Where did Abraham come from? Could he have come from a place you never heard of? Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support: / inspiringphilosophy / @inspiringphilosophy inspiringphilo...
For those interested, I am aware another possible location for the homeland of Abraham is the city of Urkesh. However, I am not fully convinced of that location as of now. I think it has potential but I have a few reservations for the time being. Currently, I am aware of no biblical scholars who have defended the Urkesh hypothesis in any books or journal articles. That is one reason I am not convinced of it. If that changes in the future I will reevaluate my position on this. Until then, however, I will favor the location I suggested in this video.
@@Qohelethful Again, I said it has potential, but I would like biblical scholars and Assyriologists to weigh in first and see if there is any more data.
I don't know if Dr. Falk has defended it academically, but he does propose it as the most likely location. It'd be an interesting conversation to see on a Livestream, but I'm a nerd.
Hmmm...that's a tough one. I can't think of anything pithy for the Black Israelites. Perhaps a chiastic verse; American style...that rhymes. Beyond my abilities.
Hold fast to the beliefs of the faith. I fell away for 18 years from christ and nearly destroyed myself. I hope snd pray Christ Jesus will continue leading you down the road to eternal life
Based. I've been trying to tell people this for a while based on some of the works you cite as well as "Abraham and the Merchants of Ura" by Cyrus Gordon. Excellent work, IP
I thought of Gobekli Tepe as soon as you said the city might be in the North somewhere at the beginning of the video. I was wondering if I was already jumping to conclusions, but then you mention it later in the video!
Could you do a video responding to a channel called esoterica, he made a video about YHWH being a deity that Israel stole from Canaanites, he suggests it used to be a Storm/war deity before being the national God of Israel.
I haven’t seen his video, but I know that the idea that Yahweh was stolen from Canaanites is not accepted among scholars today. There is no mention of Yahweh in any Canaanite sources. This is why scholars try to argue for the kenite or Edomite hypotheses, to explain the absence of Yahwism in Canaanite culture until after the Israelites came to dominate the region.
The Kennite hypothesis suggests that it’s far more likely that YHWH was “stolen” from the Midianites/Edomites through their Esau connection (or at least it’s implied). I’ve personally never seen anything credible to the contrary. The Shasu of Yahu statement on an Egyptian stone is vague at best and its unknown if Yahu is a God or a region or a town, although the Shasu “could” have been from the region of Edom.
He was wrong, Y.H.W.H has always been the god of the Israelites. The only thing people think "might" be taken from Canaanites is the title name Elyon. His videos are informative on some topics but very misleading when discussing the core of Judaism, which is ironic considering he considers himself Jewish.
Just because a hypothesis has been completely discredited doesn't stop atheists from promoting it. It's almost as if Yahweh didn't actually originate in any pagan tradition at all.
@fluffysheap It's because He isn't in any pagon belief, with Abraham he was one only few who remembered God while the rest of the world have forgotten about about Him. My guess is that there ancestors of those for forgot God most likely rejected YHWH. Abraham had faith in God and was obedient unto it just as Noah was in his faith.
Wow. Good job man. I've never actually checked out your channel, being as you've always been positioned a certain way, ie. an "apologist", on channels like mythvision, and me not being a Christian, I've never really been interested. But, I am very interested in my heritage and I consider biblical studies a very important part of that, and this my friend, really knocked it outta the park. I have a feeling you've been pigeonholed, which makes me kinda mad lol. Doesn't sound like you're apologizing at all to me, rather, you're just doing good scholarship. Wish I would have checked it out sooner. Welp, you know the old adage, never judge a book! Looking forward to checking out the rest of the content.
It is okay to present the case for an alternative location for Abraham's Ur. It's quite another matter to declare it more likely. You list all the argumente but they universally are misleading at best: 1. Ezekiel doesn't call Abraham an "Amorite" or Sarah a "Hetitite". He tells the city of Jerusalem that her parents were that. It is a provocative insult, not a literal description. Sarah could not be a "Hetite" anyway, given she is Abraham's "sister", even if the Biblical term of Hetite did not apply to a Canaanite nation. Our usage of "Hetite" to a nation from Asia Minor is merely a modern misnomer. 2. Ur in Sumer actually is "beyond the river" as is all of Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia and Assyria. It doesn't matter on which side of the bank it is as you would only reach it via northern Mesopotamia. (This argument I would even call dishonest.) 3. Yes, Harran is not on the direct route from Sumer to Canaan. But it was Terach who took his family there, not Abraham. And by all the OT says, Abraham travelled while his father was alive. 4. Abraham refers to northern Mesopotamia as his home country because that is where his relatives live. He is interest solely in finding a suitable match. 5. Even if Urfa actually was Abraham's Ur, "Ur of the Chaldeans" would still be an anachronism (but a faikty obe) unless by some huuuge coincidence the Chaldeans happen to live just there before moving to the other Ur. 6. Göbeli Tepe is completely irrelevant to the question. Please be more thorough in critiquing what you read. Just because Drs Falk and Heiser agree on something doesn't make it right.
Name identities have to do with persons and personal experiences of those people with God, the Bible is mainly personal, the meaning of the names point to this very reality, "The one who fights with God" or "Rock", "father of many" etc... its about personal experiences with God and the way in which he makes relations between persons.
Do you have any content speaking on 1: the biblical timeline vs modern explanation of earths timeline and 2: the God of the Old Testament NOT being the God of the New Testament. Regardless, happy to have found your page!
I guarantee that if scholars assume the Chaldeans were known as such going way back towards Abraham's time and start looking for them up there, they are going to find tons of evidence.
ur was a term for city which was shared amongst many semitic languages of that time. for example, eridu the sumerian city is related to the cognate ur in other languages. cities with "ur" or similar words most likely just meant "city"
Hey IP is it possible that in John 1:18 when it says " Noone has seen God" could be referring to Exodus 33:20( noone can see Gods face and live). Skeptics bring up this verse to show a contradiction( in the old testament several people saw God).
Genesis 19:24 answers your question as Both persons of YHWH R in this verse: the Invisible Father in Heaven and the Visible YHWH the Pre-incarnate Jesus who was talking to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis chapters 18 & 19. See: the TWO Powers in Heaven israelite theology from where we get the Trinity from and this Biblical Judaism was rejected by Rabbinical Judaism in the 2nd century AD after Christianity presented Jesus as this Visible YHWH who will come as the Cloud Rider as Jesus states in Matthew 26:62-65 when HE quotes Daniel 7: 13,14 . To the High Priest.
@@davidjanbaz7728 but the Father has been seen( Daniel 7:13-14), I'm saying noone has seen him in his true form( ie his face) he always appears in some physical form.
It's more likely that John was referring only to people alive in his time. John knew the OT backwards and forwards, he absolutely knew about the several people who directly spoke to God.
The claim of an anachronism about Chaldea cannot be proved. Lack of surviving known referents means nothing towards a positive value for contradicting the statement. We do not know the Kasdim weren't existent as far back as before the birth of Abraham. People make too much of nothing just to know better than the Torah. There is likewise no evidence that the tribes of Canaanites were not literal tribes. Harran was between the same two rivers as Ur, so it makes sense to travel northward between these two rivers till one gets far enough north to travel north of the riverhead. It is why all attackers from the east came against Israel from the north. There were Chaldians of the north, that is true, but perhaps Chaldeans started off in a place they later returned to. We know so little really.
Uthman won't even debate Sam shamoun. Uthman is such an overweight cowered. Tell him stop running from Sam and Avery before you ask him to get spanked by another Christian.
This is so simple. I am from the UK, I could say King Alfred the Great was born in England in 847 AD. In fact, there was no such country as England at the time, just a bunch of disperate kingdoms. At that time his contemporaries would have said he was born in the kingdom of Wessex. So it is equally accurate to say he was born in England or born in Wessex. Probably a modern reader would recognise England more readily than Wessex.
Someone proposed that it was Urkesh, another lost ancient city found in the last decade of 20th century, also somewhere near Harran, maybe was Ur of Chaldean. What do you think?
@@InspiringPhilosophyI am not a scholar, just a researcher, but I uploaded a video on Urkesh and the evidence that this is the true hometown of Abraham if youre interested. Thanks for the content you put out Mike. If you still speak to VocabMalone tell him I am down to have a debate or discussion on the Lost Tribes topic. God bless 🙏
@InspiringPhilosophy Urfa doesn't seem to be a city until Alexander's time. It also doesn't seem to have been called Urfa in that time. Urkesh and Urbil (Erbil) were both cities mentioned in Sumero-Akkadian texts. Urbil seems to have originated as a colony of Ur, Urkesh is mentioned as having married into the Sargonic Dynasty.
@@TiberiusX really? So you're suggesting Urfa didn't exist until well after the Chaldeans too. If IP didn't know this that would be a huge hit against the credibility of this video
Making those claims are generally always premature and the inevitability that it will be disproven is just a matter of time. That really says something about the modern-day mindset… that also kind of says something about the truthfulness of the Bible.
Where in this video are we given any evidence that Abraham actually existed? This is a speculation about an area where a fictional character may have lived.
@@TheSecularTourist it has no evidance that Abraham actually existed, however it disproves one of the popular 'proofs' that Abraham didn't exist or that his place of living was made up later.
The modern day mindset is anti God. They hate the description Christians have of God and the way they behave. Ultimately they want to be their own God.@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130
Urmiah (west Iran) Urarto (Armenia) The name of Abrahams father (or uncle) was "Azar" which is a Persian word (Like Azerbaijan). Abraham was probably from the Caucasus. The Ark of Noah lands in the Ararat mountains and Semites are the descendants of Noah and had white skin which is again common among the people of the Caucasus. So the Ur in the north is likely to be either in Iran or the Caucasus.
That’s because it’s essentially the equivalent to “town” or “city” in English. It’s still in common use in other parts of the world. MIA was recently explaining this on Tim Pools show. Think Charlestown, New York City, Martinsburg, Maryville the ville etc let’s us know it’s a place people live where as Stigler doesn’t directly imply people there there. Stigler could be anything if you didn’t know it’s a town in Oklahoma that has the lowest priced Big Mac in America currently at like $3
The Apostles willingness to be killed not for saying they believed Jesus had risen, but they knew he had risen, because they saw him. If the tomb wasn't empty, they would've paraded the body around to stomp out any idea of Jesus being ressurrected, but Christianty spread because there was no body in the tomb. If someone stole the body, why were nearly all the Apostles willing to be killed for saying they'd seen Jesus risen? They were thousands of miles away from one another before phones and the internet and were being threaten, tortured, and murdered for their claim. Not one "broke" and said it was a lie to save themselves. The archeology matches the Bible perfectly all the way from Genesis through the New Testament. We have the writing of the disciples of the Apostles and the disciples of those disciples, and they not only quote much of the New Testament, but all the core idea of Christianty are present. Jesus being God, the Son of God, dying for sins, burial, resurrection, ascension to heaven. We also have writing of Jewish and Pagan contemporary historians who were hostile towards Jesus, who say the same things : Jesus being worshipped as God, the Son of God, dying for on the cross, burial, resurrection. It's mainly because of the archeology, "friendly" writers, and "hostile" writers mentioned above that the Jesus Seminar, who are PhD level ashiest/agnostics who study Christ and the Bible, concluded that Jesus really lived in Judea 2,000 years ago, was known as a miracle workers, died on the cross under Pilate, and that his disciples really believed they had seen him risen from the dead. The fact that there are contradictions between manuscripts is often sited as proof against trusting scripture, when it actually does the opposite. The fact that there are so many manuscripts makes it easy to tell when someone changed one, and modern Bibles are transparent about any differences in the footnotes. None of those differences found between manuscripts change anything about any core doctrines of Christianity, they are mainly a handwriting error on a letter or a different way to word something that means the same thing. There is also all the undisigned coincidence between not only the four Gospels, but the rest of the New and Old Testaments too. Matthew 2:22 talks about Joseph not wanting to return to Judea after fleeing to Egypt because Archelaus was ruling. That's all the info on that the Bible gives. Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us about the things Archelaus did and how evil he was. Put these two peices of evidence together, we get the full picture. This sort of thing happens through the text with the seemingly useless details matching up perfectly with extra Biblical sources, lending to the credibility of the text. It's because of the evidence that I believe in Jesus.
3:47 To me this verse appears to be talking about Jacob. 3:54 I think connecting this with Abraham and Sarah is a bit of a stretch. For one, the verse itself says it’s about the Canaanite origin of the city of Jerusalem. For two, the only connection Sarah’s own narrative makes between her and the Hittites is that they owned the cave she was buried in after she died.
You'll probably never see this but I really enjoy the atmosphere of your videos. The images you use, along with the slides, well written script, and even the music, makes for unmatched presentation on biblical historicity and apologetics. I share your videos with my friends all the time, and a childhood Buddhist friend of mine became a Christian after binging your videos and doing some soul searching.
Even though I'm not a Christian, I appreciate your research and the effort you put into making this video. You are one of my favorite Christian RU-vidrs. By the way, I saw an atheist RU-vidr named 'Holy Koolaid' making some videos about the alterations and changes made in the Bible. I would love to see a collaboration and debate between you and Holy Koolaid on this subject.
Lord Jesus give me strength. I’m a single mom and it is hard to have everything on my shoulders. Especially because both of my sons are special needs but despite the challenges I face. I keep faith in Jesus even as I struggle to pay rent and as I struggle to buy groceries for my children. As a christian that’s all I can do. Faith over fear.❤️
My grandmother when she before she move to her home in zion, she told me once that there time she needed The Lords help, and by His Help she was able to do her chores.
The Cyrupaedia is probably not even a work of history. If it is, it talks about the time of Cyrus - even later than that of Nebuchadnezzar. So by then the Chaldeans has long lived in southern Mesopotamia. The Anabasis OTOH is an excellent source but it records the situation even later, in 401 BC.
Quite insidious how you make christian apologetics sound so much like real scholarship. The presupposition that the bible is somehow correct, and that it always agrees with itself, is your problem. It stops you from going beyond this kind of fan fiction, when you could be doing real history.
You have helped me answer questions that I’ve struggled with you have helped me grow my faith in Christ, Thank you and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you brother ☦️❤️
I still think the biblical evidence points towards Ur of Mesopotamia. I guess the one question I would have is what is the opposition that Abraham wasn't Mesopotamian? I think the biblical verses used in this segment don't really support your view one way or the other. You have this quote from Stephan in in Acts, "“Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran." Stephan places Abraham in Mesopotamia. The Duet quote about Aramean, Aramean wasn't an ethnic group or national identity. It was used as a place holder to refer broadly to a group of people who lived in the regions from Syria to Haran, and the first record of the "Arameans" isn't until the late 1200s. Abraham being referred to as a wandering Aramean still works because he had lived in Haran, a place designated as Aram, and was a wandering shepherd, an epitaph that was associated with the Arameans. You are also assuming that Duet is referring to Abraham, when it better fits biographically with Jacob. The Masoretic text it lists Bethel, the father-in-law of Isaac as being an Aramean. This would make Rachel and Leah Aramean's, too. Jacob is the one who "went down into Egypt and sojourned there... and became a nation..." not Abraham. Also, we are given both the genealogy of Abraham and the Arameans. In the Table of Nations, the Arameans are the decedents of Aram, Shem's youngest son, but we are told explicitly that Abraham was a descendant of Eber (perhaps where the term Hebrew comes from), and Eber wasn't descended from Aram, but through Araphaxed, the third son of Shem.
The second verse in Ezekiel has a lot problems with it. The Amorites in the Bible were the Canaanites and we're told in Genesis that the Amorites were descendants of Ham and Canaan. They are not Shemites. Also in Torah and Joshua, the Amorites are associated with the Nephilim and the giants. Lastly, I believe the Amorites became the Babylonians, therefore there is that association, too. Now we don't know Sarai's mother's parentage, but we know who the Hittites were, they are descendant of Ham's second son, Heth. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible that links up Abraham's genealogy and parentage through Ham or Canaan, or any biblical verse that states that Abraham was a Canaanite. The same Ezekiel text used gives Sodom as Israel's sister, we know Sodom was a Canaanite and we know that the Sodomites were not related to Isaac/Jacob in any way, let alone being his "sister".
What is more, this is a major plot point of the story of Isaac and Jacob's marriages and a major plot point of the messianic seed. Abraham doesn't want Isaac to marry anyone from Canaan, he only wants him to marry within his family, ie, the bloodline of Shem, not to taint the messianic bloodline with Canaan/Ham's blood. This is a contention between Esau and Jacob because Isaac allowed Esau, his oldest son to marry two Hittites. This was detrimental to the messianic promise and puts that promise into jeopardy. The times when the Messiah's bloodline isn't through Shem/Eber's bloodline are in situations when the men were lacking in faith and were the women, usually non Jewish, who through faith step it up and it is because of that faith we eventually get the genealogy of Jesus. If Abraham or Sarah were Hittites or Amorites, then this dampens the importance of the messianic bloodline needing to come from Shem and not through Ham, something which the NT and OT emphasize. I don't know if there is etymological link here, but the people of Ur were specifically Sumerians, before they were displaced by the Akkadians. I don't know if there is a etymological links between "Shem" and "Sum"mer but there might be a connection there. We know ethnically, Abraham has to be a Shemite, so I guess the next question there would be are the Sumerians descended from Shem? One biblical clue might be Peleg, who is said to be alive when the Tower of Babel happened, and because of that association, I would assume present or near by the "plain of Shinar", where the Bible places the Tower of Babel incident, ie, southern Mesopotamia. So if Peleg, the descendant of Eber, was in the plain of Shinar when the languages were confused, this could be seen as collaborating evidence.
It is factually incorrect to say that it is not possible for the biblical "Ur of the Chaldeans" to have been in southern Mesopotamia. The Bible says that Abram: -was an Amorite/Aramaean -his clan homeland was at Haran in Padan Aram -that his wife was a Hittite, which term is not only used of peoples in Asia Minor and near Aram, but also of peoples living in the northern lavant when Abram arrives, among whose land he buys her burial plot. So, most likely, this is where she was from. -he traveled with his clan from Ur back to the ancestral land of Haran, *and from there* seperated from his father's house and travelled into Canaan. We also know that populations of Amorite/Aramaean herdsmen had long attached themselves to the various Sumerian population centers, forming urban HQs from which they would seasonally move their herds in and out. These pastoralists lived among and alongside the urbanized Sumerians, largely merging their populations. But they were also known to be very mobile, picking up and moving all along the Fertile Crescent as trade and their herds demanded, which caused some annoyance to the cities trying to maintain order and local prosperity. Amorites (which just means Semitic herdsmen in general and became an ethnic term over time) had actually ruled over the entire area up to 1600 BC when the Kassites took over. So, it is quite a natural, plausible reading to understand that, yes, his people's homeland was in Aram, but that Abram enters the narrative as part of one of many Amorite herdsmen's enclaves that we know existed in and around Ur (in Sumeria). God then tells him that He will be guiding him to leave his clan and depart for a new land. Then, as was normal practice, his clan makes a pretty standard caravan trip back home to Haran, and it is from there that Abram breaks away and heads into Canaan. The point that Haran was out of the way on a trip to Canaan is utterly inconsequential. The Biblical narrative doesn't say that they traveled from Ur to Canaan. It says that they made a trip from Ur to Haran, *and then* Abram broke away and went his own way into Canaan. The Bible also never says that Abram's people originated in Ur. It says that they were living in Ur at the time God spoke to him, but that their homeland was in Padan Aram around Haran. Especially given how much it was stressed that Sumerian Ur being called "of the Chaldeans" doesn't actually pose any problems, the above is the natural reading of the text and concurs with our historical understanding of the period. Claiming a separate, unknown city is a greater leap than simply recognizing the agreed-upon fact that the Bible sometimes uses later names for places. It's also interesting to note that the theory IP puts forward relies on the recent pushing back of the Chaldeans' presence in Aram, but declines even the possiblity that there were Chaldeans in Sumeria at the time of Moses. But even if there weren't, IP has already stated that a southern Ur of the Chaldeans posses no real threat.
I'm not completely sold on this, but I'm definitely going to study and look into it. The oldest known homes are in this area too. Thank you for your research very interesting. 👍
@evelynalex Genesis 10:15-16 "And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite," Genesis 10:21-22"Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram."
This is ridiculous! For some reason, Communists can't understand words in the normal context, in the normal use. That's why they can't understand the Bible, and that's why they've screwed up archeology, biology, and geology, since the Victorian era. It has taken decades to rehabilitate Middle Eastern archeology, after the 20th Century hatchet jobs on archeological sites, where photos of Stalin were plastered around the operating bases. It will take more decades to rehabilitate geology, if it's even possible, and biology is finally willing to look at epigenetics, which was resisted by socialists for years. Trying to "correct" the Bible to undermine Christianity and Judaism isn't working anymore, because the Communists have been run out of archeology in the Holy Land. Dr. Scott Stripling has been doing wet sifting at dump sites where archeology was deliberately destroyed by Communists. The evidence coming out of his digs has made the earlier Communists look ridiculous, and ignorant, which they are.
Hi. I was recently watching a debate between William Craig and Alex O'Connor. Alex had come up with a point about the Cacaanite people and I was wondering if I could have an insight on this. Did God command the killing of these children. If so, does this make him a just God?
There's cities named Paris, London, Athens, Berlin, Sidona etc in both Europe and Asia Minor AND in the USA. Withiut even mentioning the "New" cities. In any given country there's dozens upon dozens of little towns and villages sharing the same name because it holds some sort of cultural significance or denotes a simple geographical location or terrain feature. Why would anyone think it's far fetched there could have been more than one city with the same name in a different location in ancient times? It's like saying "York of the Americans" isn't a place because York is in england 😂
I got no problem with that, either way, but I don't believe any of the Bible was written then. It doesn't change the fact that the primordial periods in the book of Genesis has all its myths coming from ancient Mesopotamian/Akkadian myths. Or even ancient Babylonia also did they have ziggurats up there ?? because that can be an important thing in dating. we know it would match the current understanding of where UR was, but I don't know if there were any ziggurats that far north it wasn't like the 900s before Babylon got its Ziggurat URUK got theirs about 3000 BC UR about 2100 bc etc etc so make sure to include that in your analysis also remember the tower of Babel ziggurat there in Babylon was commissioned to Marduk not Yahweh so the creation story still isn't true the flood story still isn't true the tower of Babel story still isn't true etc But that will also put "Moses" a heck of a lot further away from Egypt The reality is the Israelite and Judah height identities came from different people groups with different backgrounds and they carried on the traditional myths that each people group had and then they conflate their gods with other gods for what their gods did compared to what other gods did or they write polemics against one another They are still all equally as false so it's kind of all irrelevant
Huh. It's an interesting take. But it seems to be one just as possible as the original thought for a Sumerian Ur (southern Mesopotamia). This is especially since the land that Abraham told his servant to go to isn't exactly the land of his fathers nor the land of his ancestors, but a curious word that seems to denote siblings or kindred, those descending from a parent, which would still make sense as Harran since Terah settled and died there after taking his family there to live (and we do not know for how long). It isn't even quite the same word as "land of my birth," though it derives from the same root lexeme. The text also explicitly gives the place-name of the area the servant traveled to: Aram-Naharaim, which gives the place-name according to the Aramean people, but also according to the location between the rivers. This jives if we take that Abraham principally identified as an Aramean man-- something still totally plausible if he had come from the southern Mesopotamian Ur of the Sumerians. Also, traveling up from Southern Mesopotamia, Harran would just be within the two-river corridor of the Euphrates and the Tigris, which makes a lot of sense because major trade routes followed that route anyways, and so even from southern Mesopotamia, Harran would not be "out of the way" by any means if one was traveling with the goal of reaching Canaan anyways. And Harran (apparently) was likely originally a trading post settlement made by the Sumerians. This means that there was likely not even a cultural separation from what was going on in southern Mesopotamia and what was occurring at either location of "Ur," as plausible as either seem as the actual place of Abraham's birth. So the evidence is a bit of a toss up at this point. But it is pretty intriguing to think about.
Why are you telling your audience the rapture isn't real and that were not on the brink of Daniel's 70th week? Are you stealing their blessed hope just because you have some unbiblical interpretations? Look at the times
In one of your copycat Jesus videos, you mentioned another video on another channel. It was a satirical/parody type cartoon that ran through all the claims in one video. I remember watching it. For the life of me, I cannot find it. Please help?
Michael do you have any videos on the Essenes? if not are willing to make one? Aaron Abke talks a lot about how they are close to zoroastrianism and that Jesus and john the baptist were Essenes. I cant find any reliable sources for this.
Michael Jones can you please respond to the atheist Derek Bennett he is an atheist who makes claims that against Christianity and does not believe it’s true and claims that Jesus is another copy of Romulus any claims that he knows for a fact that the resurrection did not happen. I would like you to do some videos on them please and these videos are either months or a year old so if you’re OK with it, I respect you but if you don’t want to it’s your choice❤
Your evidence for changing the names is spurious at best, and deceptive at worst. I didn't see any of these name changes in my translation. Use a better translation.
So urfa could be the place where abraham built his first house of god. As well as been the place where david hid from saul before returning to jerusalem. More likely than mecca which is in the south of the heraj and not on the route you have shown.
It's also very pleasing to see that the bible accurately preserved memories of the bronze age. They, unlike the post-mycenaean Greeks, were not a "lobotomized" people.
What about the lost City of Ratershaw in Victoria in Australia where the first 6 episodes of Home and Away were filmed before the herendous sand storm of 1843?
Very interesting. A compelling argument that makes a lot of sense. Better explains the "wandering Aramean" reference to Abraham than the traditional site does. Thank you.
For once an IP video I cna pretty much agree with entirely. Only issue is I wish you'd acknowledged Urkesh as an alternate theory, it even had a King with the same name as Abraham's father.
Question: being Abraham for a northern city, would he still be imbued with the Sumerian narrative we have seen in past videos regarding the "pantheon" of Els, the deluge etc that is seen in the Bible?
As long as he was in an area where Akkadian was dominant, he would have still had that influence. Even non-Akkadian like Ebaite could still have that summerian influence but I guess that's more far away at that point.
There's a problem with Urfa: the name "Urfa" is derived from an earlier Arabic name. "The oldest name for the city is the Syriac Orhay, which is derived from either the Semitic root -r-w-ʿ, meaning "to bring water", or the Greek name "Orrha", meaning "beautiful flowing water." James Silk Buckingham claimed that in earlier times, the city was known as Ruha, and with the Arabic article, it became Ar-Ruha, evolving into Urha, and eventually Urfa. Carsten Niebuhr observed that Turks called the city El-Rohha in the 18th century, although Buckingham who later visited Urfa, disagreed and noted that all Turks, and most Arabs and Kurds in the surrounding countryside called it Urfa, while a small portion of the Christians called it as the former." [Wikipedia: "Urfa"]. Therefore this has to be ruled out as a candidate for Ur of the Chaldees. Urkesh is a better fit.
How can Abraham be an Amorite if Ben-ammi is the father of the children if Ammon according to Genesis 19, Ben-ammi is the one of the children Lot had with his youngest daughter and wasnt Abraham Lot's uncle so that doesnt make sense
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thank you brother for the correction, but won't that also not be possible for Abraham to be an Amorite because he is a descendant of Shem and not Ham and Canaan?
I have a question I think I've been getting lukewarm or backslidden. For the past month What's your advice on getting out of this state And really getting on fire for God Sometimes it's hard for me To read my bible Or talk to God Because when I mess up or sin I just feel like I can't talk to him about it And I just dig myself into a hole And I keep committing the same sin over and over again And i've been messing up a lot in my life I feel like I'm stuck And I keep making the wrong choices
I feel you brother, and have been there many times. You kind of just have to force yourself to read the Bible. It gets easier. The same way you brush your teeth every morning and night, you need to set a time to read your Bible and just stick to it. Second, do not avoid God with your sin. Confess it and pray to God even more. Avoiding him is natural and what Adam and Eve wanted to do. But Gods the only one who can help us, so when we run from him because we feel shame, we are leaving the only person who can help us. God always knows your sin and struggles, so you can confess and pray to him about it. Last, you need to surround yourself with other believers. You need to confess your sins to them, and also have fellowship with them. It gets easier around other people. I’ve been going to Bible college, and now I’m home over the summer and the difference is night and day. I’m glad I at least have my church family. But I don’t see them everyday like I used to. Still, once I started going back to church again it has been getting easier to leave the backslidden state I’ve been in. Fellowship is very important for the believer, and making sure you confess your sins and do not hide your sins from them or God will bring you into the light easier. Keep in mind we will never be perfect. But God is gracious and loves us so much. And He can help us with His church and with the Holy Spirit he gives us
John 6:37 (ESV): 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 1 John 2:1-2 (ESV): My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world
