What I did disprove was your statement saying that Terah was 145 when Abraham left. I showed that your assumption that Abraham was born when he was 70 was not supported by the style used in Genesis, since the order of their names is not based on the chronology of their birth, and thus this leaves it open for Abraham or any of the brothers to have been born after that time. At least one of the three were born when Terah was 70, but not all three. This, at least, demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the style of Genesis. Afterwards, the next chapter begins with Abraham leaving Haran with Lot.
Genesis 11:31-32
31And Terah took Abram his son, and
Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan;
and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Note the parts in bold. Lot and Abram were taken by Terah, then Terah dies in Haran:
32And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
In the next chapter, Abram takes Lot:
Gen. 12: 4 - So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
[5] And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
Abram moved Lot and "all the souls" they had gathered in Heran, which makes me think that Abraham was now the leader of the family. While not 100 percent proof, it is interesting that Abraham's departure takes place immediately following the scripture that says Terah died at 205.
And Stephen was not the only one to express this opinion, but also Philo, who lived between 20BC and 50AD:
(From Philo's commentaries: )
(177) Now it is not probable that any one of those persons who are acquainted with the law are ignorant that Abraham had previously migrated from Chaldaea when he came to live in Charran.
But after his father died he then departed from this land of Chaldaea , so that he has now migrated from two different places.
Philo
At the least, this disproves that Stephen was an "ignoramus", since this understanding of scripture was not alien to the Jews of that time.
A third and final possible solution, though one I do not necessarily see as necessary, is that some of the commentators allude to the fact that the Rabbis considered Terah spiritually dead, having allegedly reverted to idolatry while living in Haran. At the worst, Stephen was merely speaking to them in terms they understood. None of this justifies your assumptions that Stephen did not know the scripture or that you represent "the jewish point of view" that calls Stephen an ignoramus of scriptures.
As for the second question, as I showed, the alleged discrepancy is reconcilable. And you merely repeated what I myself noted on my own.
It is fascinating that a Jew would try this hard to disparage the NT, but it is impossible for someone who denies Christ to reconcile the book of Daniel and his 70 weeks with his own theology. Thus the Jews, ignoring their own scriptures, are waiting on a Messiah that cannot come according to their own scriptures, since the 70 weeks of Daniel cannot be reconciled 2000 years on unless Jesus fulfilled them.
