Author Topic: Was Terah 70 or 130 when Abraham was born? - Genesis 11:26  (Read 2955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Christian Zionist

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1515
  • homosexuality is an abomination to God-Lev.18:22
Was Terah 70 or 130 when Abraham was born? - Genesis 11:26
« on: December 05, 2007, 10:40:44 PM »

Gen.11:26 Terah was 70 years of age when Abram was born. Gen. 11:32 Terah dies when he was 205. Upon Terah's death Abram leaves Ur; he was 75, Gen. 12:4. 205-75=130!? Terah was 130 not 70 when Abram was born?



Let's look at the two texts first:

Gen 11.26ff: When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now these are the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot. Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans. Abram and Nahor took wives; the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah. She was the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. Now Sarai was barren; she had no child. Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were two hundred five years; and Terah died in Haran.

Let me make some initial observations about the texts, and then give the TWO-THREE different ways the passages are synchronized:

Gen 11.26 is a summary statement--NOT the same formula that are in the preceding verses (i.e. "X lived Y years and begot Z, and he had OTHER sons and daughers"). Our verse is in a different form, as that at the end of a genealogy like Genesis 5.31: "And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.".

11.26, if interpreted by the other forms, would make Abe/Nahor/Haran all born in the SAME year (triplets, maybe? hmmm...a foreshadowing of the Trinity, eh? eyes glaze over in Christian frenzy here...)! Highly unlikely, esp. since they are apparently the ONLY male children of Terah.

The order of names in 11.26 is probably only related to importance, not chronology. “Genesis 5:32 lists the three sons of Noah in this sequence: (1) Shem, (2) Ham, (3) Japheth. But this cannot be the order of the birth, for 9:24 identifies Ham as the youngest son of Noah.” [NICOT, in loc]

It is possible than Haran was the oldest, since Nahor marries a daugther of his (11.29).

Scholars generally believe that Terah had lived in Haran BEFORE migrating to Ur, and this might suggest that Haran was born there (and named from it as well), indicating his historical precedence over Abraham.

As I mentioned, there are three (but they boil down to two) ways to understand this: (1) Terah was 70; or (2) Terah was 130. And both are 'reasonable' approaches, although I personally side with Waltke and Bruce (i.e., that Terah was 70 and that “205” is a textual error, on the evidence of Philo/SamPent):

Perhaps Abram is mentioned first because he is the most important of the three. Thus Terah was 130 years old, near the end of his life, when Abram was born!” [NICOT]

Bruce favors the “textual” solution:

“The chronological data of Gen. 11:26, 32; 12:4 would suggest that Terah's death took place sixty years after Abraham's departure from Harran. J. Ussher and other chronologers of an earlier day harmonized the present statement of Stephen with the evidence of Genesis by the improbable expedient of supposing that Terah was seventy years old when his oldest son (Haran) was born, and that Abraham was not born until Terah was 130. That Abraham did not leave Harran until his father was dead is asserted also by Philo (On the Migration of Abraham 177), and is implied by the Samaritan Pentateuch, which in Gen. 11:32 gives Terah's age at death as 145, not 205 (MT, LXX). It would follow that Abraham, who left Harran at the age of 75 (Gen. 12:4), did so as soon his father had died. ... Possibly Stephen (or Luke) and Philo relied on a Greek version (no longer extant) which agreed with the Samaritan reading of Gen. 11:32. P. E. Kahle says with greater assurance that "not a single MS. of the Christian `Septuagint' has preserved in Gen. 11:32 a reading which Philo and Luke read in their Greek Tora in the first Christian century" (The Cairo Geniza [London, 1947], p. 144).” [NICNT, “Acts”]

As does Waltke, in his commentary on Genesis:

“205 years. The original text probably read "145 years." This reading is attested in the Samaritan Pentateuch If the Masoretic text is original, Terah was 130 when Abraham was born (see 11:26; 12:4). This seems unlikely for three reasons: (1) it accords badly with the rest of the genealogy from Shem to Terah, who have their firstborn in their early thirties; (2) there would be nothing exceptional in Abraham fathering Isaac at 100 years of age

Now, normally, if the MT and LXX agreed, that would be strong data, but in this case they actually DONT agree on the passage itself. The LXX says “and all the days of Terah in Harran were 205 years, and Terah died in Harran”--making Terah live another 205 years in Haran! But the MT has “And they were, the days of Terah, five and two hundred years; and Terah-died in Haran.” So there is some definite textual confusion in our existing sources.

Additionally, we might note that an ancient Rabbinic source even noted a possible 'dislocation' in the text--suggesting that sequence of events in Genesis was uncertain. Tov explains [OT:TCHB2,54f]:

“In the printed editions one finds inverted nunim... the original meaning of these signs in Greek sources was that the section enclosed by the sigma and antisigma did not suit its present place in the text... An additional case, not attested in the [printed] manuscripts, is mentioned in Minhat Shay and the Mp of the second Rabbinic Bible on Gen 11:32 ('in Haran')... It is possible that the inverted nun in this place showed that the verse did not occur in its correct place, for a chronological calculation reveals that the death of Terah mentioned here ought to have occurred after what is recorded in the following sections (cf. Rashi).”



So, given the textual problems in our modern MT/LXX and the specific references/indications of 145 in Philo, Stephen(Luke), and the SP, I have to go with the “70 years old” conclusion.


Explaination by Glenn Miller.
Isaiah 62:1 -  For Zion's sake I am not silent, And for Jerusalem's sake I do not rest, Till her righteousness go out as brightness, And her salvation, as a torch that burns.

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: Was Terah 70 or 130 when Abraham was born? - Genesis 11:26
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2007, 02:57:08 PM »

Gen.11:26 Terah was 70 years of age when Abram was born. Gen. 11:32 Terah dies when he was 205. Upon Terah's death Abram leaves Ur; he was 75, Gen. 12:4. 205-75=130!? Terah was 130 not 70 when Abram was born?

Gen 11:31 says
Terach  took Avram and Sarai and Lot ... , and left Ur and went to Charan. 

Gen 11:32 says
The days of terach were 205 years, and terach died in Haran.

That does not mean that Terach died as soon as they got there!  And so certainly does not mean that Terach was 205 when they left Ur.   
Infact, you wrote that Avram left Ur on Terach`s death, which is completely wrong.  As both verses show.  Terach went to Charan and stayed there and died there.

Just quoting some more verses to see what went on.. There are no contradictions here

Gen 11:26
"When Terach was 70 he had Avram Nachor and Haran..."

Next part of journey is leaving Charan. They leave Terach there.

Gen 12:4-5
Avram was 75 when he left Charan
He took Sarai and Lot.
[Terach was 75+70, i.e. 145, when Avram left Charan without him]

I don`t really know what logic you are using with your numbers..  But your facts are all wrong

Regarding your 205-75

They are not ages of events in Terach`s life, so one wonders what your logic is.

75 is an age of Avram (was avram`s age when he left Charan without Terach)
205 is an age of Terach (Terach died at 205)

The events could not have occurred simultaneously.   Terach was 70 years older than Avram.

I think your mistakes accumulate. This is ridiculous.. !!



side note- I know you didn`t confuse this, but Lot was son of Haran. Not to be confused with the place Charan..
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 03:28:58 PM by q_q_ »

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: Was Terah 70 or 130 when Abraham was born? - Genesis 11:26
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2007, 03:35:32 PM »
Your article said
"
Tov explains [OT:TCHB2,54f]:
"

You are quoting from sick idiots that do not even believe in the bible

one of the sources mentioned is
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed). Emanuel Tov. Fortress:2001

Ask yourself what person spends his time writing books criticising the bible when he does not believe in it.  The 2 go together, don`t they.   He doesn`t believe in it and he writes books criticising it, making a little money, and getting enjoyment from his self hating personality.

Please keep this drivel off a torah forum.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 03:51:33 PM by q_q_ »

Offline Christian Zionist

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1515
  • homosexuality is an abomination to God-Lev.18:22
Re: Was Terah 70 or 130 when Abraham was born? - Genesis 11:26
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2007, 08:57:28 PM »
Well, this guy Glenn Miller is a Bible apologist and a faith defender.  One critic questioned him about this alleged discrepancy and Glenn wrote this response.  I do not agree everything that Glenn writes.  When it comes to faith we do not need these kind of explanations.  However there are some muslim debaters like Sabir Ali who release tracts citing these kind of Tanak verses which appear to be a contradiction.
Their materials are widely circulated among muslims and they allege that Jews corrupted the Tanak and Christians corrupted the "injil".

The muslim logic is always flawed. 

Some scholars also claim that the Septuagint adds an extra name "Cainan," to the chronology between the flood and the birth of Abram thus effecting the date of the flood.  The term textual criticism does not always mean that someone is attacking the Hebrew Bible.  In apologetics it can also mean someone trying to defend his faith by providing explanations for the Biblical verses.

If you happen to read Sabir Ali's attack on the Bible you will find many foolish and illogical arguments.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 11:32:13 PM by Christian Zionist »
Isaiah 62:1 -  For Zion's sake I am not silent, And for Jerusalem's sake I do not rest, Till her righteousness go out as brightness, And her salvation, as a torch that burns.

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: Was Terah 70 or 130 when Abraham was born? - Genesis 11:26
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2007, 04:02:14 AM »
Dealing with them the way Glen Miller has, is attacking the bible using illogical arguments.

Here is a better way.. If they try to list 1001 bible contradictions. Tell them they can give 1, and then you can give a quran contradiction. respond, and give 1 quran contradiction. Then they have the problem.

Or.. You just focus on the quran allowing muslims to marry, have sex with, and divorce, girls pre menstruation.  (see iceyyy`s video)  quran 65:4.        And the fact that many Sahih (sound) hadith, have mohammed having sex with a 9 year old girl (perhaps she had reached puberty, but in our society, we call it pedophilia).  They may claim she was 19, or that some say she was 19.. but they are not being that honest. Ask them if they think sex with a 9 year old girl is sick and wrong.  They will not admit that it is because they believe mohammed did it, it is many times in their sound hadith, so 99% of muslims, unless they are dishonest about their own religion. Believe ot, and that it is ok.

Now, whatever they come up with against the bible.. Even if you cannot answer it (The bible is a huge complex book)..  They will not be comfortable with you attacking islam and them like that.   They`ll be pissed too, because you screwed up / short-circuited their attempt to convert you to islam , in front of everybody, and it shows everybody how they can be short-circuited. 

If you really want to engage in that, then fine.. But it is just not reality.  I used to know muslims, and refuted them without any of that, just answering simple fair questions like sarah asked.. showing that the torah is eternal, and islam cannot be what it claims to be, (even if mohammed had done miracles or predictions - and the torah allows for false prophets to do miracles) and that was before I knew all the science crap were well funded hoaxes. and that their book had no prophecies. (the closest things it had to prophecies, were things like the 2 exiles, that were prophecies from the bible and had already happened long before mohammed`s birth.. And that jews would return to the land - which was just copied from the bible)

As soon as I left the muslim area, I did not contact the muslim friends anymore.. They were more like colleagues.

If you want to study 1001 islammic arguments against the bible, answered. Then use proper christian sites, like www.answering-islam.org  , they have a whole section devoted to him (along with many other muslims)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/



Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: Was Terah 70 or 130 when Abraham was born? - Genesis 11:26
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2007, 08:40:01 PM »
Terah did not die when Abraham left Haran. The Torah simply records his death there because his role in the story is finished. The same is done for Abraham's death. His death is recorded in the end of Chayei Sarah but he really died after Jacob was already born, in Parashat Toledot. The red lentils Jacob was eating were Isaac's food of mourning for Abraham.



I don`t know how much of what you say is based on the plain text, and how much from midrash.  Perhaps none is midrash.. But I will point out

Plain text is stronger..   (accurate)

Midrashim are not as strong , less accurate. So, as RAMBAN eloquently writes in his debate (published in book `judaism on trial`) you can choose which midrashim you accept. They sometimes contradict each other because they were not transmitted so well.  Which is fine.. it is not law that we live on.

The biblical criticism that was posted was to argue based on the plain text of the bible, that it was wrong. It makes most sense to answer that with the plain text of the bible.   That is better than answering them with a book that they do not accept.

ChristianZionist is probably Christian, and thus he would not believe any oral tradition..   Which is quite convenient, because it is our inheritance and our betrothed, and were we to teach it to a gentile, it would make that gentile like a thief and an adulterer "!!!!"