Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired?

The site may have been there, but it was occupied by either Akkadians or Babylonians, Not the Chaldeans. They didn't occupy it until no earlier that the 8th century BCE.

i've looked at the hebrew text of that verse you quoted, the original & literal reading of 'in Ur of the Chaldeans' is Ur of Chaldeaso it is possible that in ancient times all the land and people occupying the southern portion of Babylon, were known as the chaldeans because the region itself was called chaldeabut i'll have to do some more digging to be sure, but the way the hebrew is worded makes me think that this could be the case.

The name is A Greek name. The name chaldean did not exist until at least 8th century BCE.Please explain the following and some evidence please that verifies this. I am not even sure what this means. The empire was very large. DO you mean he excavated key cities? There is no doubt there was continuous occupation in Mesopotamia from a very early period. Di he find something to identify a particular site as Chaldean?More info please.ABE
I see you meant he excavated "Ur of the Chaldees". Yes, but the name is anachronistic. Biblical archaeologists continued to use that misnomer, but the term is anachronistic. Here is on source to show the name is a anachronistic.

quote:

---

Ur is known in the Bible as Ur of the Chaldees. This biblical name, Ur of the Chaldees, refers to the Chaldeans, who settled the area about 900 B.C

---

Edited by Theodoric, : Added more info

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This term is from the 8th century BCE. The people that were the Chaldeans did not settle Ur until that time.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Also, considering Moses was 120yrs of age and on his deathbed, its very likely that Joshuah (Moses minister) penned the whole book under dictation from Moses.

---

Even that reasoning doesn't explain away the view-from-the-future perspective the book holds.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

bluescat originally asked how Moses could have known about the chaldeans seeing they were not a people until after the 8th century. However, as far as i'm aware, all the land and people occupying the southern portion of Babylon were known as chaldean. And the dating of the site of the city of Ur, the place where moses said Abraham came from, is dated to between the 20th and 16th centuries BCE. So why is it a problem that Moses used the name?

because it was not known as Chaldea at that time it was either Akkadia or Babylonia depending on when the time was From ~1800 BCE it was Babylonia prior to that Akkadia. After Babylonia it was Assyria, when the Assyrians overthrew the Babylonians, then Chaldea after the Chaldians overthrew the Assyrians in the 7th century BCE, It became part of Persia when the Persian-Mede Coalition overthrew the Chaldeans.Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

i thought Babylonian was synonymous with Chaldeanas i said before, Moses seems to be referencing a 'land' or 'area' known as chaldea rather then a group of people of a nationality called 'chaldean'i could be wrong of course...it could be that as the scrolls were copied and the names of places and people changed, the translators made certain adjustments. It could also be that in Abrahams time, the land really was known as chaldea and it wasnt a greek name at all. Dont forget that the Greeks used the Hebrew alphabet as the basis for their own language...so if the word chaldea is believed to be Greek, it was very possibly hebrew first.

The Chaldeans were at times called neo-Babylobnians because their Capital was the City of Babylon. The Original Babylonians were a totally different people than the Chaldeans.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Actually,the Greek alphabet was derived from the Phonecian alphabet which is itself derived from pro-Canaanite/Sumerian cuneiform alphabets dating back to before the 15th century B.C. Hebrew is also derived from the Phonecian alphabet. Thus the Greek and Hebrew both are derived from the same source and evolved independently of each other.Honestly Peg, do you do any research before spouting off nonsense on these boards. Please do your research first or else risk sounding like an idiot.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Well you are wrong. Or maybe Moses never wrote it or maybe a space alien did.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Moses only wrote the original
all others that came after it were written by the scribes

if you look closely at the greek alphabet and the Hebrew, you'll see that it more closely resembles Hebrew then Phoenician.but for arguments sake, sure its phoenician...which is semitic...which is hebrew. The Greek alphabetic letters of around the 7th centuryBCE resembled the Hebrew characters of about the 8th centuryBCEthen there is the pronunciation which is also very similar such as:
A. al′pha and ’a′leph
B. be′ta and behth
D. del′ta and da′lethbut you are right to say its Phoenician, so long as you take into account that Phoenician is derived from other semitic languages.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

i undertsand that the people themselves changed from time to time, however the land itself was always known as chaldeawhich is what i was saying earlier...perhaps moses was simply referncing the Chaldeans as the people from the area of chaldea.The online britanica says
"Strictly speaking, the name should be applied to the land bordering the head of the Persian Gulf between the Arabian desert and the Euphrates delta"so the name is a reference to the area as opposed to a particular race of people. For example, many nations live in Australia, but all are called 'australians' not because of their race, but because they live on the land called 'australia'

You seem to be missing the point of this. It was only named Chaldea after the Chaldeans occupied the area. At the time of Moses, it was called Babylonia as It was when Abraham was born. Yes providing the country named before the people who are occupying it. There are many countries which are named for the people who settled it. Germany, Hungary, Turkey, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Bulgaria are just some.Edited by bluescat48, : misplaced [qs]Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008