[b-hebrew] Qadesh of Genesis 20:1
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed May 12 12:09:08 EDT 2010
You don’t establish the historicity of documents by denying their
historicity. That is an oxymoron.
By not taking the documents as they are written, instead you change them,
you thereby deny their historicity. It is not just the university scholars,
who you regularly attack, but on this list you are the primary denier of the
historicity of Genesis.
It is this illogical, contradictory (mother of all logical fallacies)
practice of yours that makes us disagree with your thesis.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:00 AM, <JimStinehart at aol.com> wrote:
> James Christian:
> You like to look at original sources. Let’s compare the exact wording
> concerning key foreign policy events in the Patriarchal narratives to
> wording in the Amarna Letters. In all 4 cases, the underlying situations,
> though so peculiar and specific as to be unique in human history, are
> nevertheless essentially identical. Note how even the words used are
> 1. Irate father-in-law from Naharim on the upper Euphrates River reaming
> out his monotheistic son-in-law from far to the west, who had been forced
> marry a woman from Naharim that he did not want to marry, for refusing to
> hand over certain statues that were wanted by the irate father-in-law from
> (a) “[W]hy did you steal my [statues of] gods?" Genesis 31: 30
> (b) “Now, may my brother [son-in-law] give me the statues….” Amarna
> Letter EA 29: 136-147
You have taken Genesis 31:30 out of context, a logical fallacy. Not only
have you taken it out of its linguistic context, but also its cultural
context. Once you restore Genesis to its context, then it is talking about a
completely different event than the Amarna letter, a difference that is
> 2. Early monotheists’ reaction to the fact that the Amorite state of
> Amurru was in the process of being sold out to the dreaded Hittites in Year
> (a) “…the iniquity of the Amorites….” Genesis 15: 16
> (b) “Say to [the] ruler of Amurru: …If for any reason whatsoever you
> prefer to do evil, and if you plot evil, treacherous things, then you,
> with your entire family, shall die….” Amarna Letter EA 162: 33-38
Again context. Once you take the context of both into account, then it is
clear that two different events are talked about.
> 3. Losing defense of the princeling ruler closely associated with Shechem
> as to the charge that a son of his had wrongfully consorted with
> tent-dwelling people/Apiru/Hebrews, as he says to the first historical
> leader of a people, shortly before he is murdered in a sneak attack on
> of, but not with the approval of, the first historical monotheistic leader
> a people:
> (a) “The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her
> to him to be his wife.” Genesis 34: 8
> (b) “I did not know that my son was consorting with the Apiru
> [tent-dwellers].” Amarna Letter EA 254: 30-37
Context. In Genesis, the father knew and approved, whereas in the Amarna
letter he did not know and disapproved. Completely contradictory.
> 4. Key event in Year 14 in the first year, being the decisive year, of the
> Great Syrian War:
> (a) “…these kings [including a Hittite king, Tidal] made war with Bera
> [and with] B-Risha…” Genesis 14: 2
> (b) “Message of Bieri [and] Message of Abdi-Risha: …‘The troops of Hatti
> [the Hittites]…set the cities…on fire….’” Amarna Letters EA 174 and EA
You changed the text of Genesis to make it fit with your theories, thereby
effectively denying the historicity of Genesis. Once you change it, then we
no longer deal with Genesis, rather your document.
> 5. In the 350 Amarna Letters and the entire Hebrew Bible, the only person
> who has a major problem getting access to contested water wells is a guy
> named: “Abimelek”:
> (a) “Message of a-b-mil-ki [Abimelek]: …[T]he ruler of Sidon does not
> allow me or my people to go to land to fetch wood or to fetch water for
> drinking." Amarna Letter EA 154 from Abimilki of Sur
> (b) “And Abimelek [)BYMLK] said to Isaac…. [T]he herdsmen of Gerar
> quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, "The water is ours." So he called
> name of the well Esek, because they contended with him. Then they dug
> another well, and they quarreled over that also, so he called its name
> Genesis 26: 16, 20-21
Isaac was not the ruler of Sidon, rather he was a nomadic herder.
Abimelech’s herders (not even his army, just herders) had no trouble driving
Isaac away from wells that his men had prepared, therefore Abimelech in
Genesis had no trouble getting water. Therefore we are dealing with
different people and events, and any attempt to combine them is foolish.
> * * *
> How can 100% of mainstream university scholars assert that there’s no
> accurate history in the Patriarchal narratives?
Irrelevant. Why do you waste bandwidth to bring them up time and again?
Don’t you ever learn?
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
> After being on this list for three years, you have failed to get a single
convert to your cause. Shouldn’t that tell you something? That maybe, just
maybe, there might be something wrong with your theories?
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew