Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Jim Duyer
Date: 2020-05-11 20:53:35
Reaction Score: 1
Are you the guy I originally quoted on a different account? I was about to hit reply and noticed your name was not Moron Face and now I'm a bit confused, because you've replied to me, as if you wrote what I had originally replied to. From the way you write, you do not seem to be a believer of the Bible, whereas Moron Face does appear to believe the Bible.
In what sense are you saying the Amorites are Hebrews? Amorites supposedly originated in Jebel Bishri, Assyria, and spread out conquering lands around them, and were supposed to be the last remnants of the giants.
In the Bible they were described as being immense in stature. The Hebrews were commanded to fight them, during their walk in the desert in the book of Deuteronomy where they killed the Amorite king, Og of Bashan.
"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them"
If you mean that earlier Israelites were the descendants of ancient Amorites, it could be possible. One problem when I think about this, is that Abraham was a descendant of Shem, the Amorites of Ham.
To my understanding, the "Hebrews" are not a people / race, per say, being a Hebrew simply means you crossed over, as in you crossed over into the covenant with God, there is a lot of debate to this though.
When you say "Arabic way of thinking, in regards to the shape of the earth" Who are you referring to here? Just curious.
I am not saying you are wrong, but this just goes against my understanding, however if you have some knowledge on this that supports Hebrews being the Amorites of the Bible, I wouldn't mind looking into it, I find this stuff interesting.
I typically go back and look at the direct Hebraic translations when I'm in doubt and would love to look into this.
No, not now, never have been, Moron Face. I don't have a Moron Face either, according to those that know me. I've never been accused of being a Moron either, although child of Satan, liar, and idiot do spring to mind in the way of comments made by certain people. (God bless the mentally challenged).
Yes, in the later portion of the Bible, the Hebrews went to great trouble to attach an idea of giants, and
very bad people to the name Amorites. As a way of distancing their relatives from historical reality.
But those are the ones from much the period later than Abraham.
Abraham was perhaps born in Ur. His father Terah, was also, but perhaps born in Harran.
Regardless of their actual place of birth, we do know that their ancestors came from Harran.
Harran is in Turkey, but only some 20 miles or so from the Syrian border. At the time frame
of the Biblical Abraham, the Amorites were in control in Ur and in Mesopotamia in general. We
are speaking of from about 2000 BC until the Hittites ran them out in the late 1590s BC.
No, the traditional publications don't mention this, primarily because the Amorites had a
bad reputation in those days, (but only when you asked any of their neighbors, such as the
Akkadians, Sumerians, Egyptians, etc. who went so far as to coin words for this people).
Only once did they mess up and leave one mention in - where in the Old Testament we learn
that "O; Jerusalem; your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite" .
To me, it really doesn't seem like such a big thing. Many great families have skeletons in their
closets.
Amorites being descended from Ham does not really change the story, and it may be as you suggest.
Ham migrated down to Ethiopia, but originally he was in Anatolia .
Actually that's before Noah, sorry.
I've proven the flood, found where the ark landed, proven that the earth
had one written language at one time, found Eden's location, associated all of the major
characters in Sumerian and Hebrew texts with each other, or at least their early connections,
and explained the lineage of Cain, the builder of cities. In the last two weeks. And I am
working fast and furiously on getting it published.
As to believer in the Bible, I have to admit that I believe more in the New Testament than the Old,
perhaps because of my upbringing. I can tell you this much: I do not and never will, believe that
the timeline furnished by Ussher and other commentators as to the creation at c. 6000 years ago
and the flood at about 4200 years ago is correct. Here's a thought as to why I say that:
They use a list of the descendants of Adam, and then on to Noah.
No bad people are listed really, some who strayed, but most all were long lived "righteous" people.
And no women.
So, if the earth was so bad, and had to be destroyed by a flood, which of those 900 year lived
saints and descendants was evil? Or where are the missing bad guys in their lists?
Show me one with righteous people, bad people, women both good an bad, and
some that were so evil God had to destroy the world, and I will start adding up their
lifespans and see what we have.
