12

Genesis 11:31-12-1 appears to indicate that Abram left Haran after his father Terah had died. (The author of the New Testament book of Acts certainly saw it that way.)

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.

Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.

However, according to Genesis 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when "became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." Subtract this from the 205 years Terah is said to have lived according to Genesis 11:32, and Abram would have been 135 years old when his father died.

But according to Genesis 12:4, "Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran."

How can these statements be reconciled? Or is one of the numbers simply wrong?

0

13 Answers 13

11

Short Answer: Abram did indeed depart from Haran after his father died, as the Old Testament indicates, and as the New Testament explicitly claims. (Terah was 130 years old when Abram was born.)


Good question. (This happens to be one of the most commonly asked -- and addressed -- "discrepancies" in Scripture.)

The problem is in the modern Western reading of an ancient Hebrew text. First, a note about Hebrew chronologies...

A lesson from Noah's sons: Genesis 5:32 states, “Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” Every time Noah’s sons are listed, they are listed in this order (Genesis 6:10, 7:13, 9:18, 10:1). One might think Shem was the oldest and Japheth was the youngest based on the order in the text, but that is incorrect. Genesis 9:22-24 indicates Ham was the youngest. Genesis 10:21 indicates there was also an "oldest" (There is some question whether Shem or Japheth was older, due to the differences in translation.) So we are not looking at twins or triplets, since there was an oldest, and Ham was the youngest. Thus, the age given probably refers to the age when Noah became a father (i.e. the birth of the firstborn), and is not meant to be read as all three being born in one year, in that order.

A second look at Terah's sons: Genesis 11:26 is similar. It indicates that Terah was 70 years old when he became a father, and that he was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran was most likely the oldest since Abram was traveling with Lot (Genesis 12:5), Haran’s son (Genesis 11:27), and Nahor married Haran’s daughter (Genesis 11:29.) Regardless, we have a similar situation to Noah's sons, where we ought not to take this as an indication that three sons were born to him in the same year, in that order. The text is not claiming they were all born when he was 70.

Obvious solution: Abram left after his father died, as you indicated in your question. So, Abram seems to have been born when Terah was 130, which makes him 75 years old when he left.


The most common objection: When this solution is rejected, it is usually out of a difficulty understanding why Abram fell on his face and laughed at the idea of having a son when he was 100 and his wife was 90 (Genesis 17:17). Several things need to be noted here:

  • Though the chronologies are all bunched together in the text, keep in mind that Abram said this 100 years after Terah fathered a child at an old age -- that is a long time! The lifespans had been rapidly declining since the time of the flood (which was very recent for Abraham), so things may very well have looked bleak to Abram -- regardless of how old Terah was when Abram was born.

  • We're talking about the words of a man struggling with his faith in God's promises... not exactly something you want to build doctrine on.

  • Abram didn't seem to have any trouble believing he could bear a child by Hagar, who was 86 (Genesis 16:16).

  • We already know that the birth of Isaac had to be miraculous because of Sarah's physical condition, so it is conceivable that Abram's health was also deteriorated. This may partially explain his unbelief. (cf. Romans 4:19, Hebrews 11:12)

  • Some have noted that Abram had now been living with Hagar for 13 years without bearing additional children... he may have had the idea that he was no longer able to "beget."

  • After his wife Sarah had died at the age of 127 (Genesis 23:1-2), Abraham -- who by now would have been over 140 years old -- took another wife and had 6 more kids by her (Genesis 25:1-6)!

  • Abraham's grandson, Jacob, became the father of his son Benjamin when he was 100 years old.

In summary, Abram's comment does not seem to have had as much to do with Terah's life (or anyone else's) as it did with his own life and Sarai's.

1
  • Thank you for this answer! Apr 17 '20 at 22:17
3

To summarise:

On the one hand we have the evidence of Stephen's speech and the vuv consecutive (or consecutive preterite) וַיֹּאמֶר of Genesis 12:1.

On the other hand, we have the arithmetic demonstrating that Abram left Haran before his father died.

If one wishes to reconcile these, it is really very simple. The vuv consecutive is in some versions translated as 'now', but there is no significant reason to do so. The strongest translation would be 'and', but even that is too strong. It signifies a continuance of the narrative, and not necessarily a sequence in time. If Stephen's speech is recorded accurately, it is still only Stephen's speech. I have never heard that biblical inerrancy should be extended so that everything everyone is recorded as saying in the bible should also be seen as inerrant.

On balance it seems clear that Abram did leave Haran before his father died and that Stephen was speaking loosely or incorrectly. Indeed, in Genesis 12:1 when he is told to go from his father's house, how can he leave his father's house unless his father is still alive? If Terah was dead, then as the firstborn it would have been Abram's house that he were to take with him.

1
  • If you consider that chapter 12 is going back in the timeline of Abraham prior to the events at the end of chapter 11, it makes a lot of sense. Also, assuming the firstborn status of Abraham is shaky based on the textual evidence, and God clearly has no problem with bringing His will to bear through non-firstborn children. Jas3.1's answer makes much more sense than to assume Stephen was wrong.
    – mbm29414
    Sep 26 '15 at 14:03
2

The Rabbinic answer that is quoted by Rashi from the Midrash Rabbah is that indeed Terach was still alive when Abram left Haran. Why does the text say that he dies? Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, Terach was 70 years old when Abram was born, thus 145 years old when Abram left Haran. Many years of Terach's life still remained at the time of Abram's departure. Why then did the Torah put the death of Terach ahead of the departure of Abram? So that the matter should not be public information as people would say, "Abram did not fulfill the mitzvah, precept of honoring his father, for he abandoned him in his old age and went off." This is why the Torah verse refers to Terach as dead, to protect Abram from such shame. Also, Terach is considered dead because, for the wicked, even during their lifetime, they are considered as dead. See, Berashis Rabbah 39:7, Talmud Berachot 18a-b.

1
  • It could also be a literary device to show that, at that point in the story, the shift was moving towards Abram and his family as the central figures from Terah and his family.
    – Philip
    Apr 30 '19 at 8:33
1

In General: Did Abraham leave Haran before or after his father died?

In short: Abraham left Haran before his father died.

Let me first address the natural reading of the Old Testament text in question, should we understand this passage (Genesis 11:27-12:1) to be a chronological sequence or perhaps a header to introduce Abraham's narrative and all the principle persons (Lot, Rebekah etc.) that feature in Abraham's life. After answering this, I'll rectify it with St. Stephen's reference in Acts 7:4 which features in a lot of other answers.

  1. It is a feature of Hebrew Narrative to give a general introduction prior to a narrative block as a sequence of narration not chronology.

ie: The death of Lamech is recorded in Genesis 5:28-31 (whether we take his age literally, or symbolically) and he would have been alive for a fair portion of the Noahic Narrative (compare Genesis 7:6 to the information in 5:28-31). So though his death occurs prior to the Calling of Noah in Biblical Sequence, in real life it does not mean Lamech had to die before Noah started building the Ark. Perhaps picture different sections of the Old Testament as Venn Diagrams, there's places of overlap between sections. Methuselah (Genesis 6:25-17) was probably also alive during the building of the ark. Another example of this is the genealogical information of Exodus 6:14-27, the births and deaths of these people are not given in relation to the events of the preceding chapters it is given in connection to a larger theme.

Authority:

"... the death of Terah is introduced here, because Abram never met with his father again after leaving Haran, and there was consequently nothing more to be related concerning him." C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Volume I, 181.

Conclusion: Thus we understand the narrative of Abraham as disconnected from the mention of Terah's death chronologically, but connected thematically as the explanation of why Lot is with Abraham and why Nahor's children are the only ones for Isaac to get a bride from.


Objections:

  1. Some have asserted contrarily the path of age harmonization, that the numbers given for the ages are wrong. I.e. the Samaritan Pentateuch records Terah's death as 145 to smooth out the ages of Abraham given in Genesis 16-17.

However this is contra the LXX and MT so it should be rejected as spurious. Further as a general principle, playing with the text to suit interpretation is very tricky business. Better let a contradiction on solid evidence stand than a rectification on false grounds.

  1. Some have claimed that we should read Abraham not as the oldest in age, but the foremost in importance, i.e. when Terah at 70 years old fathers Abram, Nahor and Haran that this is not their order of birth. Thus Abram was not first in the list because he was the first one fathered at that time, but the most important one that Terah fathered. The New Bible Commentary Revised (Editor: Guthrie) takes this path and concludes that Abraham was born when Terah was 130 rather than 70 (Terah's stated death age of 205 minus Abraham's age at leaving Haran, 75).

This is rejected by Abraham who is mystified at the prospect of having a child at 100 years old, which would make no sense if he himself was born to someone of 130 years of age.

17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, “Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” Genesis 17:17 (NASB)


Question: How does this rectify with St. Stephen in Acts 7:4 (NASB)?

Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. From there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living.

The word "after" or "μετά" in Greek does not necessarily imply passage of time See Perseus. Alternatively, an interpretation of the text could read, "From Haran (which is where his father died) God had him move...".

So we understand that St. Stephen was not speaking of the true sequence of events but of the narrative sequence of reference given in Genesis.

Homiletic: We often do this in real life, we will reference things and talk about them not in the order they happened but in the order of importance. St. Stephen in Acts is clearly reviewing the Biblical History of the people, the divine history and he has a certain theme he is pursuing.

This is why he references Deuteronomy 18:15 out of sequence with the events he's describing in Acts 7:35-43. This is probably also why he does not quote the LXX scripture at all in Acts 7:4, to show he's taking license with it, contrary to places where we find a phrase taken directly from the LXX (i.e. Deuteronomy 18:15 => Acts 7:37).

Why did he do this? Perhaps to remind the Jews that they were taken from among the Gentiles and it was the death of Terah and the restarting of the genealogy through the child of promise (Isaac) that gave them their status. Not genetic descent alone, for by lineage they were all Chaldeans, descended from a man (Terah) who never made it to Canaan. He does this to show that it is obedience to God that makes people true children of the promise and not genetic genealogy (hence the punchline of 7:51, seen as a reference to Terah, brothers of Joseph etc.)

Authority:

"When Stephen, therefore, placed the removal of Abram from Haran to Canaan after the death of his father, he merely inferred this from the fact, that the call of Abram (chap. xii.) was not mentioned till after the death of Terah had been noticed, taking the order of the narrative as the order of events." C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Volume I, 180.

0

Abraham may easily have left Haran both before and after his father Terah died. While he left the city of Haran at one age, he also had a brother with the name Haran. Not everything is Scripture is in chronological order. Also, sometimes one name is used more than once.
Haran was name of the city he left, but he also had a brother by the name of Haran.

2
  • Forgive me. Let me clarify. I'm saying that Haran was the name of a city but also the name of a brother of his. He could have left Haran the city at one point and Haran the brother at another point. Oct 30 '13 at 21:42
  • I'm just suggesting the use of the same name for more than just one person can be confusing (e.g. Mary's in the New Testament). Here it is just the name of the city, but also the name of Abraham's brother. Oct 31 '13 at 14:44
0

The First Separation: separation from his homeland and relatives, separation from Terah (Gen 12:1; Acts 7:2-4)

Ur of the Chaldeans was the place where Abraham's ancestors had lived and worshiped idols (Josh 24:2, 15). His departure from this land represents the first step in faith for Christians: separation from the world. Ur of the Chaldeans was a fertile land located southeast of Baghdad and was the center of the ancient civilization as well as the center of idolatry. Idol worship had achieved its peak during Abraham's time, and Terah was more absorbed in worshiping idols than in worshiping the true God. This was when God commanded Abraham, "Depart from your country and your relatives" (Gen 12:1. Acts 7:2-4). He obeyed and departed from Ur of the Chaldeans with his father, Terah, and arrived in Haran. Terah however, was tempted by the ease of life in Haran and settled there, though it should have been a mere rest stop on the way to Canaan.

At last when Abraham was 75 years old, God called him a second time, but this time He commanded Abraham to leave not only his country and his relatives, but also his father's house (Gen 12:1). This was an intensified command spurred on by Abraham's failure to fully obey God's command when he had first been called out of Ur. Gen 12:4-5 clarified that it was only after Abraham had fully obeyed God's command to separate from his father's house that he was able to enter Canaan.

Gen 12:4-5 So Abram went forth as the Lord had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and thy set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan.

Because Abraham was living in a patriarchal society, it was difficult for him to reject his father's wishes and leave him behind. He was 75 years old, and his father Terah was 145 years old and alive, when he left Haran (Gen 11:26, 12:4). It must have been heartbreaking for the firstborn in charge of the household to leave his father in his old age. The verse in Acts 7:4, "And from there, after his father died, God removed him into this country in which you are now living," show how determined Abraham had been to follow the Word of God. The word for "death" in Acts 7:4 is ἀποθνῄσκω (apothnesko) in Greek, used to represent symbolic death or death in a spiritual sense (1Cor 15:31). It is apparent that this word was used to signify Abraham's total separation from his filial affections for his father. Terah was as good as dead to him (Luke 14:26). Terah died 60 years later in Haran at the age of 205 (Gen 11:32). Abraham overcame the pain of such separation and followed the word with faith (Gen 12:4).

  • refer to book: The Genesis Genealogies -
1
  • Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Thanks for taking the site tour. If you haven't done so already, you may want to read how this site is a little different on meta. This is not a comment on the quality of your answer, but rather a standard welcome message. I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future.
    – ThaddeusB
    Aug 25 '15 at 17:59
0

God's word is true, so we have 2 basic ways to interpret the delimna. 1. Abraham was born later than implied. Which is not a problem, though a period of 60 years seems long to bracket together as when Terah begat his sons. Noah's sons were within a few years of each other (Shem was 100 2 years after the flood according to his geneology). Or 2. That the death spoken of was not necessarily physical. Again, we see this used in scripture, also. It is interesting that if Abraham was born near or on Terah's 70th year it would make his birthyear 1948 (counting time after Adam) and if he were born approx 60 years later (to allow math for Terah's literal death) it would make Abraham's birthyear at about 2000 (from Adam and before Christ).
Don't you love it when God makes you really ponder a thing?!!!

0

Summary of Answer

  • Terah 70 years when Abraham was born (Gen 11:26)

  • Terah 205 years when Abraham died (Gen 11:32)

  • Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran (Gen 12:4) (Act 7:4)

  • Terah was 130 years old when he gave birth to Abraham (205-75)

NOTE: Abraham left Haran at 75 and Terah died at 205, Abraham had to be born when Terah was 130 years old which indicates he was not the first born. The scripture never stated Abraham was the first born only that Terah started having children at the age of 70.

In Gen 48:1 Manasseh is listed first but in the fifth verse - Ephraim is listed before Manasseh indicating his importance in the lineage.

0

It's possible that Abram's father as referred to by Stephen was Noah, not Terah. It's possible that when Abram got the call from God while in Ur, his father Terah wanted Abram to be taught and mentored for a while by Noah, and then by Shem, before he embarked on his journey to the Land of Canaan. And so the whole family packed up and moved to Haran, i.e., close to Noah. Noah then taught the scriptures to Abram for several years, then Shem taught Abraham for 15 more years before Abraham left for the land of Canaan.

1
  • 3
    Can you support this answer with references to verses or other sources. Unsupported or unsupportable conjectures tend to attract down-votes. Sep 23 '17 at 19:24
0

So Let’s look at this. Terah was 70 when Abram was born in the Land of Ur of the Chaldeans. Abraham’s 1st calling was to leave Ur with his whole family (Acts 7). In Gen. 12:1-4 God calls Abram a 2nd time to leave Haran. Why a 2nd time? Because Abram had this close connection to his Father. The name Terah means to delay. Terah loved Haran because it was the big city of the area at the time. At age 75 God called him from Haran. Remember Genesis 11 tells us that Terah died at 205, and acts 7 tells us that Abram left after his Father died. 70 (Terah had Abram) +75 (the age Abram left) =150. Terah was 145 when Abram left. How do we resolve this? From a redemptive historical perspective. Abram was putting Terah above God while in Haran, but when God called Abram in Gen. 12 to leave Terah had to die in Abram’s heart so he could leave, just as Isaac had to be deaf in his heart when he had to obey God’s most difficult call one more time to sacrifice Isaac. Yes, Terah died at the age of 205 after Abram left Ur.

0

Did Abraham leave Haran before or after his father died ?


Believe it or not, both options are equally attractive, from a numerical perspective. :-)

  • The Masoretic Text puts 290 years from the birth of the first man after the Flood to the time when Abraham's father, Terah, started begetting his first offspring. If Terah were to have begotten Abraham in his 70th year of life (Genesis 11:26), then, according to Genesis 12:4, this would put 145 years between the birth of Terah and the promise made to Abraham. Now, 145 is exactly half of 290. Furthermore, their sum yields 435, whose meaning is similar to that of the 425 years discussed below. (Notice that the four numbers are related to the duodecimal quantity 122 = 144, which, when halved, yields 72; when doubled, 288; and, when tripled, 432).

  • If Abraham were to have left Haran after his father's death, as bishop Ussher suggests, this would then make Terah 205 - 75 = 130 years old when he had him (Genesis 11:32, 12:4), which makes perfect sense, inasmuch as both the Septuagint, as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch, have all post-deluvian patriarchs, save for Abraham's grandfather, give birth to their firstborn son at about 130+ years of age, as can be seen here. (Coincidentally or not, 122 - 12 = 132).

  • This, in its turn, puts 425 years from the birth of the first man after the Flood to Abraham's entrance into Canaan, implying that almost an entire duodecimal millennium (123 = 1728 years, a quarter of which is 432) passed between Noah's Flood and the Babylonian Captivity, since, according to both the Septuagint (Exodus 12:40-41, LXX) as well as the New Testament (Galatians 3:16-17), we have 430 years from Abraham's promise until the Exodus; then 440 years (1 Kings 6:1, LXX) from the Exodus until the building of Solomon's Temple; then another 430 years until the Babylonian Captivity (Kings & Chronicles).

  • Now, according to the Masoretic, the Flood itself happens 123 - 72 = 1656 years after Creation. Since the Babylonian Captivity lasted for 70 years, we have about two duodecimal millennia (2 x 123 = 3456 years) between Creation and the Second Temple. (Notice that 72 represents half of 122 = 144).

2
  • The sixty-two weeks of Daniel 9:25 also amount to 7 x 62 = 434 years.
    – Lucian
    Oct 10 '17 at 1:43
  • Interesting twelves Jul 13 '19 at 14:17
0

Short answer: it depends on your understanding of biblical inerrancy. If you hold unqualified biblical inerrancy, then to be consistent you should hold that Abram left Haran after his father had died. If you hold qualified biblical inerrancy, then you can hold that Abram left Haran either while his father was still alive or after his father had died. Long answer follows.

The biblical text supports the notion that Abram left Haran after Terah had died in two ways:

1. The fact that Abram's call and departure come after Terah's death in the text

Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans in order to enter the land of Canaan; and they went as far as Haran, and settled there. The days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, and from your relatives, and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you;[...]” So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan. (Gen 11:31-12:1,4-5)

Evaluation of strength: The relative placement of Terah's death and Abram's call in the text does not necessarily imply their relative placement in time, since the human author may have just wanted to round up his coverage of Terah's life before moving on to the events in Abram's.

Besides, the divine call to Abram to "go forth [...] from your relatives" fits much better with Terah being still alive at that time, because, if Terah was already dead, and given that Abram took Lot and Sarai with him, who were those "relatives" of Abram whom he was called to go forth from??? (Note that Terah had taken only Abram, Lot and Sarai with him when he moved from Ur to Haran.)

Along the same line, the divine call to Abram to "go forth [...] from your father's house" fits better with Abram's father being still alive at that time.

To note, an alternative view [1] posits that the call to Abram in Gen 12:1-3 occurred in fact while Terah and Abram were still living in Ur, but was placed in the text after Terah's death as a flashback, to connect it with Abram's much later fulfillment of that call. The problem with that view is that, according to it, Abram was called by God to go forth from his relatives and from his father's house but fulfilled the call only when there were no longer any relatives or father to go forth from!!! (Despite the fact that the text says that "So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him;")

2. Deacon Stephen's statement on the issue in his testimony to the Sanhedrin:

And he said, “Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, ‘LEAVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR RELATIVES, AND COME INTO THE LAND THAT I WILL SHOW YOU.’ “Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. From there, after his father died, God had him move to this country in which you are now living. (Acts 7:2-4)

Evaluation of strength: First of all, there is the issue of whether the doctrine of biblical inerrancy requires one to hold that Stephen's view on this particular issue is correct. This is clearly not the case, as what biblical inerrancy requires one to hold is only that Stephen's testimony before the Sanhedrin was faithfully recorded by Luke.

The freedom of Stephen's testimony from (relevant) errors does not derive from biblical inerrancy, but from Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit's assistance to Jesus' disciples when brought to give witness of his faith before persecutors:

“When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Lk 12:11-12)

It is this particular promise, and not the doctrine of biblical inerrancy per se, which brings Stephen's testimony under the umbrella of inerrancy: if the Holy Spirit was teaching him what to say, then his testimony must be free from any (relevant) error. But the issue facing the exegete (and whose treatment I anticipated by the previous 2 bracketed instances of "relevant") is exactly the same: does the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, either to the writer of a biblical text or to a Christian giving testimony before persecutors, guarantee that the text or testimony is free from errors at any and all levels of subject matter, or only at those levels of subject matter which are relevant to our salvation?

If one adopts the former position, which I call "unqualified biblical inerrancy", then, to be consistent, he must hold Stephen's testimony in the same way and therefore hold that Abram left Haran after Terah had died.

The latter position, which I call "qualified biblical inerrancy", consists of holding that:

  • the purpose of divine Revelation is to teach the truth which is relevant to our salvation, and not to teach natural science, profane history, or other forms of merely worldly knowledge for their own sakes, and

  • the errors or lack thereof (i.e. inerrancy) of a text (or of Stephen's testimony, in this case) are defined in relation to its purpose.

Thus, qualified biblical inerrancy allows for the presence of factual errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

Focusing now on Stephen's testimony:

What was Stephen intending to affirm when talking about God's call to Abram? Clearly that God's presence and action was not confined to the boundaries of the Land of Israel, by noting that He had appeared to Abram in Mesopotamia - meaning by that Ur, which was farther away from the Land of Israel than Haran, which BTW was also part of Mesopotamia - which was in line with Gen 15:7 and Neh 9:7.

How relevant is to that point the issue of whether Abram left Haran before or after Terah's death? Even more clearly, not relevant at all.

More generally, how relevant is this issue to faith in Christ? Most clearly not relevant at all, particularly in view of Lk 14:26.

So why did Stephen state that Abram left Haran after Terah's death? Probably because that was the prevalent understanding of the passage in the Jewish community of Jerusalem at that time, so he just adopted it to move on with his argument.

[1] https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=3334

-1

Acts 7 New International Version (NIV)

Stephen’s Speech to the Sanhedrin

"7 Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?” 2 To this he replied: “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. 3 ‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said, ‘and go to the land I will show you.’

4 “So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Harran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207

Seems clear enough, "After the death".

3
  • Did you read the question? According to Genesis, Abraham was 75 when he left Haran, and 135 when his father died. So despite Stephen's speech in Acts, it's not so clear. Mar 27 '15 at 13:21
  • 1
    @Drake Welcome to BHSE! We're a little different here, please read our Site Directives as you ask and answer questions. Thank you!
    – Tau
    Mar 28 '15 at 1:21
  • @Drake I'm afraid Bruce Alderman has pointed out the obvious-see "Gone Quiet's" response to note the discrepency. Thank you!
    – Tau
    Mar 28 '15 at 1:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.