“The Bible speaks of Abraham. “
So what? I do believe it.
And that is not really the point I was trying to make here. My point is that the early Hebrews had a different perspective of the Diety than did later Hebrews and the changes in that perspective were influenced by outside - non-Hebraic - elements, chief of which may have been Zorastrianism, an earlier form of monotheism to which the post exilic Hebrews hd been sxposed in Mesopotamia.
“In addition, oral tradition in its time was huge. “
Oral tradition has always been significant in preliterate societies. But it is very difficult to date oral tradition unless it is relegated to writing.
If you believe in the story of Abraham, you will understand clearly that monotheism was practiced in his day. Different perspective? Obviously, on many things. Just as we have a different perspective than Abraham. However, we are monotheistic as was Abraham, and as were all God's true followers. Because Abraham and even, for example, Abel believed in the true God well before the time of Zoroastrianism, they cannot have been influenced by it.
My point was that truths such as those of monotheism were transmitted via oral tradition, well before the advent of writing.
Most Christians would be terrified of the truth taught in Seminary, to say nothing of the loose ends that are indeed getting continually mixed up in new discoveries.
That does not take away from my faith, my belief in the Bible or my trust in God. It also does not give another the right to call me stupid because I explore what they cannot prove - or disprove.