreement on this.

However, if I don't respond to a post, I'm accused of being naughty, esp by MotherofPearl. If I do, I'm merely engaging in a spitting contest.

I can't really win either way.

Perhaps if I simply don't respond to CAM??????

LittleLes
[right][snapback]621666[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If you were to honestly engage the conversation LittleLes, as opposed to reguritating arguments that have been clearly debunked. While you may not accept that, the truth is LittleLes, we have proven you wrong at every step, often times with your own proofs.

We will engage you again, seriously, when you bring up a serious topic. These critiques of Scripture are not a serious attempt at anything....LittleLes, these high school and college kids are smarter about the Church than you and are debunking you.

Honest questioning is great...but this tripe and this banter that you continually engage in is not only fruitless, it is redundant. Bring up an honest subject and we will engage you seriously. Although at this point, it will be hard to do. You have seriously undermined your own reputation here.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 24 2005, 09:27 AM']Or, for more fun, let's count words in LittleLes' writings.  By the way, the last sentence above was 19 words. 

The following is one of his recent posts:
Those who live in glass houses...
[right][snapback]621476[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Mea maxima culpa! I have sinned. God may forgive me but the Air Force never will!

[LittleLes]

"While these bones are not "proven" to be St. Peter's, many other graves, of more recent date, are positively identified with less evidence. Thus the Pope had the bones returned to the site where they had lain for eighteen centuries, and they remain there today. "

Or

Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
by F. PAUL PETERSON

Chapter 1

Saint Peter's Tomb


The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem
1953

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is there, he could not help but believe."

Either explanation may be valid or invalid. Of course, if the Jerusalem burial site for Peter were to be proven authentic, some major rethinking about the papacy is called for.

[LittleLes]

As to the "who" and "when" of scripture, a important question now arises.

A key figure in three major religions is Abraham (ie Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). But "who" wrote about him and "when" was it written?

And is there good grounds for believing that Abraham was a real, rather than a legendary, person?

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 08:13 AM']"While these bones are not "proven" to be St. Peter's, many other graves, of more recent date, are positively identified with less evidence. Thus the Pope had the bones returned to the site where they had lain for eighteen centuries, and they remain there today. "

Or

Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
by F. PAUL PETERSON

Chapter 1

Saint Peter's Tomb
The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem
1953

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is there, he could not help but believe."

Either  explanation may be valid or invalid. Of course, if the Jerusalem burial site for Peter were to be proven authentic, some major rethinking about the papacy is called for.
[right][snapback]622763[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

speculation....on your part.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 08:23 AM']As to the "who" and "when" of scripture, a important question now arises.

A key figure in three major religions is Abraham (ie Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). But "who" wrote about him and "when" was it written?

And is there good grounds for believing that Abraham was a real, rather than a legendary, person?

LittleLes
[right][snapback]622767[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, Scripture is a reliable source.

Are you expecting us to throw our hands up and simply say, "LittleLes, you're right!!!!!! I am now a "true believer." But a true believer of what? My mind? Your mind? What do I believe in at this point? Only that which I know to be true?

Hmmmm......that is a very narrow view indeed. I would have to reject the idea of computing on the internet, because I don't know exactly how it works. I also won't be able to trust the words of others, because they may be "true believers" and are simply trying to mislead me.....Or, I can't watch TV or listen to the radio. For that matter, I had best turn off all of my electricity, because I am not totally sure how Nuclear energy is dispersed and therefore, since I don't know, I can't trust it......and "true believers" may be out to cloud my understanding.

How absurd was that last paragraph? Quite.....but that is what you are advocating.....absurdity.

[LittleLes]

Lets take a look at the "who" and "when" of the story of Abraham.


(a) Current biblical thinking is that the Genesis account of Abraham's origin was written by the Jahwist (J source) sometime between 922 and 722 B.C.

(b) If one insists on the older traditional view, it was written by Moses about 1500 B.C.

© But the event being described happened in 2000 B.C. so the report is at least 500 but more likely 1100 years aftr the fact. Historical?

(d) Genesis 11: 31 tells us that, "Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to the land of Canaan. But when they reached Haran, they settled there. " (NAB)

(e) "Abraham was from the city of Ur according to Genesis 11:31. The problem is that there are several places called Ur. It is identified as "Ur of the Chaldeans." The problem with "Chaldeans" is that it is a late word used in the Neo-Babylonian times. It is either anachronistic, or this part of Genesis was written after the Exile. "

Thus it is indefinite just when this passage was written or edited, but "Ur of the Chaldeans" is a much later term for the place described which neither Moses nor the Jahwist would have used.

[Cam42]

and...........................................
























what's your point?